I am gonna be such a cool old person someday. I swear it.
Cool old people exist. But they are rare. People like us are rare.
Also, being a cool old person is much harder than you suspect. I can guarantee that whatever the kids are doing decades from now will seriously make you very afraid, or very concerned for their wellfare, and you will want to ban it. For example, let's say kids are swapping brains. Like, actually trading bodies in mad scientist fashion. I see the vast majority of people wanting to ban it because of the supposed harm to the people doing it, and the danger it poses to society. Just like the people who are trying to fight for privacy right now.
A Libertarian would not force a doctor or a hospital to treat a person. A Randian Objectivist would say that your need is not a claim on my ability. That being said, there are people in the world that believe in charity and who would voluntarily give time, money and expertise. Unfortunately there are also those who do not. There are many people who consume more than they produce even though could carry their weight. And, sadly, there are those who, through no fault of their own, need others just to survive.
Reading this does not give me a sense of what you believe, nor that you are arguing for, or against, anything.
You state the ideals of two, for lack of a better term, labels and then give the impression that this could all be solved just by human charity, even though you admit in the next breath that a number of people won't be charitable at all. And then you make an observation that some people are leeches on purpose and there are others who are leeches through no fault of their own.
What is it that you are trying to say? Are you just idly musing out loud? Am I missing some point?
What I believe is largely irrelevant to your causal domain, zehaeva. In all likelihood, our beliefs are merely the play of environment as interpreted by genes anyway. I'm not going to change your mind by exposing you to ideas that you've already encountered.
What I believe is largely irrelevant to your causal domain, zehaeva. In all likelihood, our beliefs are merely the play of environment as interpreted by genes anyway. I'm not going to change your mind by exposing you to ideas that you've already encountered.
I used to believe that riding a bike against traffic was the safer way to ride a bike. You could see the cars coming at you and get out of the way. It's way scary to have cars come up from behind you, you don't know if they're going to hit you or not.
I then ran into a study(they basically analyzed police reports of accidents involving bicycles and cars over the course of some 10 years and several states) that showed that people who ride against traffic get into more accidents than people who ride with traffic. See the people who ride against traffic are vulnerable against people taking a right onto a road, because the driver isn't looking the direction that cars are not coming from (This almost happened to me a month or two ago, I nearly ran someone over who was riding against traffic when I were taking a right hand turn, thankfully I was a bit more attentive that night). There are many other reasons why riding a bike in a road against traffic is just a bad idea™.
A friend of mine is against the community center that is/may be built near "Ground Zero", not because of the pain it would inflict upon those who survive those who were murdered there but because of the safety of those who will go to that center. He believes that it will unnecessarily cause stress upon others and lead to violence against people who utilize that building.
To me it is still a First Amendment issue, however in the light as a safety issue I feel softened towards the idea of relocating it. If there were maybe some evidence pushing that view then I could be convinced to change my mind.
See, you can change my beliefs with a well reasoned argument and data. It's mostly the hard cold data but a well reasoned argument behind it works better.
in the light as a safety issue I feel softened towards the idea of relocating it. If there were maybe some evidence pushing that view then I could be convinced to change my mind.
I could never stand behind that. Free speech is dangerous. That danger is one of the reasons it's so powerful, and we must protect it against all possible threats. They could voluntarily move it, but at no point should any arm of our government take any action to try and prevent them from keeping it where it was planned to be.
I used to believe that riding a bike against traffic was the safer way to ride a bike. You could see the cars coming at you and get out of the way. It's way scary to have cars come up from behind you, you don't know if they're going to hit you or not.
I then ran into a study(they basically analyzed police reports of accidents involving bicycles and cars over the course of some 10 years and several states) that showed that people who ride against traffic get into more accidents than people who ride with traffic. See the people who ride against traffic are vulnerable against people taking a right onto a road, because the driver isn't looking the direction that cars are not coming from (This almost happened to me a month or two ago, I nearly ran someone over who was riding against traffic when I were taking a right hand turn, thankfully I was a bit more attentive that night). There are many other reasons why riding a bike in a road against traffic is just a bad idea™.
