Kamisutra wrote:You're watching the anime with blatant lack of effort
RuffDraft wrote:I can personally attest that I have come across people who think it is the government's duty to give them things that they haven't earned at the expense of someone else and they think they deserve it. And if I tell those same people that they don't deserve it and to expect it is nothing short of greed, they lambast me with insults, attacking me instead of my argument, and calling me things like "stupid," "uneducated," and even one time, "evil."
If he's self-aggrandizing, he's doing it with the truth.
Those people did not make the technology for the sake of making the technology, otherwise they would offer it for nothing. They hoped that others would buy it and help them turn a profit.Sentios wrote:All the technology in your entire life is built upon the legacy and work of countless before you, you didn't put in equivalent work to that so you don't deserve any of it.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that when you buy something, the outcome is merely that someone else ceases to own it? The alternative is you take it and give nothing in return, which is stealing. If someone gives something away without expecting anything in return, that's charity.Sentios wrote:The idea that a ownership expires is as arbitrary as the idea that they never existed at all.
Then who would you say is to blame for someone being poor? And are you saying that's the case in every instance where someone is poor, or that some people are poor because of something they did to themselves, and some people are poor because of what others did to them? And how do you know those people exist?Sentios wrote:You're right it's not the government's duty to help the poor, as it's preposterous that people are poor in the first place.
Could you outline the strawmen in that video? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have heard people call valid arguments strawmen before because they think that the premise of the argument isn't valid (an example of this is when "A" calls the Tea Party racist, "B" says they're only calling the Tea Party racist because they don't agree with a black man's policies (regardless of what those policies may be), and then "C" calls "B"'s argument a strawman without knowing why "A" is actually calling the Tea Party racist. And by the way, this exact scenario has happened to me as well).Whatis6times9 wrote:I can't see the truth of something that is built on attacking strawmen.
Kamisutra wrote:You're watching the anime with blatant lack of effort
RuffDraft wrote:Those people did not make the technology for the sake of making the technology, otherwise they would offer it for nothing. They hoped that others would buy it and help them turn a profit.
I have a job. I work and earn an income; I'm not doing the same thing they are but I'm still working. Then I use the money that I receive for my labor and use it to buy their goods or services. In buying their goods or services, I have entered what is essentially a short-term contract with those people and helped them accomplish what they set out to do--turn a profit. I have done my part and I have earned it.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that when you buy something, the outcome is merely that someone else ceases to own it? The alternative is you take it and give nothing in return, which is stealing. If someone gives something away without expecting anything in return, that's charity.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to point out by saying that.
Then who would you say is to blame for someone being poor? And are you saying that's the case in every instance where someone is poor, or that some people are poor because of something they did to themselves, and some people are poor because of what others did to them? And how do you know those people exist?
The liberals will ignore the situations where conservative values have merit
I question this. How exactly do I benefit from the fact that Newton discovered these laws? They existed before he discovered them. Discovering them did not change them. Granted, it was important that he wrote his thesis on it and it's great and everything, but I'm not sure that I exactly "benefit" from that.Sentios wrote:Newton for example did not discover the laws of motion in hopes that he could make money he discovered them to answer a curiosity; yet you benefit from that work everyday without contributing an equal value.
No one's saying that. As I said, how far does it go? Does it go until that person dies? Does it go until he transfers his intellectual property to another holder or recipient? Does it go until they sell their blueprints, formula, plans, schematics or whatever to another company for mass-production? Or do we have to keep on paying their decedents indefinitely, like a tithe enabling us to benefit from their machinations until the end of time?Sentios wrote: You should owe compensation to all those inventors and discovers yet you don't because an idea that their ownership expires is accepted. However that idea is arbitrary. You say people are entitled to something when it's convenient for you and they aren't when it's inconvenient for you.
Well, if you go to school and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to become a doctor, that's your prerogative, but it's not a right, and you have to pay for it yourself. If you can apply your skills and save lives or cure the sickly or injured, you deserves to be compensated for your services, which is why you go to school to learn a skill in the first place. There are certain costs involved in being a doctor; supplies, drugs, equipment, etc. Those prices are built into how much it costs for someone to be treated for a certain disease. Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls. Insurance is a solution to rising medical costs. You and thousands if not millions of others pool your money so that if one of you is deathly sick there is enough money to help you. The reason Conservatives in America don't want to have the Government subsidizing health care is two-fold: First, because it's not a guarantee by the Constitution; Second, if health care becomes subsidized, everyone will want to take advantage of this new government program, even those who could realistically afford it themselves, and the costs will skyrocket and be passed on to the government. At that point, government will try to cut costs, and the fear is that they would do that by denying health care to people. Democrats say that won't happen, but we've seen it happen in the past, and that's what we want to avoid.Sentios wrote:Shifting away from philosophy for a moment; in a nation where people pay taxes the government has a responsibility to ensure their well being to protect their life and liberty. Medical care is a logical extension of that. It's ironic that American politicians are so against paying for preventative medical care with tax dollars when they're so eager to take 'preventive' military action.
How "rich" are we talking here? Are you talking about people that make upwards of $60K per year? Would you please define that a little better?Sentios wrote:As for poor people, wealth is largely relative. Even using market mechanics it's understandable that the rich create the poor; because the rich exist and have higher purchasing power the prices are more resistant to falling to a level affordable by people with lower purchasing power. Prices only fall when the rich are no longer willing to buy a product, typically because something newer or better comes out.
I was referring to his Laws of Motion. I went on to sayInnocence Abandoned wrote:Ruff, as much as the rest of this thread leaves me feeling neutral, and regardless of the validity of the points made on both sides of the argument, as a physics student I am appalled by your lack of knowledge pertaining to Sir Isaac Newton's work and the applications of his findings. And no, his work is not something only physics students need to be familiar with. If you had any idea how much his discoveries influenced the development of the technology that you use every day, you would be sure if you personally exactly "benefit" or not from it.
