Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 10:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.

Let's suppose you are right - what's next???

The black Americans have been championing this education stuff for several decades, and they still cannot organize justice, a community, or a society.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 11:00 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Let's suppose you are right - what's next???

The black Americans have been championing this education stuff for several decades, and they still cannot organize justice, a community, or a society.

(O_o)

Dafaq?

*Lets that comment fly by and be caught by the Goaly/Backstop/Keeper*

Nope...not going to swing at that one, nu-uh.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
23-05-2014, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 11:21 AM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 10:53 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.

Am currently at work and would like to respond with more depth later when I can

I sadly think you are quaintly naive and should experience quite a few more decades of life before blithely rambling on like such above again.

Much cheers to all.

Sooooo you're telling me that laws do deter people from doing shitty things? Is that why nobody ever does shitty things? Is that why the prisons are empty?You are saying that the acquisition of knowledge isn't the reason we have a better world filled with more responsible people? Yes. How naive of me..
Perhaps you are as noble as the religious folks that do right because god is watching.
I for one am not so noble. I avoid doing shitty things because I don't want to hurt people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 11:37 AM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
By the way I would respect you a lot more if you would just say what your objection is rather than hiding behind a bullshit excuse coupled with a personal attack. But if you're anything like me you don't give a rats ass what others think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 11:37 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are delusional. What you prompt is criticism of your evidence-free views.
Is that your way of asking for evidence? If so, then you're not specific. I can't give evidence to non-specific requests, even though I might have tons of it.

Here's some non-specific evidence. Both democide and genocide are always committed only by a government.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
A government such as this:
http://www.policestateusa.com/

(23-05-2014 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you channeling frankksj? Your question is presumptuous and fatuous.

No, I would have you shot for stupidity. Drinking Beverage
Presumptuous and fatuous are assoles' ways of saying "I lost the argument but I don't want to admit it". So is calling people stupid.
You are usually the one with the most scientific evidence and you are not living up to this standard right now.

I haven't seen frankssj active in a while, but it is reassuring that someone arrived at my conclusions independently. Delusions get spread by hanging out with people, independent conclusions get arrived at by hanging out with reality.

(23-05-2014 10:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I'm not sure. It seems like a grey area to me. Let's take drinking and driving for example. We can agree I'm sure that it's a bad idea. But do you honestly think the law prevents this from happening. People I think will do what they do regardless of what the law says. I think what really prevents stupid acts is education.
Heroin addiction is in a way another case. Once one becomes addicted he seems likely to break many laws to get a fix like stealing a little old ladies purse. I don't think the law prevents this. It simply looks for vengeance. Once again education is the answer.
In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.
Education is a good idea, but PLEASE, please, just no government education. Whatever government does, it does by violence and it gives quite opposite results.

You have some good observations. As Jacque Fresco used to say, laws don't solve problems, they just make more fuss about them.
As far as Libertarians think about it, they'd consider it wrong to initiate aggression against a driver who is driving fast but does not crash. If someone crashes, he pays, or his insurance company does.
Fresco would say that instead of putting signs next to a road, the road itself should be powering the cars, powering them only as much as it takes to drive a given max speed and no more. Problem solved. Hell, the cars should even drive themselves. Words on paper enforced with a stick is a bit old technology for 21st century.

For your information, a kilogram of opium in Afghanistan used to cost as much as a kilogram of flour. If government didn't kill all legal peaceful competition in drug trade, drug mafia's profits would be about the level of bakery profits. Government maintains the monopoly for mafia and so mafia can keep the drug prices really high, especially when addicts will do anything to get a fix. Surprise surprise, it is a known fact that American army in Afghanistan keeps growing the poppy fields, which Taliban used to destroy because drugs are against Islam.

However, heroin does not seem inevitably addictive. It is only highly addictive to people with neurology damaged by childhood traumas, such as growing up in ghettos. War on drugs is the war on the most vulnerable people. Drugs are a way of self-medication for lost brain chemistry. It makes an enormous difference to traumatized people, it makes them feel normal. To non-traumatized people drugs don't seem all that great. It works the same with rats and morphine. It's not the morphine that causes addiction, it's the size of cage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlD6OdbuDK4



(23-05-2014 09:12 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I don't know much about economy so I won't comment on that.
What I do know is that somebody decided that people should go to prison for selling certain products and others go for buying and possessing them. I know that it's illegal in some places for two men to enter into certain contracts together. I know in some places people are not allowd to protect themselves or their families. I know that there are many "crimes" that are victimless.
Maybe regulation for corporations is good, maybe it isn't. I don't know. All I know is that government needs to stay the fuck out of my business.
They can stick their noses in when I actually do something to harm an unsuspecting individual.
Regulation for corporations sounds good, but it isn't logical. Corporations are created and maintained by state regulation. This regulation says that corporate people are allowed to take out their money and get away and let the legal fiction of a corporation take all the blame.
Corporation is like lizard's tail, it can fall off in danger and the lizard escapes, even if it just ate someone's family.

Why did corporations get this sweet deal from the state? They are the best tax collectors! They offer a salary and subtract the tax from it, before they give you the check. If you had to do it yourself and pay taxes by your own hand, you'd soon get really pissed at the government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 10:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I'm not sure. It seems like a grey area to me. Let's take drinking and driving for example. We can agree I'm sure that it's a bad idea. But do you honestly think the law prevents this from happening. People I think will do what they do regardless of what the law says. I think what really prevents stupid acts is education.
Heroin addiction is in a way another case. Once one becomes addicted he seems likely to break many laws to get a fix like stealing a little old ladies purse. I don't think the law prevents this. It simply looks for vengeance. Once again education is the answer.
In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.

Drunk driving laws do reduce the incidence of drunk driving. This is just the first thing that came up Googling it. Of course, to be effective, the laws need to be enforced.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 11:53 AM by Chas.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 11:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are delusional. What you prompt is criticism of your evidence-free views.
Is that your way of asking for evidence? If so, then you're not specific. I can't give evidence to non-specific requests, even though I might have tons of it.

Here's some non-specific evidence. Both democide and genocide are always committed only by a government.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
A government such as this:
http://www.policestateusa.com/

Nice, grossly biased websites. Anecdotes are not evidence.

No, I'm not asking for evidence. For the last two and a half years you have proven that you don't understand what constitutes evidence nor do you understand the scientific method.

Quote:
(23-05-2014 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you channeling frankksj? Your question is presumptuous and fatuous.

No, I would have you shot for stupidity. Drinking Beverage
Presumptuous and fatuous are assoles' ways of saying "I lost the argument but I don't want to admit it". So is calling people stupid.
You are usually the one with the most scientific evidence and you are not living up to this standard right now.

Since we weren't having an argument, there was nothing to lose.

I am neither offering an argument or evidence; I am commenting on the quality of your question. It is framed in presumptive terms with an obvious, biased agenda.

It is the rhetorical equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Quote:I haven't seen frankssj active in a while, but it is reassuring that someone arrived at my conclusions independently. Delusions get spread by hanging out with people, independent conclusions get arrived at by hanging out with reality.

Delusions get spread by hanging out with delusional people. Your views are not independent, you are channeling the pseudo-science and pathetically simplistic political views that you have picked up from woo-woo sources.

Frankie isn't here because he was shown to be a lying cunt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-05-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
[/quote]
Education is a good idea, but PLEASE, please, just no government education. Whatever government does, it does by violence and it gives quite opposite results.


[/quote]
Just so we are clear. By education I simply mean the acquisition of knowledge. I'm not talking about institutes but I'm not excluding them either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 12:36 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 11:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I'm not sure. It seems like a grey area to me. Let's take drinking and driving for example. We can agree I'm sure that it's a bad idea. But do you honestly think the law prevents this from happening. People I think will do what they do regardless of what the law says. I think what really prevents stupid acts is education.
Heroin addiction is in a way another case. Once one becomes addicted he seems likely to break many laws to get a fix like stealing a little old ladies purse. I don't think the law prevents this. It simply looks for vengeance. Once again education is the answer.
In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.

Drunk driving laws do reduce the incidence of drunk driving. This is just the first thing that came up Googling it. Of course, to be effective, the laws need to be enforced.

But are you sure it's the law and not awareness of the danger? Now don't get me wrong here. I don't mean to assert that laws don't prevent shit from happening I'm just not convinced that they do.
I will admit that it's possible that I'm projecting.
I don't actually respect the law but I do respect people.
That said I don't think anyone can argue that education isn't the key to a better world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 11:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Regulation for corporations sounds good, but it isn't logical. Corporations are created and maintained by state regulation. This regulation says that corporate people are allowed to take out their money and get away and let the legal fiction of a corporation take all the blame.
Corporation is like lizard's tail, it can fall off in danger and the lizard escapes, even if it just ate someone's family.

Why did corporations get this sweet deal from the state? They are the best tax collectors! They offer a salary and subtract the tax from it, before they give you the check. If you had to do it yourself and pay taxes by your own hand, you'd soon get really pissed at the government.
Wow. That's pretty good - I needed the consice analysis to understand the balance of the coorporation to organize tax collection. I think you meant that the owners of the corporation that get the sweet deal in liability - If I am understanding it correctly.

So, then it would seem that there needs to be some regulation on the liability insurance seperated from profits/sharing/distribution.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: