4,747 Forum Posts by "Slizor"
At 3/16/08 08:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: If you don't want to take my word for it,
take the word of UCLA economists.
I'd prefer not to. See, I prefer to think about things on my own and don't just give in to the opinions of "authorities" on subjects. It's fine pointing to analysis supporting your view, but claiming that it makes you correct is a whole other matter. I mean, there are no doubt countless economists who disagree with the analysis of the two you have pointed out, how are we then to decide who is correct?
The idea of Venezuela cutting off the US because of Colombian actions in Ecuador is not very likely. In fact, considering the reliance of Venzuela on US markets and refineries, Venezuela is unlikely to stop selling oil to the US for a long time (at least until China has suitably equipped itself.)Your argument is hinging on the fact that Chavez is a rational person who would put the wellbeing of his nation ahead of making a point and creating an enemy. The current situation in Venezuela does not support that idea.
I disagree. While there are some examples of irrational leaders doing irrational things (such as Idi Amin's expulsion of the Asians) these are merely exceptions to the rule that states act in a rational way. As soon as you stop seeing the actions of another state as rational then you give up on efforts to understand their actions and to predict what they will do - according to your irrational argument, they could (and, most likely, will) do anything even if it is against their own interests. Also, disputing the rationality of "enemy" states and their leaders has repeatedly been done by the media in an effort to discredit and ridicule (and, as such, I am highly suspicious of arguments that utilise similar veins of thought.)
Furthermore, the judging of the rationality of someone is a very subjective thing. It is not correct to simply proclaim actions irrational without understanding the motivation and reasoning behind the actions.
Well, given that this is slightly more than "some random threat" in that Exxon-Mobil has been cut off from purchasing Venezuelan oil, and that this case could very easily extend to the rest of the United States pending actions on the Venezuelan-Colombian border, I would say that there's a fair reason to point a finger at Chavez for causing unrest and tension in world oil markets.
They're two completely separate issues. The cutting off of Exxon-Mobil is an extension of the arguments over the Orinoco tar sands 2006 nationalisation. The idea of Venezuela cutting off the US because of Colombian actions in Ecuador is not very likely. In fact, considering the reliance of Venzuela on US markets and refineries, Venezuela is unlikely to stop selling oil to the US for a long time (at least until China has suitably equipped itself.)
And please do not confuse communism with totalitarianism.Have you even skimmed over the Communist Manifesto?
Karl Marx makes no secret of the fact that in order to attain his Communist paradise, there has to be a period of totalitarianism.
I think the problem is that you did skim through the Communist Manifesto and did not take the time to understood what was being said.
Moving on what's wrong with Communism? Nothing is ethically wrong. It's a nice idea. Regrettably, it ignores every negative aspect of human nature, dooming any large Communist societies to degenerate into a corrupt totalitarian hell.
OMG! You've got the answer to the question of what is Human Nature! How long did you spend developing this groundbreaking idea?
This may seem like pro-American ranting, but its not. The one inharent flaw in communism is freedom. You could say that making every single people even on the same level makes them free, but that's just dreamer crap. Anyone who wants to get higher in life cannot because they are always stuck at that same level.
What you describe isn't freedom, its promotion. Promotion is possible in a number of communist systems.
Very strange definition of justice that. I mean, firstly, it doesn't have any appeal to equal treatment - one person could (and does) get more for their work than another person doing exactly the same.No. If he is doing EXACTLY the same work, same quality for a lower price, he will get more work. Individual greed sees to that.
Oh please. If information distribution was perfect, the market system had no flaws and we accept a rational actor understanding of human action then that argument is correct. However, information distribution is imperfect, the market system does have flaws and the rational actor model is also flawed and so we can't accept your entirely theoretical view. Plus, how does this relate to the current system of wage labour? You seem to be working in a framework of a society of market traders who barter.
On one more note, how can we be assured that individual greed will see to that?
Secondly, it is based on arbitrary criteria - the laws of supply and demand - that are mutable from day to day.No, the criterion is the same, Whatever the market, comprised of individuals using their property in the way that they see fit, will bear as payment, is your just reward.
