215 Forum Posts by "Hamandchees3"
I don't think Iraq is anything like Vietnam after reading this article by Christopher Hitchens.
Perhaps the only thing connecting them is that people (generally those who don't know anything beyond the superficial about each war) think fallaciously they are similar.
Hurray for whining.
But really, in all objectivity, my high school is like a microcosmic Communist China. I wrote a well crafted and defended article criticizing the school for the newspaper and it got blocked by administrators, just for an example.
Here's what I say. Prostitution is not immoral. Prostitution would be much more safer and much less intrusive if it were legal. Paying for sex is just paying for any other service, and brothel houses should be legal in every state, province, and territory.
I meant =/=
Patriotism =/= Nationalism
Newgrounds needs something like Digg which lets you go back and edit before some time runs up.
When I listen to Rev. Wright on American foreign policy and other issues all I hear is Marxism, from belligerent anti-imperialism to anti-capitalism and tones of liberation theology. As far as I can tell, his whole "different but not deficient" speech was expressing the view Marx makes in his theory of alienation. Even his stress on "change," which I understand was the theme, reflected the social democratic interpretation of Marx's belief in class conflict.
Wouldn't "extreme" capitalism be free market? Excuse me, but American capitalism is not "free market," and most of the economic problems are almost always blamable on the fed!
I completely agree. Environmentalism is as much an anti-capitalist/corporate movement as it is one to save the earth. It's essentially a guise to lay over certain political agendas which have emerged from misconceptions of capitalism and industrialism (as any form of socialism does).
It's not that I disagree with social activism though. I just believe that it should be done honestly and openly.
At 4/27/08 05:31 PM, TheMason wrote:At 4/27/08 04:58 PM, Jimboroni wrote: Hamandchees3, thank you for making one of the most rational posts about politics and the Iraq war I've ever seen on these boards.I'd like to add my kudos to this sentiment as well. Very well written. So are you another fan of Niall Ferguson as well?
Yes, I think Niall Ferguson is brilliant. I think that because of his contributions and integrity, and not because I necessarily agree with him on everything.
The causalities of the Iraq war (though horrible in their own right) are nothing compared to the wars of the past. The difference is the publics sensitivity to death and violence. This is the era of idealism, and the rise of the left as well as activist movements (which I commend) have altered the psychology of the masses.
Today the 4,050 American death toll (combat + other such as IEDs) from a 5 year occupation in Iraq has been seen by many competent analysts and activists as deplorable; yet compared to the the death tolls of other American endeavors, the deaths and the distribution of the deaths over time is relatively modest. Take these statistics*:
Deaths : War : Duration
58,151 : Vietnam : ~15 years
36,516 : Korean : ~3 years
405,399 : WWII : ~4 years
116,516 : WWI : ~1 year
4,052 : Iraq : ~5 years +
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta tes_casualties_of_war
This is just a glimpse. In terms of total deaths the Iraq invasion is listed as the 10th most deadly American conflict, with approximately 2.35 deaths a day (as opposed to 26 a day for Vietnam). In terms of enemy casualties, it's even sillier to call the Iraq war the "worst" war, or even a very bad one. Some estimates put enemy and civilian deaths into the millions in the Vietnam war, and I don't think I need to show the figures for other struggles because this is uncontroversial.
Perhaps death toll is not the best gauge of a bad war. In one place the Iraq war ranks as "worst" is in terms of its financial costs. Eric Leaver, prominent researcher and writer, has stated that the Iraq war is the most costly war in 60 years. This is conspicuous fact from just glancing at money stats, and it is having a ripple effect on the American economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that "the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next 10 years." Still, it is not "the worst war" in that way since it still is not the more expensive, and even the expenses seem trivial when the deficit is expected to soar any how. I am not making an excuse against balancing a budget, but one expectation of any war/invasion/occupation is cost, and though no consensus existed prior to the invasion in terms of expense, every competent analyst made clear that this would be a costly endeavor (especially after the fall of Saddam).
Another way of gauging the war is in terms of public reception and blow back. If one claims that the Iraq war is a failure due to lack of support from the public, than one is employing circular logic and runs the risk of sounding absurd. The logic is this: Since people don't like the Iraq war, the Iraq war is not a success; and the Iraq war is not a success, because people don't like it; and people don't like it, because it's not a success, ad infinitum. When it comes to blow back, we will have to see. Blow back is a natural result of every war, so if blow back constitutes failure, then success becomes virtually impossible and loses all meaning. The biggest and most apparent "blow back" of the Iraq war has been it's recruiting capacity for Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. This however, does not stand up to previous unintended consequences of American projects including the very existence of Al-Qaeda from resentment of American presents in Saudi Arabia and their support for Israel.
So what has made so many pundits, activists, and citizens in the USA to claim that Iraq has been "lost," is a failure, or even one of the worst wars in history? It has to do with several things:
1. Attention Deficit. Harvard professor and historian Niall Ferguson notes that one of the biggest liabilities of the American Empire is what he calls "an attention deficit," which is basically the fact that a president can only be president for 8 years before someone else takes over with a completely different agenda. "Despite the enormous advantages, it's very dysfunctional as an empire. It can't direct sufficient financial resources to its imperial undertakings. It never has enough men where they're needed. And, above all else, its elector lose interest in hot, poor countries almost as soon as they've been occupied." Some experts had said just prior to the invasion that an undertaking like bring democracy to Iraq would take decades -- one estimate said 40 years. A problem with the Iraq was thus the idea that the administration themselves spread, that the Iraq War might be over in a matter of years or even months. In other words, the Iraq is a long haul but because people look at it under a lens of instant gratification, they are understandably disappointed.
2. Knowledge. Yes, knowledge is one the pillars supporting Iraq War resentment. A unique difference in the Iraq War and previous wars is the amount of resources and information on the war itself. With the internet and more transparent journalism the average American has the ability to see graphic images of injured Americans. Every American that dies in Iraq is reported almost immediately, whereas other conflicts had a substantial delay between death and report. The simple fact is that war is brutal, ugly, and atrocious. The difference before has been that only the people on the front lines could truly express that. Nowadays we can see (if we so choose) dead and wounded Tibetan monks, disabled Iraq War vets, et cetera which makes us much more empathetic, much more aware, and much more reluctant.
3. Bitterness. George Bush built the Iraq War and garnered support for it by centering it on two things: 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was worthy of toppling is not debatable. He was responsible for gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurds (who are often wrongly called "his own people") which some think was only incidental in attempt to kill Iranians, but it nevertheless happened. He is responsible for the deaths of hundred of civilians and dissenters, and has used as well as expressly sought WMDs before. He was a horrible dictator who deserved to be overthrown. The mistake the Bush Administration made was in their certainty that his weapon ambitions still existed, and in their timing. The Bush Administration falsely linked 9/11 to Iraq, and with the subsequent invasion took all attention away from capturing Osama Bin Laden and revenging the terrorist attacks on the world trade center. In this way, though the invasion may have been a cause set for a later time, and though military intervention was obviously the wrong tactic, the Bush Administration effectively mislead the public and thus resentment ensues. For reasons of circular logic mentioned before, though, this is not an excuse to call Iraq a failure.
Put short, the belief that the Iraq is an epic failure is a belief arisen from lack of context, over sensitivity, and failed expectations. In other words, an erroneous mental framing. If Iraq is framed, on the other hand, as long haul with comparatively low casualties, it is not such a disaster. We are in the 5th year of the Iraq war and an astonishing amount of progress has been made. We can either see that progress continue into the next 5 - 10 years, or we can give it up and hope it doesn't turn out like the killing fields of Vietnam.
----
As I've made clear in other posts, I am not a supported of American Imperialism, but as Christopher Hitchen's notes, both withdrawing from Iraq and not invading it in the first place are Imperial in nature too. I consider myself a non-interventionist, and have thus never supported the War, however I resent those who call it a "failure," or a "loss," when realistically it's gone quite well. In my personal view, I think Saddam had to have been toppled one day, but that it was not the job of America to do it, and that military intervention as a primary strategy (in accord to Neo-Con doctrine) was a bad decision.
SUMMARY: The Iraq War is not the worst war ever. The Iraq war is not a catastrophe. It's not a failure either. The reason people say it is is due to a lack on context and comparison. Casualties of the Iraq war are surprisingly low. The reason people perceive the Iraq war as one of the "worst" or a failure relies on the fact that information and knowledge of the a "war experience" is more readily available through the internet and media. In other words, though previous wars were more devastating, we were more ignorant the devastation. Other problems have to do with notions of a quick fix, and that realistically the Iraq war has brought remarkable progress in a short area of time with little death.
---
The causalities of the Iraq war (though horrible in their own right) are nothing compared to the wars of the past. The difference is the publics sensitivity to death and violence. This is the era of idealism, and the rise of the left as well as activist movements (which I commend) have altered the psychology of the masses.
Today the 4,050 American death toll (combat + other such as IEDs) from a 5 year occupation in Iraq has been seen by many competent analysts and activists as deplorable; yet compared to the the death tolls of other American endeavors, the deaths and the distribution of the deaths over time is relatively modest. Take these statistics*:
Deaths : War : Duration
58,151 : Vietnam : ~15 years
36,516 : Korean : ~3 years
405,399 : WWII : ~4 years
116,516 : WWI : ~1 year
4,052 : Iraq : ~5 years +
This is just a glimpse. In terms of total deaths the Iraq invasion is listed as the 10th most deadly American conflict, with approximately 2.35 deaths a day (as opposed to 26 a day for Vietnam). In terms of enemy casualties, it's even sillier to call the Iraq war the "worst" war, or even a very bad one. Some estimates put enemy and civilian deaths into the millions in the Vietnam war, and I don't think I need to show the figures for other struggles because this is uncontroversial.
Perhaps death toll is not the best gauge of a bad war. In one place the Iraq war ranks as "worst" is in terms of its financial costs. Eric Leaver, prominent researcher and writer, has stated that the Iraq war is the most costly war in 60 years. This is conspicuous fact from just glancing at money stats, and it is having a ripple effect on the American economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that "the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next 10 years." Still, it is not "the worst war" in that way since it still is not the more expensive, and even the expenses seem trivial when the deficit is expected to soar any how. I am not making an excuse against balancing a budget, but one expectation of any war/invasion/occupation is cost, and though no consensus existed prior to the invasion in terms of expense, every competent analyst made clear that this would be a costly endeavor (especially after the fall of Saddam).
Another way of gauging the war is in terms of public reception and blow back. If one claims that the Iraq war is a failure due to lack of support from the public, than one is employing circular logic and runs the risk of sounding absurd. The logic is this: Since people don't like the Iraq war, the Iraq war is not a success; and the Iraq war is not a success, because people don't like it; and people don't like it, because it's not a success, ad infinitum. When it comes to blow back, we will have to see. Blow back is a natural result of every war, so if blow back constitutes failure, then success becomes virtually impossible and loses all meaning. The biggest and most apparent "blow back" of the Iraq war has been it's recruiting capacity for Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. This however, does not stand up to previous unintended consequences of American projects including the very existence of Al-Qaeda from resentment of American presents in Saudi Arabia and their support for Israel.
So what has made so many pundits, activists, and citizens in the USA to claim that the Iraq was has been "lost," is a failure, or even one of the worst wars in history? It has to do with several things:
1. Attention Deficit. Harvard professor and historian Niall Ferguson notes that one of the biggest liabilities of the American Empire is what he calls "an attention deficit," which is basically the fact that a president can only be president for 8 years before someone else takes over with a completely different agenda. "Despite the enormous advantages, it's very dysfunctional as an empire. It can't direct sufficient financial resources to its imperial undertakings. It never has enough men where they're needed. And, above all else, its elector lose interest in hot, poor countries almost as soon as they've been occupied." Some experts had said just prior to the invasion that an undertaking like bring democracy to Iraq would take decades -- one estimate said 40 years. A problem with the Iraq was thus the idea that the administration themselves spread, that the Iraq War might be over in a matter of years or even months. In other words, the Iraq is a long haul but because people look at it under a lens of instant gratification, they are understandably disappointed.