I am not saying that nothing he did was beneficial. I was only referring to the fact that "discovering" motion and writing the thesis on the Laws of Motion did not "change" the laws themselves, and that doesn't directly benefit anything I do. Does that make more sense?RuffDraft wrote:Now that said, Newton's work, as a whole, benefited all of mankind.
I see I've struck a nerve. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone or anything. But my question is, how exactly did the Laws of Motion allow the production of modern day technology?Innocence Abandoned wrote:No.
He didn't discover motion, and he didn't change the laws. He discovered the laws, which set the foundations for classical mechanics as we know them. It directly benefits you by allowing you the benefit of owning just about every piece of modern day technology you possess without it being nonexistent. But please carry on with your political debates, they're much more important than belittling the discoveries of the most influential scientist of the 17th century.
All of that does play a part in it. Do you have an idea to make preventative care more affordable? How about for those with preexisting conditions? Is there perhaps something other than insurance they could opt into? Maybe a charity that tries to get support from the general public for people that can't afford it? There are more solutions than just demanding the government step in.Whatis6times9 wrote:But the rising cost of medical treatment could be tied to the increase in the cost of drugs, the increase in the number of people who can't afford to pay passing the costs along to the people who can or they couldn't get health insurance because of the pre-existing condition exclusion, the number of people who can't afford to get preventive care for a instead wait until they need to be hospitalized for it, the amount of money exchanging in malpractice cases.
Except that when we invaded Iraq, we were expecting to have to push the surge for months, and we did it in about a week.Whatis6times9 wrote:As far as Iran goes maybe we should wait long enough to actually get an invasion force large enough to control shit. We had a hard enough time with the Second Gulf war and pretty much going it alone.
Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls.
As for "preventive" military action, perhaps you can explain what our response should be when intelligence suggests that Iran may be developing a nuclear weapon and could intend to use it on us or one of our allies, such as Israel? Should we just wait until a couple thousand people die and then act, or should we strike first if we believe it is necessary to prevent that?
The rich do not create the poor. If anything the poor create the rich. If a poor person has an idea and he gets a group of people together to help him actualize it, they pool their resources and eventually create a product that is mass-producible, and everyone likes it and buys it, that group of people is now richer than the people that bought from them. This is what happened with Microsoft and Apple, as well as Wal-Mart, Johnson and Johnson, and practically every company in existence today.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. Do you think gasoline prices are high because oil companies are just maximizing their profits? Exxon Mobil made approximately $45 billion in 2009, but their profit margin was only about 9%. If what you were saying was true, their profits would have been above what they paid in taxes, which was about $116 billion in that year.Sentios wrote:Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls.
This is just the same old, incorrect rhetoric. High prices exist because businesses think if they are entitled to how ever much compensation they want for their goods/services.
I recommend you do a search for how much money spent on education has increased, versus how test scores have fared. To summarize, education spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s, and test scores have remained flat. There is no correlation between the two.Sentios wrote:The cost of schooling for example went up when the government started investing money so people could get an education, ya know investing in the future of the nation. Schools decided they wanted to get more money per student rather than have more students and thus the prices have gone up astronomically.
If that's the case, do you have a solution to cut costs?
Our most worthless ally? Do you understand how outraged that single comment makes me? Israel is not any manner of worthless. If anything they're the best, freest, and most Democratic nation in the entire Middle East. They've been trying to make peace with their neighbors Since 1948 (the year Israel was created by the UN). They've been attacked over and over by countries that have sworn to erase their existence if it's the last thing they do. Despite this, Israel has kicked butt and even offered to give back the land they acquired through completely legal pre-emptive strikes.Sentios wrote:Your response when a figment of your imagination is about to be used on your most worthless ally should be to do nothing.
This too fills me with outrage, but for a different reason. What you're telling me is literally that you would favor the rights a murderer over that of a victim. If A has B at gunpoint and a reasonable person (C) would conclude that A is going to kill B, C has an obligation to do what he feels is necessary to prevent A from killing B, even if it means killing A first.Sentios wrote:Also the choice your actually talking about is wait for a couple thousand people to die or kill a hundred thousand people first. You aren't preventing deaths, you're going 'me first, me first'.
Of course it does. If they are no longer poor, then by the definition you just posed, they are now rich. They have become rich. How is that not exactly what you're saying?Sentos wrote:That would be an example of how one could get out of being poor (though very text book, oversimplified, and wishful) that does not create the distinction between the poor and the rich.
But, didn't you just get through telling me that I owe more to people who helped make the technology that I utilize today? Now you seem to be saying that it's bad if rich people do just that?Sentios wrote:If I define the poor as those who have to wait decades before being able to afford the newest technologies then it's exactly as I explained. The rich will buy a good while the price is high and thus the price won't drop until it's lost the novelty it had, in essence feeding the poor cold table scraps. Today almost everyone has a refrigerator, rich or poor, but there was a significant delay in that occurring from their inception and that is what causes the ill effects associated with being poor.
This would mean that some people would get it for "free," at the expense of someone else, who would have to pay for those people to get it "free," as well as for themselves.
And if you ask them, they suggest that the government pays for it (instead of them paying for it themselves), which means they think it should be guaranteed, which it isn't and can't be.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. Do you think gasoline prices are high because oil companies are just maximizing their profits? Exxon Mobil made approximately $45 billion in 2009, but their profit margin was only about 9%. If what you were saying was true, their profits would have been above what they paid in taxes, which was about $116 billion in that year.
They don't force people to buy them.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests