161 Forum Posts by "MOSFET"
At 3/5/13 01:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Pollution is an infringment on a free society. The "Dump where you want" infringes on the rights of others, therefore would be a punishable offense in a free society, just as it is now.
this is where the common misconception comes in. Free market does not mean "everyone just does whatever the fuck they want". FWIW, in a free society, you could easily sue a polluter. good luck doing that now.
That's a terrible idea. The courts would fail without an aggressive government to back it up. If you think Congress is corrupt, the courts will be x10 worse without a supporting power structure. It will be a feeding frenzy of those that have the most influence and wealth. 1 judge and 12-14 random people are easier to manipulate than the separate powers of the legislative and executive powers. Like most libertarians, you fail to understand power structures. Watching you whine about the government is like watching someone whine that a load-bearing wall is in their way.
Wouldn't increasing the minimum wage also help balance out our trade deficit? Since minimum wage tends to effect people in retail, It kind of serves as tariff indirectly. At least more money remains here. But then again, It could just be a wash and people would just spend more money on foreign products.
At 2/19/13 11:43 AM, LemonCrush wrote:At 2/19/13 07:01 AM, MOSFET wrote: Lemon Crush, your supposed fact that the government is stealing from the public sounds more like an opinion. Unfortunately for you, there are many who are willing to buy into such programs like social security. So long as there is collective agreement to keep such programs running, then they will persist regardless how you feel about it.No, it is STEALING. It is taking my money, which I earned by doing a job, without my permission.
It doesn't matter if people are willing to buy into such things, or if all tax money went to saving starving children. It doesn't matter how noble the reason for theft is, it is still theft. If those people want to pay into it, GREAT. Let them. I see no reason why I am FORCED to pay into it, especially when the money is just going to be stolen by some asshole with a conquest boner to kill people with drones and bombs.
STEAL: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
With the thousands of dollars STOLEN from my paycheck every year, I could buy food, clothes, gas, hell, even just entertainment stuff like TV's or video games. THAT would keep the economy going, as it keeps money flowing. But no, instead of letting people keep their money, to ACTUALLY stimulate the economy, we'll just give out credit and loans. That way we can build the economy on debt, and then it will collapse. But fuck it, when that happens, I won't be in office anymore.
You didn't earn that. I'm actually surprised a Libertarian such as yourself feels that your fiat currency has worth to begin with. You paying your taxes actually gives the rest of your money worth. Just imagine, the government would still turn on the spending spigot, but now there's no drain to relieve you of your excess cash. You should be glad that the Government is up to the tiresome chore of spending that money for you (how nice of them).
Lemon Crush, your supposed fact that the government is stealing from the public sounds more like an opinion. Unfortunately for you, there are many who are willing to buy into such programs like social security. So long as there is collective agreement to keep such programs running, then they will persist regardless how you feel about it.
At 2/18/13 06:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 2/18/13 06:35 PM, Feoric wrote:See the problem is that the extra money was created out of nothing and handed out to workers whom did absolutely nothing extra to earn extra income. The injection you speak of is called inflation and it's the death knell to the USAAt 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China.more money in the pockets to inject into the US economy?
Last I check only the government can create money out of nothing. Raising the minimum wage only forces those corporations, to pay their workers more, but the money in circulation remains the same.
At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 2/18/13 06:07 PM, Feoric wrote:More money = more consumer demand = more jobsThough your statement sounds logical if not given much thought the fact remains that when given proper thought more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China. In short your statement is flawed and short sighted but perhaps there's more to it ? A forced increase in wages only creates one thing and that's inflation in turn causing mass devalue in currency and economy not to mention the fact that a forced wage increase is a direct reaction to inflation. The cycle of wealth deprecation continues.
Wouldn't it also increase the GDP growth rate substantially? And couldn't the federal reserve tighten monetary policy to control that inflation?