2. Knowledge. Yes, knowledge is one the pillars supporting Iraq War resentment. A unique difference in the Iraq War and previous wars is the amount of resources and information on the war itself. With the internet and more transparent journalism the average American has the ability to see graphic images of injured Americans. Every American that dies in Iraq is reported almost immediately, whereas other conflicts had a substantial delay between death and report. The simple fact is that war is brutal, ugly, and atrocious. The difference before has been that only the people on the front lines could truly express that. Nowadays we can see (if we so choose) dead and wounded Tibetan monks, disabled Iraq War vets, et cetera which makes us much more empathetic, much more aware, and much more reluctant.
3. Bitterness. George Bush built the Iraq War and garnered support for it by centering it on two things: 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was worthy of toppling is not debatable. He was responsible for gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurds (who are often wrongly called "his own people") which some think was only incidental in attempt to kill Iranians, but it nevertheless happened. He is responsible for the deaths of hundred of civilians and dissenters, and has used as well as expressly sought WMDs before. He was a horrible dictator who deserved to be overthrown. The mistake the Bush Administration made was in their certainty that his weapon ambitions still existed, and in their timing. The Bush Administration falsely linked 9/11 to Iraq, and with the subsequent invasion took all attention away from capturing Osama Bin Laden and revenging the terrorist attacks on the world trade center. In this way, though the invasion may have been a cause set for a later time, and though military intervention was obviously the wrong tactic, the Bush Administration effectively mislead the public and thus resentment ensues. For reasons of circular logic mentioned before, though, this is not an excuse to call Iraq a failure.
Put short, the belief that the Iraq is an epic failure is a belief arisen from lack of context, over sensitivity, and failed expectations. In other words, an erroneous mental framing. If Iraq is framed, on the other hand, as long haul with comparatively low casualties, it is not such a disaster. We are in the 5th year of the Iraq war and an astonishing amount of progress has been made. We can either see that progress continue into the next 5 - 10 years, or we can give it up and hope it doesn't turn out like the killing fields of Vietnam.
The word idiot is not used pejoratively for stupidity of lack of insight. It originated, however, from the Greek "idiotes," which the Athenians defined as anyone who is indifferent to important public affairs.
Without going into depth, I agree with the Athenians that if you decline to take part in public affairs you deserve contempt. There are exceptions though. The exceptions are the occasions where you find yourself without any appealing choice, so you consciously choose not to choose: tonights specials are a white persons excrement, or a black persons excrement -- the correct answers are either none of the above or "It doesn't matter which."
This current American election offers a similar menu.
At 4/13/08 09:46 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Not exactly a win-win situation my friend. Presidents aren't like a computer virus that you can delete with the right programs, they have a deep impact and long lasting effect on our country. Keeping this in mind you should be able to see that to have a person who will most be a failure ultimatly hurts our country more then help it.
In the short term I think that is absolutely true. However, it misses the point. No matter what track we follow disaster awaits. The disaster of McCain will only perpetuate the disaster of Bush, and will also make worse the impending disaster of the left. In other words, the left's supremacy is inevitable. Allow it to occur now when it stands a chance at reverting to a system of liberty and capitalism that we know works.
It is win win so long as you are prepared to suffer some detriment, which returns us to the analogy of Darwinism: that death and detriment are not only necessary for evolution; they summon it.
I am a firmly minarchistic classical liberal who is presently agnostic on the war in Iraq, so how could I ever support big government, dogmatically anti-Iraq, and self righteously anti-liberty Barrack Obama? It's simple really, but first a necessary clarification of semantics. Support, as I've used here, does not mean that I support the ideology, policies, or judgment of Barrack Obama. I merely want him to be president of the united states for two short terms. Realistically, Obama and Clinton aren't very different, and I should say I would replace "Obama" in the title with "Clinton" if I actually believed she had a chance to win the nomination.
I support Obama for a very devious and strategic reason. As a fiscal conservative, I favor McCain. As an agnostic on the war, McCain's stance is more safe. McCain also values, or at least espouses a belief in the importance of individual liberty. My problem with McCain, though, is that on all of these positions he is patently insincere. Put differently, his ideas are on the right track but aren't good enough. If he were elected therefore, insincere capitalism would continue and it would strengthen the socialist movement even more. General hatred for the war would be assimilated with Republicanism moreover, and thus in a make love not war time Republicanism would be resented (even more than it already is). Ultimately, what America needs to be put on the right track is a dramatic failure.