It's illegal to ride against traffic, and always has been in most places. I would have hoped that this was taught in elementary school and driver's ed. No study was necessary, as the danger was obvious and known for decades.
It's illegal to ride against traffic, and always has been in most places.
I just wish that bicycle traffic laws would be enforced. They should have a pickup truck that goes around ticketing cyclists. If they have to take someone's bike, toss it in the truck.
It's illegal to ride against traffic, and always has been in most places. I would have hoped that this was taught in elementary school and driver's ed. No study was necessary, as the danger was obvious and known for decades.
While I agree, and I am uncertain where my initial beliefs came from, a great number of people I know still believe that they know what is best and think that riding against traffic is a good idea, even in the face of an empirical study. I have changed more than a few minds with the data however and actively spread the ideas.
The lack of enforcement of such laws makes me think most people would be completely unaware of them. As for the obviousness of the danger, that I am unsure of, especially in light of my own personal experience.
While I agree, and I am uncertain where my initial beliefs came from, a great number of people I know still believe that they know what is best and think that riding against traffic is a good idea, even in the face of an empirical study. I have changed more than a few minds with the data however and actively spread the ideas.
The lack of enforcement of such laws makes me think most people would be completely unaware of them. As for the obviousness of the danger, that I am unsure of, especially in light of my own personal experience.
If this election has taught me anything it's that the vast majority of people are uninformed idiots. "We want our taxes cut," "we want you to create jobs." "Also we want you to stop deficit spending and reduce the national debt" These are two ideas central to the tea party/fiscal conservative movement that are in direct opposition to each other. The lack of basic algebra skills displayed by the country at large frustrates me to no end. The American people are just retards who want to have their cake and eat it too.
How are those ideas in direct opposition to each other? They are all possible if you cut back spending on govt programs and use more money to pay down the national debt.
If this election has taught me anything it's that the vast majority of people are uninformed idiots. "We want our taxes cut," "we want you to create jobs." "Also we want you to stop deficit spending and reduce the national debt" These are two ideas central to the tea party/fiscal conservative movement that are in direct opposition to each other. The lack of basic algebra skills displayed by the country at large frustrates me to no end. The American people are just retards who want to have their cake and eat it too.
I quite agree. Maybe this is why it is thought that my mind(or anyone's mind really) can't be changed?
If this election has taught me anything it's that the vast majority of people are uninformed idiots. "We want our taxes cut," "we want you to create jobs." "Also we want you to stop deficit spending and reduce the national debt"
Tell me about it. I sat next to a nice Republican Committee man all day, who was complaining about our crumbling infrastructure and jobs being sent to china WHILE at the same time complaining about taxes (while they are the lowest they have ever been).
I don't see last night as a tea-party victory. I see many races that would likely have gone to a Republican candidate that was not from the fringe. The real question in my mind is how many elections were LOST because of the tea-party. Neither party winds independent voters with fringe candidates.
I don't see last night as a tea-party victory. I see many races that would likely have gone to a Republican candidate that was not from the fringe. The real question in my mind is how many elections were LOST because of the tea-party. Neither party winds independent voters with fringe candidates.
I think it went both ways a little. The tea party helped to fuel the rage aimed at Democrats which lost them some votes, after all. Not that I'm complaining about the damage they did to Republican wins.
Tell me about it. I sat next to a nice Republican Committee man all day, who was complaining about our crumbling infrastructure and jobs being sent to china WHILE at the same time complaining about taxes (while they are the lowest they have ever been).
I know, how can they not understand that creating jobs and cutting taxes are both deficit increasing propositions. I mean it's nice to say that they plan to cut enough gov't spending to cover the tax cuts and reduce the debt, but the reality is much more difficult. I mean all I've heard so far is a cut in discretionary spending and that's only 8%, not nearly enough to close the budget shortfall.
This isn't that hard to understand. Do you not understand the position or do you simply disagree with it?
I disagree with some of it. I agree that we need to pay down the deficit. I disagree that it should be done by cutting taxes and cutting programs. I enjoy the public roads, schools, police, fire fighters, and more. I enjoy that we have the largest military in the world. I enjoy all that my taxes pay for.