At 2/15/13 04:08 PM, chiefindomer wrote:At 2/15/13 07:00 AM, MOSFET wrote:No. We're talking about a logical absolute here, any middle ground between belief and lack of belief would be a paradox.At 2/15/13 06:35 AM, chiefindomer wrote:There actually isn't a "middle way" with atheism and theism. You either have belief in the existence of a god or you don't.People's beliefs are not restricted to a binary switch and are more flexible than you give credit.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
It's true, belief could be modeled as a either you are or you are not. Indeed, our language does this by the words atheism and theism, but that's just a convention to easily categorize people. I observe people having varied levels of belief and non-belief. There are theists who have their doubts and the are atheists that sometimes wonder if God is real. What if God told a believer to be an atheist in their dream, are they really an atheist, or just some poser?
Go on and declare belief of a type boolean, I'm just saying it's overly simplistic and not as informative.
At 2/15/13 06:35 AM, chiefindomer wrote:
There actually isn't a "middle way" with atheism and theism. You either have belief in the existence of a god or you don't.
People's beliefs are not restricted to a binary switch and are more flexible than you give credit.
I don't think Religion is stupid. Although it does sometimes seem like religious people revel in their ignorance. But there are things you just have to believe even-though they haven't been proven. Like P vs NP problem. It maybe that someday in the future it will be proven one way or the other, until that time most computer scientists are just going to have to take it on faith that P âo/oo NP. Everything that is taught is taken as an article of faith. Even-though it could have been proven by someone else, such knowledge is rarely self-validated.
At 2/13/13 08:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
They have more money and they don't need welfare payments. Part of the problem actually is that stores such as Walmart take advantage of Government programs like that and take in people on welfare because they can pay them less.But in reality, they don't have more money, because the price of goods rises.
It sounds like you like having a government subsidized workforce, if only it keeps prices low.
But if paying your employees a living wage is bad, How do places like Costco keep their prices low? They have a starting wage of $12.00/hr
This ad is a misdirection on the issues of gun violence. It doesn't address the public health and safety concerns with gun violence, all it does is make people envious and want to buy a gun for themselves. And since there is a proven correlation between gun ownership and homicides, all it does is increase the level of violence and increase public health risk.
There are a number of ways people misuse guns. Good intentioned people who use it to intimidate others if say an argument isn't going their way. What about those Lazy Louies who are negligent with their guns. There are some real bad teachers out there, would you like them to have a gun at their disposal as well?
People aren't really split into good guys and bad guys. Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes weren't bad people before they went on their rampages after legally purchasing their weapons. The young man that killed those kids at Sandy Hook may have been mentally disturbed but he didn't show any indication of what he might do before he took his mom's legally owned guns. What about those Postal workers in the 80s/90s? How do you arm the good guys without arming the bad guys or the good guys that will go bad?
And the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is completely stupid. Under such a scenario where the government turns on it's people, there will be detractors up the command structure in the military, should that happen. Seriously, these people, that believe in this interpretation of the 2nd amendment, are not a threat to the government at all, and are more a threat to the people around them. They even need to have a gun, like that Timothy McVeigh fellow.
At 10/29/12 12:56 AM, T3XT wrote: Before anything is brought up, let me say this: Try not to let your gender bias your opinion.
What's bad/good about abortion Newgrounds?
People make mistakes, No reason to condemn them to a life of poverty over it. Which are the majority of reasons why women get abortions.
Having legal abortions means it's there for you when you do need it. This women wasn't able to get an abortion because all the doctors in her nation wouldn't perform it. And now she lost much of her vision as a result. Fetuses can die in the womb, why put make a women suffer going through labor for a dead or severely deformed baby? With all the complications that can happen with getting pregnant, giving birth, and raising a child, I'd think that most women would like all options on the table.
What riles me up are people who are self-righteous on this issue, but ignore all the issues surrounding it. From women getting raped or coerced into having sex, to neglecting the life of the child as soon as it's born, there is wickedness beyond this single event. Where was the outrage then? Where was the compassion? To me, abortions are a tragedy not an act of villainy.
At 9/7/12 04:07 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:At 9/7/12 10:20 AM, Gunner-D wrote:Well if the federal minimum wage was increased to $8 an hour, a teenager looking or his/her first job would have a much harder time than if the minimum wage was let's say $6 and hour. Be as full of energy as you want to, you have to give a employer a damn good reason to hire you over someone who's had a few years of working experience in this economy if the minimum wage was raised to that. Even though minimum wage laws are not out to help high schoolers with little real life obligations, as i said before it makes it much harder for them to get their foot into the door and get some experienceAt 9/6/12 02:47 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Contrary to popular belief, a minimum wage isn't helpful to the economy from a hiring perspective. All it really does is discourage hiring entry level positions which teenage and college aged people would likely take to get their foot in the door because they may not be worth the hourly wage that they legally have to pay them. If a company wants to keep a skilled worker they'll pay them more than minimum wageObviously that is why I would ask him that. I helps out poor people but the rich don't favor it. I'd like to hear Romney's answer. It would be pretty sad if a teenage or college age worker isn't worth minimum wage, seeing as most young American-born people are full of energy, educated, and speak English. I don't think the minimum wage laws are out to necessarily help most high schoolers with no children or "real-life" obligations such as rent, mortgage, groceries, etc.
minimum wage pretty much effect retail jobs. jobs in tech services and manufacturing start off higher $10-15/hr as they require skills. There are very few jobs that require no skills in today's world, mainly due to robotics and other automation of repetitive motions.
Honestly, it's not worth it to go into retail or fast food as a highschooler, even if you're broke. It's a job for retired people who want to stay active and people who are failures. It's pretty much a waste of time for "experience". Focus on getting an Undergrad degree and finding an internship. Although, some companies will hire you for just having the privilege of working for them. You don't even get paid minimum wage sometimes(I find financial companies usually don't pay their interns).
Clint debates a chair and loses. Kind of a microcosm of how Republicans have debated against some imaginary socialist Obama.
Republicans making political hay over what Holder said vs what he received in a memo. Now they are desperately trying to save face by trying to get holder to resign, after making a big spectacle out of it.
As far as I'm concerned, Holder did put a stop to gun-running as a tactic. A tactic that was also used during the Bush years under Operation Wide Receiver. That operation did lose track of a few guns as well, but wasn't botched as badly as Fast and Furious. All this fuss just because the Republicans feel Holder is covering up his role in Fast and Furious.
I like how it's set after the Great Mushroom War(WW3?). So it's like some post-apocalyptic future where humanity is all by wiped out and magic has been unlocked from its dormant state. Also Princess Bubble Gum is like some mad scientist, her experiments always go awry. Good thing Finn is there to keep things in check.
At 6/6/12 10:06 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Insufficient credit results in underuse of capital but excessive credit results in inefficient allocation of capital.
While it is true that the austerityholes would keep us in recession, at a certain point aggregate demand exceeds sustainability, ideally government financial policy should reflect financial reality. I'm just saying, Krugman spends most of his time writing columns and books aimed at democrat fans, I'm sure there are more reliable sources we can look to in order to discover how much of the depression is due to lack of demand and how much is due to practical reasons like competition, land, resources, labor, physical capital and technology. I think you just chose Krugman because he is controversial or you're a fan or something.
Should aggregate demand exceed sustainability, then the government should, ideally, cut back on its own spending and try to rake in its "profits" by enjoying the excess economic activity(and not give out unpaid for tax cuts). It almost sounds like you believe aggregate demand is only government spending.
Where has all this money gone???
To the top.
At 5/31/12 08:12 PM, Memorize wrote:
No, you're just a fucking idiot who refuses to understand that the point he's making is that the fetus/blastocyst is "human" due to its function.
Don't worry, I got that he meant that life begins at conception, because it grows into a human. But, I have a problem with how he is arriving to that conclusion.
Consider this, have you ever called a seed, from a plant, a plant? No, you don't. You call it a seed. Yet, the function of these seeds is grow into plants. Likewise, a fetus/blastocyst is not a "human" due to it's function. It should be human based on what is a human. If you want to define human such that it includes fetuses and blastocysts that grow into humans, then by all means, go ahead. But changing the definition proves nothing, since you just defined it to be true.
Allow me to make this simple enough for your dumb ass to understand (though considering how you have lower level of intelligence of even Peter Griffin... this might be a bit of a chore)
A human is a mammal.
A dog is a mammal.
Are humans and dogs mammals? Yes.
Is a dog a human? No.
The point he's making is, if one cell creates something different from another, or holds information that would create something different... then they are not the same thing.
I had that same point in mind when I tried to (perhaps falsely) accuse him of making the point that if something functions towards its purpose then it is a living thing. I understand that a dog's embryo is different from a bird embryo's which is different from a virus, or a computer program. But they are all things that functions towards its purpose. And some of those things aren't really alive. Which was my point. But yea, I admit, it was a complete straw-man argument.
At 5/31/12 02:44 PM, Osuras wrote:At 5/31/12 12:02 AM, MOSFET wrote:Precisely, it is equitable to a program. The difference between viral RNA/DNA and Human DNA, for example, is that viral DNA only has the codings to produce more of itself. While human DNA has the coding to create a human. I've made this relatively simple for you to understand.At 5/30/12 10:22 PM, Osuras wrote:To paraphrase, "life begins at conception". But look! Your first supporting point! "the moment it begins to function towards its purpose". I kind of disagree with this. I mean it's just as equally applicable to viruses, or computer programs.
The moment the DNA molecule is incepted, is the moment it begins to function towards its purpose, the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.
If you have defined life as organisms/cells/etc that functions toward a purpose, then viruses and programs fit into that category as well. Your argument switches from something that functioned toward a purpose to the fact that these particular cells just grow up to be a human.
the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.
You didn't prove it or used logic, you just decreed that these cells are special because they are human. What you did here is called a Logical Fallacy, a Suppressed Correlative to be specific. You also make a fallacy of composition in a general way. Just because some of your statements are factual, doesn't make logically fit together with the points you are trying to make.
So no, you haven't made this simple to understand, because you aren't logically connecting your statements.
At 5/30/12 10:22 PM, Osuras wrote: ... So what I guess i'm trying to say now is, what's your point? Science is an explanation for how things work, it's latin for knowledge, where's the line? It's were ever you want that line to be, that's our decision to make, I fail to see any argument you're trying to make here. ...
Likewise. All I've see from you is random science facts thrown in to your paragraph soup in a vain attempt to explain that life begins at conception. For example.
:Each and every DNA molecule is different in some way shape or form, yes, even within the same species. This is what we call inter-individual variability.
Yes, that is what inter-individual variability can be defined as. Basically, a fancy way of saying, people are different. You bring up this fact, but it doesn't go anywhere, so why bring it up? Are you trying to say that people are unique? If so, you need to explicitly say so. Then you need to explain why you feel this uniqueness is important when deciding whether a group of cells are alive.
:The moment the DNA molecule is incepted, is the moment it begins to function towards its purpose, the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.
To paraphrase, "life begins at conception". But look! Your first supporting point! "the moment it begins to function towards its purpose". I kind of disagree with this. I mean it's just as equally applicable to viruses, or computer programs.
:Here's some elementary biology for all of you to understand. Think of each and every DNA molecule as a cook book, the cooks are the ribosomes, which translate the mRNA via transcription of the DNA by RNA polymerase. These proteins then begin to create and construct cells, embryonic stem cells (Totipotent/Pluripotent), which begin to form the blastocyst and fundamental organs of the human body.
I see you are trying to describe a process which leads to the blastocyst, but it doesn't help with the case that the blastocyst is alive. It seems like you are trying to build on your previous point by demonstrating the steps taken to become a blastocyst. I think if you just described the purpose of a blastocyst, as opposed to describing the process of one forming, you would of actually built off your previous point. I would still disagree with, but at least a point would of been made.
Remember, just because you are spewing random science facts doesn't mean you are making a cogent argument. Make your points clear(what are you trying to prove), then back it up with facts(your proof). Honestly, "life at conception" isn't a difficult statement to back up.
And try to avoid using insulting barbs in your explanations. It makes you look.. petty.
At 5/30/12 01:55 PM, Osuras wrote: Perhaps a new a scientific view is required. The moment of inception, the moment a zygote forms, is the moment a new Human beings to form. That particular molecule of DNA, likely completely unmethylated, is now attempting to transcribe mRNA, and translate proteins for the new body being formed. An organic molecule is living, aptly named, and therefore is life at its embryonic stage.
This is not really new, used by pro-lifers (for fetuses) for decades. You can define life however you like to make yourself feel good, it's not going to solve any problems. The problem isn't how it's defined, it's social-political. Some women just don't want to have a kid. Making it illegal, wont stop desperate women from seeking abortions.
At 5/30/12 12:49 PM, Korriken wrote: Also, for Someone as "smart" as Obama and his speechwriter(s) they can say some very stupid things.
It's only stupid, because Obama said it. Otherwise, it's an honest mistake that anyone can make. And most would have not have known the difference unless it was pointed out to them.
The lines of good an evil are definitely blurred. While Amon is definitely the villain of the show, non-benders have a legitimate complaint against benders. As long as the show doesn't get blatantly preachy, it'll be a good show.
I like how Metal-benders are like spiderman. I want to see more air-bending from Tenzin. I think the episodes are going to be written with shipping in mind. Already we've got Borra, Morra, Masami, and even Tahnorra.
At 5/29/12 09:44 PM, EKublai wrote: See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human. The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.
So you are against IVF(invitro fertilization) as well?
The basic procedure is as follows.
1.) egg cells removed from the woman
2.) multiple eggs are fertilized by the father's sperm
3.) the woman decided how many of the eggs are to be implanted back into her. 1-3 typically
4.) The rest of the fertilized eggs are thrown out.
Some women probably wouldn't have been able to get pregnant naturally, so this option is the only one available to some couples. I can understand how you feel about dehumanizing a potential human, but a potential human is still not a human being.
At 5/29/12 01:26 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but what health care services DOES the Catholic Church provide? In what form do they provide it? And what part of the legislation issues this mandate?
The law mandates that all companies and federally funded non-profits, provide for some basic health insurance to all their employees. This includes birth control and abortifacients(day after pill). Churches themselves are exempt from providing these benefits to their employees. The problem the Catholic Church has with this mandate is that Universities and Hospitals that they support would be forced to provide these things that the church is opposed to. It Tramples on the conscience of Catholics who operate these facilities. However, In the The Federal government's opinion, these institutions(Schools and Hospitals) employ many non-Catholics and take in Federal money, so they should be able get these benefits regardless how the Catholic Church feels about it.
At 5/28/12 08:24 PM, Warforger wrote: I find that strange, if you don't care what the Catholic church says or does doesn't that defeat the point of being Catholic
You can be a Catholic and not be interested in the politics of the Catholic church. In fact, as a lay person, there are almost no way to get involved on policies set by the church, unless you are part of the clergy. This is so that parishioners focus on worship on not on church politics. 1
I know what you mean, I'd like more reporting how the Catholic church is using the courts to encroach on my freedom from religion. Clearly the republican party is in collusion with the Catholic Church. Look how Republicans in the Senate are filibustering everything, even appointments to federal courts. They are doing this so that when a republican president comes into power, they can fill them in with more conservative judges that favor Rome's positions. More needs to be said about this.
At 5/25/12 12:48 AM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: Do you have a religion; do you believe in a god or are you Agnostic or pure Atheist? Why do you believe what you believe or choose not to believe?
I personally am a Christian. I believe the Holy Bible. I choose the Holy Bible because it is what I was taught to believe from since I was a kid and I also do think when I pray to Jesus listens.
God came to me in a dream and told me to be an atheist...
In all seriousness, I've always been a free thinking person. I've had moments were I did try to believe in God, but I'm naturally faithless. I never could take the faith seriously, even as a kid. If anything, reading The Bible has made me a stronger atheist. I view the hierarchy as a political machine, where God is the ultimate politician. Everything good is attributed to God (whether he deserves the credit or not) and his surrogates spread the word.
I do have an appreciation on how religion has improved society. Some do good works, and there is some wisdom in the Bible and other holy texts. And there is something powerful in bringing people together for a cause greater than their own. But, these things have been exploited and have caused as much harm as it has good. People have done bad in the name of good.