It is the same for everyone (and so not arbitrary), but my argument is that it is the nature of the criterion that is arbitrary.
The just reward may fluctuate, but this is because two of the same exact acts, done at different times, have different values, and hence deserve different rewards.
Again, a restatement of your view that the market is fair. You seem to be linking the idea of market value to some absolute idea of value (or arguing that the only true value of something is what someone will pay for it and what someone will sell it at.) Again, this may be a self-evident idea to you but it's no where near for me.
Thirdly, it amounts to little more than a statement, rather than a supported argument - you haven't argued why it is just, but just that it is just.To me it is self evident.
But lets examine. How can you determine a just reward? Well I would assume that there would obviously be a give and take. Does it not seem morally upright to participate in a free exchange of what I have contributed to society and to individuals, and what they are willing to offer me in return?
It seems like a very fair system....although as an argument for capitalism its very weak. A "free exchange" can not happen in a system of unequal power distribution or in a system with an inequality in supply and demand. In Capitalism this inequality in supply and demand is seen by the average worker, who needs work to live (and thus is subject to economic coercion) and has to look for work from people who do not need one particular worker (i.e. that have the choice from a large supply who not only demand work, but require it.)
And who better to determine what price I am willing to buy a widget for, and for what price you are willing to sell a widget for, than me and you?
That's completely fine, although entirely hypothetical. We do not live in a system of market traders. We live in a system of wages and of set prices.
All in all, it's just not very thought through. Do you want to provide some reasoning for why people should adopt a conception of justice that is inequitable, arbitrary and, consequently, unfair? Or should we just drop this discussion of the justice of capitalism before we get on to your conception of human nature and a whole other realm of things that you just haven't thought about?Please enlighten me, O well thought out one.
I don't actually want your crap of us being unable to reach our "species essence" under capitalism.
The only enlightenment there is is that there is no ultimate philosophical truth and there are no uncontested ideas. Every argument relies on points that are assumed to be "self-evident" and for which no foundations are offered, which, in actuality, relegates the arguments to advanced statements of belief, rather than arguments about truth. Political philosophy is a theological subject.
I'm not saying that they're going to turn overnight into the magic fairy land of rainbow unicorns and chocolate, but who knows, maybe they finally got the memo - the Cold War is over.
Is it really over for them? I don't see a softening of the stance of its most important neighbour.
Whatever another party is willing to give me of their own free will.
Whatever the market is willing to give me in exchange for the fruits of my labors defines the just payment.
Very strange definition of justice that. I mean, firstly, it doesn't have any appeal to equal treatment - one person could (and does) get more for their work than another person doing exactly the same. Secondly, it is based on arbitrary criteria - the laws of supply and demand - that are mutable from day to day. Thirdly, it amounts to little more than a statement, rather than a supported argument - you haven't argued why it is just, but just that it is just.
All in all, it's just not very thought through. Do you want to provide some reasoning for why people should adopt a conception of justice that is inequitable, arbitrary and, consequently, unfair? Or should we just drop this discussion of the justice of capitalism before we get on to your conception of human nature and a whole other realm of things that you just haven't thought about?
Your evidence of abiotic oil production at a level that makes it politically significant is as good as my evidence that UFOs exist - unsourced websites. Essentially, your "evidence" is a pile of wank that isn't even worth considering.
Anyhow, that's it, I'm out. I don't waste my time on people who don't even bother to think.
The "thing that is wrong" with Communism is that people don't believe in it or its basic premises, which is not particularly suprising considering that it is a revolutionary ideology directly opposed to the current system. This results in criticisms ranging from the procedural (which are invariably based upon a certain characterisation of a communist system (and thus constitute strawman attacks)) to the philosophical (which are invariably based upon different a priori conceptions of things (and thus do not, as such, count as real criticisms, but instead count as arguments over beliefs.)) Oh, and there will also be people who argue that the USSR historically demonstrates the philosophical problems which in turn lead to procedural weaknesses.
Essentially, there is very little point in arguing about Communism because the majority of people refuse to actually consider the ideas of Communism from a communist perspective. It is only when you seek to understand ideas uncritically can you hope to find real valid criticisms of the idea, rather than criticisms from a different belief system (with all its attendent problems.)
However if I put my labor into producing a technique to operate upon a previously inoperable brain tumor, that is something that has value to people. So why should I not be justly rewarded for it?
You haven't addressed my point, you've just tried to sneak the idea that capitalism is just through the back door. What is the just reward for producing a technique to operate upon a previously inoperable brain tumor? Where is the link between the workings of a market and justice?
Why are people getting sidetracked by the science? There is absolutely no evidence of abiotic oil production at a level that will avoid the political consequences of declining oil reserves.
Unless, of course, "AbSoldier" can provide some proof that oil is being produced at 3.3 billion barrels a year.
Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.This is a fallacy. If oil was the product of former living things, why does it contain toxic properties?
HAHAHAHA. Glorious argument that. Jesus Christ man, I really can't think of which option to choose when responding to this sheer stupidity. How about I point to the large number of animal and plant species that are toxic to humans when they are alive, or to rotting food, or to the component chemicals of human bodies? There's just so many ways that, on a very basic level, this argument is completely fucking stupid.
And if we knew it was a commodity that we (and I mean the whole world) knew would run out, why not charge so little for it?
Because the market is short-sighted - it is based on current supply and demand, not future supply and demand.
The truth is that oil like coal, and natural gases, replenishes itself. The prediction made in the seventies was that we'd run out by 2003, we've past that date and are still finding more, and larger oil wells.
We are not finding larger oil wells. We are beginning to drill in far harder conditions than previously.
On top of that the Russians have blown fossil fuel theory out of the water (a theory postulated 150 years ago). By drilling so deep into the earth (beyond any fossil layer) they are pulling the oil out has it is being made.
I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Google "oil not a fossil fuel" and educate yourself. I even posted links on the previous page if you are interested.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww 3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
Read. Then stop trying to misuse scientific arguments for the purpose of politics. Are you honestly arguing that oil is currently being produced at the rate we're consuming it and thus we need to take no action over it? You think that the world (this is a world that is 4,540,000,000 years old) has been producing 30,000,000,000 barrels of oil a year?
We would have fucking well drowned in the stuff by now.
I feel it necessary to restate something.
Again, it's not worth it.
The easiest way to help the US in regards to oil is to decrease demand. That is to say, encourage the use of smaller cars, redesign US cities on a more concentrated basis, improve public transport and discourage the use of oil more generally. It is a fatal misstep to think that increasing supply can solve the US's oil "addiction".
Smaller cars are more dangerous, that is a fact.
Smaller cars are more dangerous for the driver when they are hit by a large car - it is only in that limited way that they are more dangerous. Large cars, on the other hand, are more dangerous for pretty much everyone else - pedestrians, motorbikes and the like.
Besides, I have a fully functional normal sized car in the drive way, I'm not getting a tiny car to replace it. By redesigning cities you mean squish us all together like sardines? No thank you, I like half an acre between me and my annoying neighbors.
Put simply, the American way of life that is dependent upon the consumption of a huge amounts of oil has to be changed for the simple reason that the world is running out of oil and will never again see an age of cheap oil that the American system is predicated on.
Public transport won't work in America, why? Because have you ever noticed kids at the age of 16 buy cars or are given cars mainly because they don't want to use public transport?
And they don't want to use public transport because it is not working. The solution - make good public transport (which is helped by redesigning cities so it is more workable.)
Why discourage use of oil?
Because, as even your President realises, you are addicted to it and use far more, per person, than most other states in the world.
You realize how many things we use oil for right? A big one is heating homes. I'll assume to ween america off of oil you jack up the price, well that leaves a good portion of homes without heating in the winter. Not very humanitarian.
Yawn, criticism of a big idea with small details is not very effective. You can easily offer incentives to convert to other non-oil heating systems or offer rebates on heating oil or any other number of solutions.
And the famers who won't be able to fuel their tractors, that puts them out of business. Not very humanitarian. And the fishermen who won't be able to fill their boats anymore, that puts them out of business. You know what I'm going to say. There are many industries that use gasoline/petrol that would be put out of business with these measures. They use the same fuel that we use.
They will be hurt worse in the future if America's oil dependence is encouraged to continue as oil prices will continue to rise as the supply dwindles and demand grows.
Raise the price hurt the economy. Cause and effect. All these wonderful ideas always seem to screw the average person/family.
No, all these wonderful ideas actually address the problem, rather than feeding it. Your idea that the US should magically increase supplies through domestic sources only delays the inevitable, if it even comes close to working. The ANWR, and the US as the whole, will never be able to reach a level of production equal to their level of consumption, or be able to specifically lower the price of oil solely for the US economy.
Find an idea that is a) practical and not a pipe dream. b) Find alternatives that are just as effective and not a pipe dream. c) Find an idea that does not bet it all on scientific developements that are 20 years off.
Listen you condescending little prick, I know far more about this subject than you could ever dream of knowing so, in the classic internet way, STFU and stop acting like you have all the fucking answers.
I think you're heavily overestimating the impact of US oil on world oil prices.These measures are only meant to help the US price of oil. Currently we are the largest importer of foreign oil. The only way to brake this is to drill for our own. Alternative fuels are a great idea, but they are a long ways off from being effective. So why make more pain at the pump for something that is not comparable to gasoline?
I'm not sure why I'm responding considering the complete lack of response to my former post, but I feel it necessary to restate something.
The easiest way to help the US in regards to oil is to decrease demand. That is to say, encourage the use of smaller cars, redesign US cities on a more concentrated basis, improve public transport and discourage the use of oil more generally. It is a fatal misstep to think that increasing supply can solve the US's oil "addiction".
I always have to wonder why people think that capitalism is meritocratic. How can any system where one person can earn more money in a second than people can earn in a year? Any idea of merit in this context certainly wouldn't involve the idea of hard work, unless someone wants to argue that there are indeed supermen who can work millions of times harder than other people.
No energy costs will go through the roof. About 50 cents of what you pay at the pump is gas tax.
That is tax on the sale of the petrol, not tax on the companies themselves. Considering that oil companies are currently enjoying record profits the tax will not necessarily be passed on to the consumer.
The problem with alternative fuel is that it's not as efficient as gasoline, and it's more expensive to make.
Generally, yes it is. However, there are a number of alternative fuels and they are mostly emerging technologies and, as such, will be subject to decreased cost of use and production in the future.
The only way to lower costs is to get more oil.
Or, more sensibly, reduce demand.
In which case the US needs to start drilling in the US. Heck, we don't even have to drill, in the 80"s we caped a bunch of full wells, just need to un-cap those and my god, oil surplus!
Erm, do you have any links to this? Because I've never heard of this and it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do.
Then we also have ANWAR.... even more oil. Do this and gas prices are sure to drop, and the cost of corn will go back down.
I think you're heavily overestimating the impact of US oil on world oil prices.
Terrorists don't have the ultimate aim of terrorising people,..yet, as their name suggests, their goal is to spread terror.
Erm, that's a term applied to groups dependent upon their tactics, not generally what they call themselves - hence it is not their name. And no, the goal of terrorists is not to spread terror, that is instead the goal of people such as psychopaths - something that terrorists are not. I don't really want to go into this, because I'll mostly just be repeating other people's work for you, but I will say this. The general conception of terrorists is not only widely misguided, but is construed in such a way intentionally.
Err......what does this topic have to do with terrorists? I was under the impression that terrorists would "win" when they achieve their goals, be that an independent state or the removal of Western forces from Islamic lands....not the death of a child in an airport.I think you know the answer.. but i'll say it anyway..
Those two goals cannot be achieved by either peace or war of insurgants (lose-lose) against western superior technology. The weapon of terror is about the fear of the irrational mind.. when one's perspective is so wrought with fear that even a mother with her ill baby are considered a credible threat, because the potential for suicide is everpresent. This irrational logic becomes like a cancerous growth as it feeds on other rational minds, spreading fear and irrational behaviour ever wider..
The "freedoms they hate" (in this scenario) are the freedoms you are likely to lose before you say "enough!", and something in your mind snaps. In war they call it 'shell shock', and increasing levels of suicide of American troops are one such evidence of it's affect on the outwardly rational mind. In civil life we call it rage ..like road rage. When patience utterly collapses. A falling-down of the human spirit. Not too different when facing the two unachieveable goals you stated.
Are you high and watching heroes? Seriously, that was such a Mohinder rant about random things that made very little sense. I think your argument is that the terrorists have won because people are "terrorised" to the point where shit like that can happen. However, terror is only a means to an end for terrorists, not an end in itself. Terrorists don't have the ultimate aim of terrorising people, they have (mostly) tangible political goals that they feel are not represented/possible in mainstream politics. For the terrorists to consider that they have won they would have achieved these goals.
Your right, it was a undeclared 'war', based on evidence which wasn't true.
But it is legal.
No it isn't. The US has already submitted itself to (and used) the vast majority of International Law, having violated this (through the crime of aggression (which was defined in both the Nuremberg trials and by the UN in the 1970s)) makes the war illegal. Issues of national sovereignty do not apply when the precedents of International Law are properly applied.
Err......what does this topic have to do with terrorists? I was under the impression that terrorists would "win" when they achieve their goals, be that an independent state or the removal of Western forces from Islamic lands....not the death of a child in an airport.
Learn Spanish, it's more widely spoken than German or French. Plus, if you learn french all you can talk to is god damn Frenchies.
Could this lead to a war
Nope. As the article says the majority of oil refineries capable of using Venezuelan oil are in the US, so it would very damaging to the Venezuelan economy to do so. What is more likely is that Venezuela will continue its gradual realignment to supplying Chinese oil needs, dependent (and this is a very educated guess) on the situation with Chinese refineries.
On a side note, I don't actually think what they're arguing over (the Orinoco Belt) is actually a conventional oil field. Rather it is a large deposit of tar sands, which are no where near as profitable as conventional fields.
Actually it's not erroneous...or indeed a fallacy. Firstly, it's not erroneous because he is correct, you are fucking stupid.Unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack/
Yawn. Learn some new fecking words. Everyone knows that you're fucking stupid.
Secondly, it's not a fallacy because it is not actually an argument - it's a statement. He is not saying you are stupid therefore your argument is wrong (or something along those lines), he is just saying that you are stupid - thus it is an ad hominem attack, but not a logical fallacy.laced with lack of substantiation.
Actually, it's no-where near that. Completely and fecking utterly. In fact, your continual dismissals of arguments on the basis of a few words does constitute a Argumentum Ad Lapidem. However, my view that my previous post was a statement would onl require "backing up" from people who speak the language - like me.
P.S. stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "long" words and latin phrases, kay?Erroneous presupposition. Use of big words does not begit posturing.
It doesn't necessarily, no. But it does the way that you are doing it. It's probably because you're a clock.
I imagine that is what this topic is about....if anyone was wondering about the actual details.
At 2/6/08 12:08 AM, Brick-top wrote: Hey I just realized something, have you guys heard that Atheists are trying to remove "One nation under God" from the allegiance because it wasn't there originally? (it got added in the 50's) Only 12% - 14% of Americans Don't believe in God.
Yet a whopping 44% of the UK does not believe in God. So why the hell do we have to endure this:
Because we really don't give a shit about the national anthem, whereas Americans have it everywhere.
fuck you're stupid, it's unbelievable.Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
Actually it's not erroneous...or indeed a fallacy. Firstly, it's not erroneous because he is correct, you are fucking stupid. Secondly, it's not a fallacy because it is not actually an argument - it's a statement. He is not saying you are stupid therefore your argument is wrong (or something along those lines), he is just saying that you are stupid - thus it is an ad hominem attack, but not a logical fallacy.
P.S. stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "long" words and latin phrases, kay?
Smilez, I am not arguing on this matter. Instead, I am trying to point you in the right direction in understanding Marxist theory.
Alienation
Labour Theory of Value
Surplus Value
At 2/1/08 11:43 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote:At 1/9/08 09:03 AM, Slizor wrote:Please say that was sarcasm? The USSR was in a perpetual state of depression since the early 1900's. Remember reading about bread lines in our great depression? Russia had them too, for decades. Not to mention crappy state run hospitals.Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives.The USSR, Cuba and China. Sure they may have been repressive regimes, but they improved the standard of living by a huge amount. Russia and China became superpowers for fuck's sake.
You're not addressing my point. Did they, or did they not improve the standard of living? Were things the same or worse in the 1950s in Russia than they were in 1910s?
Russia didn't allow foriegn literature and world news into their country because they didn't want the citizens to know how good the rest of the world had it.
Yes....because the majority of the world had it soooo much better than the USSR. Have you forgotten that they are more continents than Europe and North America?
Improved standard of living? China right now is a terrible place to live. Over-crowded and the most polluted country in the world, high-crime, corrupt police force.
Please note - improved stndard of living. I did not say that life in China is the same as in the US, I said that it had improved for people under the years of Communist rule.
Ever wonder why China working so hard to clean up the country for the Olympics? The same reason the Nazis did in 1936, to make an impression on the world that maybe, the red chinese aren't that bad.
And also because the chinese realise the problems of severe environmental degredation.
Cuba, there is a reason why so many of them try and float over here. All the markets are state owned and don't allow the man who grow produce to make much money, keeping everyone (except the privlaged few) in a poverty status. Does that sound like an improved standard of living?
Cuba's never been a fair example considering that its been crippled by the US blockade. However, I do think that the standard of living has been improved in Cuba over the years, much more so than in other third world countries.
p.s. Any country can become a superpower by simply spending more on the military.
My god that's a stupid way of thinking. Where do they get the money from in the first place?
No, the National Socialist Party advocated goverment price controls, this was one of their many talking points. They kept little mom&pop stores open and free so it seemed to the average person that nothing had changed. Our modern view of the Nazi party comes from Russian propaganda. They had to justify going to war with another marxist nation and thusly declared The Nazi Party fascists. I recommend that everyone watch the lecture series History of Hitler's Empire... very informative.BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.And do you know what economic system they promoted? Two -sided Corporatism, where the state and business co-operate....kinda the opposite of socialism.
I recommend that you actually learn what Socialism is. Price controls are not the hallmark of a socialist system for two reasons. Firstly, they have been used in capitalist systems. Secondly, a socialist state would, in theory, not require the imposition of controls on private businesses because they would not have any private businesses.
5) Never did i say once that atheists got their morality from evolution, i said Atheists have no ground to think on a western moral basis because Evolution encourages human beings to do whatever it takes to beat others in competition for survival. The only reason people don't is because most of them either 1, lack the ambition, or 2, suffer from moral inhibbition based on western standards of morality. [Remember your middle ages, the church tells people to do things [be humble, chaste, poor] and they go off doing the exact opposite, and flourish at the same time?
That's a common misconception of evolution. Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest" when fittest means "strongest, most powerful". Instead "survivial of the fittest" refers instead to the survival of the "most apt" - those that fit the most with their surroundings. From this understanding an idea about endless competition between individuals can not be garnered.
Im just saying Iran is acting as I would expect them to, perhaps you should pay attention.
I'm just saying that Iran is acting as I would expect in that, facing an immediate threat from the West, that they seek to protect themselves - perhaps you should pay attention.
Seriously guys, I know its easy to believe that enemy governments are just plain evil and don't have one iota of intelligence, but it doesn't mean that it is true.
Of course then I'd have to hope they're idiots all their lives and never get confronted by someone with an IQ above 100..
I think it's great that you're going to encourage your kids to spend all their time on NG.