To me it seems that we are already spending more money than we have. Cutting taxes reduces that further such that our deficit will be larger. To counter act that you must cut public programs.
What should we cut? Public Schools? Then we will fall farther behind other nations in an educated workforce and our economic position will suffer even more. Medicare? Leave our elderly with out this safety net? If I recall correctly this is one of, if not the, largest growing expenditures the government funds. Social Security? I am not counting of receiving this anyways so sure, lets do away with it! Except that it would leave all the Baby Boomers who are retiring now in a bit of a lurch. Defense? Well I guess we could take this down a few notches. Farm Subsidies? Stop paying farmers to keep a static price for food! Can we get behind this even if it means more farmers would go out of business?
What should it be? I try to be as educated about this as I can but beyond such rudimentary ideas I am at a loss, our government does quite a few things for us. Just saying "Cut Taxes and cut spending and pay down the deficit" sounds too much like vague hand waving.
After all that I am okay with raising taxes to pay down the deficit. I have no problem with giving money to the government for the enrichment of society as a whole. I willingly and actively serve on juries when called. I pay all my taxes with no complaint. I vote in every election. I look up voting records for current politicians.
The only way creating jobs increases the deficit is if they are public sector jobs. Private sector jobs do not increase deficits. If they increase anything it would be tax revenue that increases because employeed people pay taxes.
To me the tea party is a group of people that know exactly what they want, but have no clue what goes into accomplishing it or what the side-effects of doing it are. Giving them power is problematic because at best they simply fail to accomplish it, and at worst they fuck everything up to the core.
What bothers me is that our biggest actual expenses are care for the elderly and defense. The people most against government spending are by and large dependent on the former and strong advocates of the latter.
What bothers me is that our biggest actual expenses are care for the elderly and defense. The people most against government spending are by and large dependent on the former and strong advocates of the latter.
Solution: Get rid of the old people.
Seriously, if we get rid of the old people (ship em off to new zealand or something), we'll only have young people. Young people making money and contributing to society, spurring innovation and creativity.
"Debt," pay down the debt. We need to close the budget "deficit." Whenever I hear people talking about "reducing the deficit" I laugh. That's like like saying we need to "slow the bleeding," We don't need to slow it, we need to STOP it.
I guess maybe I am weird?
Yes, very weird, you understand basic alegbra. Congrats, you are in the 98 percentile of the country. :P
"Debt," pay down the debt. We need to close the budget "deficit." Whenever I hear people talking about "reducing the deficit" I laugh. That's like like saying we need to "slow the bleeding," We don't need to slow it, we need to STOP it.
My apologies, like most people I fall into mixing the two up with each other, nothing intentional.
What bothers me is that our biggest actual expenses are care for the elderly and defense. The people most against government spending are by and large dependent on the former and strong advocates of the latter.
Solution: Get rid of the old people.
Seriously, if we get rid of the old people (ship em off to new zealand or something), we'll only have young people. Young people making money and contributing to society, spurring innovation and creativity.
We Need To Get Rid of the Old People.
Logan's Run?
Due to advances in medicine people live longer lives. Some of those folks have enjoyable longer lives while others not so much. Regardless you will one day become one of those old people. How will you feel as an older person when the younger generation wants you dead?
It takes a good 18 years to raise a kid, are your parents not worth at least 18 years of support from you when they get old?
I could really go for some soylent green right about now.
My apologies, like most people I fall into mixing the two up with each other, nothing intentional.
I don't mean to dig into you, I know it's unintentional. But the Republicans say "reduce the deficit" very specifically because people think it's "reduce the debt." I don't want to see people falling into that trap.
The United States military budget is about 40% of global arms spending. We have about 5% of the world's population. Our GDP allows greater spending, but this is still a tremendous undertaking.
The Republicans took control of the House just as districts are about to be redrawn. Bad timing for the Dems, to say the least. This will cost them even more seats.
Due to advances in medicine people live longer lives. Some of those folks have enjoyable longer lives while others not so much. Regardless you will one day become one of those old people. How will you feel as an older person when the younger generation wants you dead?
But, you see, I won't. Because of the ultra hard push of technology and medicine, I will never "Get Old". I will always be a young, progressive, contributing member of society until the day I decide otherwise.
Comments
Also, being a cool old person is much harder than you suspect. I can guarantee that whatever the kids are doing decades from now will seriously make you very afraid, or very concerned for their wellfare, and you will want to ban it. For example, let's say kids are swapping brains. Like, actually trading bodies in mad scientist fashion. I see the vast majority of people wanting to ban it because of the supposed harm to the people doing it, and the danger it poses to society. Just like the people who are trying to fight for privacy right now.
You state the ideals of two, for lack of a better term, labels and then give the impression that this could all be solved just by human charity, even though you admit in the next breath that a number of people won't be charitable at all. And then you make an observation that some people are leeches on purpose and there are others who are leeches through no fault of their own.
What is it that you are trying to say? Are you just idly musing out loud? Am I missing some point?
I then ran into a study(they basically analyzed police reports of accidents involving bicycles and cars over the course of some 10 years and several states) that showed that people who ride against traffic get into more accidents than people who ride with traffic. See the people who ride against traffic are vulnerable against people taking a right onto a road, because the driver isn't looking the direction that cars are not coming from (This almost happened to me a month or two ago, I nearly ran someone over who was riding against traffic when I were taking a right hand turn, thankfully I was a bit more attentive that night). There are many other reasons why riding a bike in a road against traffic is just a bad idea™.
A friend of mine is against the community center that is/may be built near "Ground Zero", not because of the pain it would inflict upon those who survive those who were murdered there but because of the safety of those who will go to that center. He believes that it will unnecessarily cause stress upon others and lead to violence against people who utilize that building.
To me it is still a First Amendment issue, however in the light as a safety issue I feel softened towards the idea of relocating it. If there were maybe some evidence pushing that view then I could be convinced to change my mind.
See, you can change my beliefs with a well reasoned argument and data. It's mostly the hard cold data but a well reasoned argument behind it works better.
It's illegal to ride against traffic, and always has been in most places. I would have hoped that this was taught in elementary school and driver's ed. No study was necessary, as the danger was obvious and known for decades.
The lack of enforcement of such laws makes me think most people would be completely unaware of them. As for the obviousness of the danger, that I am unsure of, especially in light of my own personal experience.
To me it seems that we are already spending more money than we have. Cutting taxes reduces that further such that our deficit will be larger. To counter act that you must cut public programs.
What should we cut?
Public Schools? Then we will fall farther behind other nations in an educated workforce and our economic position will suffer even more.
Medicare? Leave our elderly with out this safety net? If I recall correctly this is one of, if not the, largest growing expenditures the government funds.
Social Security? I am not counting of receiving this anyways so sure, lets do away with it! Except that it would leave all the Baby Boomers who are retiring now in a bit of a lurch.
Defense? Well I guess we could take this down a few notches.
Farm Subsidies? Stop paying farmers to keep a static price for food! Can we get behind this even if it means more farmers would go out of business?
What should it be? I try to be as educated about this as I can but beyond such rudimentary ideas I am at a loss, our government does quite a few things for us. Just saying "Cut Taxes and cut spending and pay down the deficit" sounds too much like vague hand waving.
After all that I am okay with raising taxes to pay down the deficit. I have no problem with giving money to the government for the enrichment of society as a whole. I willingly and actively serve on juries when called. I pay all my taxes with no complaint. I vote in every election. I look up voting records for current politicians.
I guess maybe I am weird?
Seriously, if we get rid of the old people (ship em off to new zealand or something), we'll only have young people. Young people making money and contributing to society, spurring innovation and creativity.
We Need To Get Rid of the Old People.
Due to advances in medicine people live longer lives. Some of those folks have enjoyable longer lives while others not so much. Regardless you will one day become one of those old people. How will you feel as an older person when the younger generation wants you dead?
It takes a good 18 years to raise a kid, are your parents not worth at least 18 years of support from you when they get old?
At which point, I will destroy the world.
Or leave it. You know, something like that.