That's correct. I support Obama because he will be an epic failure in theory and practice. His radical progressive policies (especially universal healthcare), will fail so utterly and cause so much more economic and social devastation that the reactionary approach will be towards traditional small government, conservative ideals.
The Darwinistic air this has -- to expose the bad mutations to reality -- is conceded. For the United States of America to evolve in a positive direction it has to get rid of the bad ideas, and the best way to that is to give those ideas a chance. Hopefully, the better ideas of Barrack [science, gay rights, secular humanism] will maintain, and make America all the better. If necessary this might take two terms. Actually, it's likely, considering the time it will take to install socialized medicine and remove most of the troops from Iraq, that two terms will be needed. In the meanwhile the bloated deficit and the failing economy will only garner more support for the small government movement until Obama finally wrecks it all, thus propelling us into a large minority.
And what if this doesn't happen? What if Obama is actually a huge success, and not a failure? Than it's a win, win -- isn't it.
The problem with her thesis is that the parallels she draws aren't of religion, but are of any ideological movement in general (even social-conservatism). I don't think she is necessary wrong, however. The far-left movers like those at moveon.org, as mentioned the Cindy Sheehans, code pinker, the green-fanatics, and socialists all emulate a religious essence insofar as they're based off of emotion. I don't think though, that "liberals" in general are either godless or so emotional and dogmatic as the Cindy Sheehans. In fact, Cindy Sheehan is just a predictable fringe element that every political ideology invariably creates.
TV is actually able to regulate itself without the help of the FCC. If a network decides to incorporate profanity and sex into early programing than they better be prepare to lose a lot of their ratings.
Of Montreal
Mr. Bungle and the Mike Patton experience
For the best Indie music go to http://radio3.cbc.ca/ All the best in Canadian indie.
At 4/5/08 07:14 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: It's divided because of bullshit rhetoric from both sides, a tendency to not have intelligent debate but instead shouting contests and in general differences in opinion.
Thats not an explanation so much as an observation. To explain it you have to give a reason for why it's so divided in America, but not in other countries like Canada where we have about 4 viable parties, and none of them are very divided/bellicose to one and other. Using my personal theory that I posted above, the reason the division is so nill in Canada is because a. the country has a solidarity derived from leftism b. the conservatives are practically all one of the social "republican" group that I described. Canadian conservatives are just big spending democrats who hate abortion and gay rights.
At 4/5/08 07:02 PM, Grammer wrote:At 4/5/08 03:44 AM, poxpower wrote: Who cares?No comparison
History books are way more accurate than the bible, I don't see you praising them like they're holy.
The old testament is a great book for corroborating and understanding ancient history of that region, only so long as you understand that you A) have to recognize hyperbole and exaggeration B) recognize culture bias and use corroboration C) understand the history of semetic mythology and where the origin of the bibles mythology come from making it easier to get to the pure history.
Okay, how did the Universe begin (exactly), and how do you know there's no afterlife?
As atheists we don't have to tell you what caused the big bang because our only stance is that it was God. The fact of the matter is that neither of us know for sure. Being scientific, we take educated guesses and test them, and thus we have many theories of the origin of the universe: The Incredible Bulk; Arrow of Time; Julian Barbour's "Now" thesis; quantum cosmology; M-Theory etc. Some are more probable than others, and I suspect the reason we haven't pinned it down conclusively yet is because we haven't discovered ever detail yet when it comes to particle physics, the TOE, string theory, and the rest. Now, as I've shown scientists have many plausible and probable explanations of the origin of the universe. All you have is an ad hoc hypothesis.
It's due to the left being more united than the right. Consider this: The right is made up of basically three kinds of conservatism, all of which are exclusive to one another. There is social republicans whose leaders are the evangelicals -- there is a constitutional republican who are more like libertarians -- and there are John McCain republicans who are are quasi-democrats that have different theories of just-war.
The left more or less has a few uniting features where all the ideas of the left are derived. They are wel-fare like policies, which include affirmative action, public health care, food stamps etc. And consequently regulatory/prohibition/and big government policies which include gun control, corporation regulation, and high taxes to pay for it all. The lefts roots valued reason and evidence which is why their policies are more lenient on issues of gay marriage and abortion.
With the left so united historically the right has subconsciously always feared the left. That, in essence, is the only thing that has brought solidarity to the right, besides conformism. It's this that cause the divide to remain so deep -- a subconscious fear of the left united essentially 3 separate groups to create a party that is itself divided. Therefore, to mask the division, they kick up the solidarity; kick up the fear and united hatred of the left, and pull the gap open even more.
At 4/4/08 08:17 PM, poxpower wrote:At 4/4/08 05:26 PM, Hamandchees3 wrote:In Cognitive Neurology there is a phenomenon called the 10,000 hour effect.haha 10 000 hours.
Hmm so 1 hour per day for 365 days, that's not much... so that's 10 000 days so 27 years. Ok maybe by the time you're 30, you're Mozart?
Or just 15 if you do it 2 hours per day. Though 2 hours is still a lot :p
Mozart, as an example, lived music. He likely worked in excess for 4 hours a day, which by your calculation is less than age 7. Now, the 10,000 effect is a phenomenon because it's been observed that for some unknown reason, 10,000 is a threshold into expertise, being fluent in what it is, and to me a "master" at the activity. So, it's not like Mozart was completely inept up until the moment he hit 10,000. He was still able to write great music with 3 quarters of that practice. The point is that we can all be Mozart if we were forced by our parents to train throughout the day, every day, for years upon years. Nowadays that's child abuse, so the only way masters like Mozart come about today is if it is based on interest and influence which acts as the motivation to continue practicing instead of the threats and abuse that motivated Mozart.
To answer Jacks question: It's both a phenomenon and a theory. The phenomenon is the observed threshold at 10,000 hours, the theory is when it is used to explain "talent".
It's funny you used Mozart as an example, because the literature following the release of the study included calculating how many hours Mozart would have study before he became the phenomenon that he was. To make a long story short, the evidence shows that Mozart had a pretty shit childhood dedicated to practicing piano, eating, and sleeping. In other words, he got his 10,000 hours. Nowadays you might not see that because it would verge on child abuse.
As for your friend, an issue might be motivation and interest. I believe that certain people have advantageous over others in the short term, be it a larger frontal lobe at birth than your brother had, or what have you. The point I am making is that the advantage is negligible because the 10,000s evens all things out. So, even though you may be more adept at mathematical thinking (and I believe some people are) if your friend practices the aspects of math he has trouble in, and he learns to conceptualize them efficiently (which you clearly have done, perhaps inadvertently) the practice will eventually even the playing field.
Which is another point. Some people get things right away. They just see it and understand it. Some people take a bit longer to get a handle on it, but it can all be related to some predisposition, interest, confidence factor, or motivation which tend to guide us about our daily actions, and even career choices. The point though, is not influences and interests. The point is that your anecdote is not relevant to this discussion because your friend and you have not had 10,000 solid hours at practice. The time-line of your example is just too short term.
I am a bit sickened that everyone is assuming the notion that it's fine to makes laws over possessing something as harmless as a beer. We don't need the state to decide what is best for our kids. Instead the facts should be presented, and parents should decide for themselves whether or not they think their son or daughter is mature enough. I also think it's ridiculous that public procession is illegal with an exception like religious purposes. A religious ritual requiring the ingestion of alcohol does not change whats being ingested, so I don't see a rational reason to posit that symbolism changes the reality.
The problem with presuming that the government has a roll in deciding what's healthiest for you and a child is that it takes away freedoms and personal responsibility. It also doesn't have a distinct line that can be drawn to say when the government should stop interfering. Perhaps the feds should also implement calorie count laws where it's illegal to go over 2000 a day because it has negative effects on your health, especially in a developing child.
I would still contend that the great guitarists of our time achieved their greatness through practice alone. The point of the study was to disprove the "he's born with it" line. It's true that many people have practiced as much as many of the guitar heros, and they become very "Talented" players as well. I guess what you are focusing on is the inevitable and random variation that comes with unpredictable circumstance. Perhaps Jimmy had a charisma and confidence that allowed him overshadow his contemporaries, and similarly, though his contemporaries no doubt like rock music, perhaps they didn't have the particular stylistic influences that Jimmy had that lead to his popularity.
The only point I was making was that talent is only pursued through practice, and that for whatever reason a person might be born with more neurons where it matters musically, its meaningless in the long run because a. the advantage is too insignificant and b. practicing is technically the act of growing and carving certain areas of the brain that are relevant to the activity, so any birth advantage can be matched with practice. (except savants and that sort of thing, which is entirely different)
At 4/4/08 01:13 AM, poxpower wrote: As an artist who's been pretty much better at drawing than anyone I've ever encountered of my age, I've heard this all my life: "you have talent".
And I say, it's stupid.
Talent seems to be defined by people as that "something" that you're born with that makes you so much better at something than average people that should an average person work all their life to reach your level, they would not succeed ( or at least it would be far harder for them than for you ).
In the case of religious people, that obviously would come from God giving me magic powers of art.
But in science, it would mean that there's something genetic about my brain that makes me good at drawing.
How can that be? There's not a single animal that uses "drawing" to represent things or to even survive :O How could this trait have evolved? And why isn't it passed down?
How can talent be true of anything, genetically speaking? Other than sports or just raw intelligence?
How can there be a set of genes/brain cells/DNA that makes you better at something as recently invented as calculus, oil painting or digital animation?
What does this have to do with politics? Probably nothing. It's just an interesting thing to debate because that notion is still around today and held by really smart people who usually don't know anything about the domains they praise others for having talent in :o
In Cognitive Neurology there is a phenomenon called the 10,000 hour effect. It basically means that any expert in athletics, music, art, writing etc. achieves that through 10,000 hours of practice. It's been calculated that Mozart, for example, didn't achieve recognition until he had 10,000 estimated hours of practice. Anyway, the gist of the theory is that talent is non-existent. It's all practice, practice, practice, and unless your predisposed for something (e.g. height for basketball), natural talent doesn't exist.
Wealth distribution bogs down the free-market, and isn't fair. The only institutions that would benefit from being federally owned is the supreme court and legislative branch, along with national defense. You might as well get rid of the executive branch all together, and replace it with a senate. Everything else (roads, the choice of mandated/social/private health care, fire and police forces etc.) should be directed by the state alone. Big government is wasteful, and is robbing America people to pay for pet projects and ill advised luxury. If that's what American's really want, than let them send in contributions voluntarily.
So you basically want to monopolize people? It sounds interesting, but I don't think it will be positive in the long run for companies to compete over large groups primarily because it minimizes personal choice such that you must accept the group your alloted to and not take a potentially cheaper alternative who just doesn't have the finances to compete for groups. Ultimately, the richest companies would win, and not the "best" companies, which would die out from lack of merit based competition.
I also don't quite understand how their health care is afforded. Their employer buys it for them at a lower "bulk price"? That also favors conglomerate because smaller and potentially great health insurance companies could not handle the large groups, and if the groups are smaller than the price wouldn't differ greatly, and thus the smaller employer could not fit it in their budget, and the larger employers wouldn't want to.
I am joining this collab, and am in fact finished three submissions. Here they are here, in 1 swf.
At 4/1/08 04:36 PM, waw460 wrote: Arms lead to Columbine.
The right to bear arms was imposed as to fight Native Americans and the British. It is of absolutely no relevance today.
Columbine is the result of a gun free zone, not an arms zone. If the teachers were armed Columbine would have ended a lot quicker, or may have not of happened at all because of deterrent factors.
At 4/1/08 05:07 PM, reviewer-general wrote:At 4/1/08 04:05 PM, Hamandchees3 wrote: I'll vote for anyone who is anti-Israel.His pastor isn't running for President, though.
I know, but at least he is exposed to that kind of message. It just makes him more likely anti-israel than the other candidates.
