demon_ix :"Job requirements: The officer must be able to extend warm embraces to complete strangers in order to persuade them to not chuck the free helmet after they turn the corner. In extreme cases, promise Cake."

The cake is a lie.

"Job requirements: The officer must be able to extend warm embraces to complete strangers in order to persuade them to not chuck the free helmet after they turn the corner. In extreme cases, promise Cake."

of course i know what you're saying, but newtonian physics is WAY closer to predicting the effects of gravity than economics is to predicting consumer behaviour.

broadly speaking, i think all the people "guessing and praying" are the ones using their instincts and talents to smell out future opportunities. They are comfortable with the idea of marketing as an art (as opposed to a science). Some people win by lucky guesses, and that's ok. But.... the people "Researching" are just looking for some voodoo numbers to show the board of directors to back up their hunch. Or in extreme cases such as industrial food, they are researching how to trick people into buying utter shit (and that's just not nice, even if it is profitable).

and my point was, if you refined the model so well that it could predict fashions, then fashion itself would change, as if to deliberatly thwart your model. so why chase your own tail like that? why not research "talent" instead and encourage that instead of insisting everything is turned into a statistic?

in most arguments i have with "Scientists" it comes down to them saying "yes but science is always refining the model" as an excuse for all failure.

it just reminds me of how the war in iraq was "refined" over time.

Depends on which economists you ask. There are a lot of economists who object on ethical grounds, in much the same way medical scientists object to certain human trials. That is, they dismiss the "how" because they answer no to the philosophical question, "should we permit copyright law?"

Copyrights, in effect, grant the holder partial control (ownership) of the property of other people. If I own a canvas and paint, and you own a copyright for an image, then you also own a part of my canvas and paint. You get to tell me what I can and can't do with it in the privacy of my own home.

If you can imagine an extreme case, where all images are copyrighted, then I could not legally paint on my own canvas.

In reply to this comment by MINK
The economists solution is to make copyright laws that try to give an artist some kind of mechanism to monetize his work... but i think if you do a survey among artists about copyright laws you will find some interesting, confusing, and puzzling responses.

What conversation is here, is better than the clip from Fox and Friends that raises these kinds of silly aspersions.

First we need to point out that McCain's $5000 refundable tax credit for "healthcare" would work in much the same way. It's $5k into the pockets of people who aren't paying any taxes at all. McCain is clearly the socialist here.

I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy.

There are two schools of thought about what makes an economy grow. Conservatives say that lessening government spending, and making sure that the rich bear less tax burden is the best/only way to create jobs.

The other school of thought is that more money in the hands of the lower & middle class creates more demand, and more lucrative possibilities for the rich to invest in -- only now they have to cater to the desires of the people of the lower/middle classes, instead of whatever the investor class feels like doing (like Credit Default Swaps, say).

Additionally, there's a dual benefit to government spending -- short term, it creates jobs, and pumps money into the economy, just like any other kind of spending. The other is that government can invest in things that have very long-term returns, like improved education, environmental protection, and improved infrastructure. In the short run, they can create deficits, but in the long run they make us all more wealthy as private industry takes advantage of the fruits of that public infrastructure (like with the Interstate Highways program).

Finally, we have an enormous national debt, largely created by Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Dubyah Bush. Now isn't a good time to try to pay it down, but tax increases are guaranteed during our lifetimes, and it's better they happen sooner rather than later. When it comes to asking who should pay those increased taxes, do you really think the poorest people should be asked to give the same portion as the people who've taken the lion's share of the growth over the last decade?

I get the argument that conservatives make, I just think, like theaceofclubz said, there's diminishing returns.

Think of the extreme case, the elimination of all income tax. Will that increase tax revenue? Certainly 100% tax would be similarly fruitless. I think Bush cut taxes to a level below the optimal level. Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K.

I also think companies are too shortsighted with how they invest their money, so government programs can do things that corporations won't, because the ROI would take decades, or worse, might not produce a direct return for them.

>> ^gwiz665:
Progressive tax is the only "fair" tax you can make. A flatlined tax would be deeply unfair.


If by "fair" you mean "level the playing field" ideas of taxes. States with sales taxes work very well and are "flat". Flat taxes make since in all but only the most extreme cases of poverty, there are always rules of exception with anything and those can be worked out with certain special case stuff. But the bulk of America would benifit from a flat taxes.

I don't see how taking more money from someone because they have more is fair at all though. The only cases I see it being unfair is for those who truely poor beyond all ablilty to exist, but once again, that is a minority of the people in the US. It doesn't make since to make a tax code based on the rules of exception, be that rich or poor.

Anyway, did you think her hair was odd? If she is a blond, then I am a world renoun tax lawyer.

Well, I suppose we need people like joedirt to be paranoid about these kinds of things. You are making most of your statements off of the assumption that everyone involved has ill intent and basically are picturing worst case fictional scenarios. Like soldiers running the streets subduing the general populace. That wasn't the point of the article at all. This is a result of inquiries into Katrina response problems and complaints that the National Guard was not enough for such extreme cases. I'll definitely find out more as time goes on since I still talk to everyone in my old unit, but the possibility of being used for anything other than emergency disaster relief has not even come up with them. In fact, they were told specifically that this was in response to recent failings in hurricane response and that they were getting ready at the time in case any serious problems arose when Ike hit. As far as the Constitution is concerned, if you can point to the article or amendment which covers active duty soldiers helping with disaster relief that would help some. All that I have ever seen regarding that is the 3rd Amendment which prohibits the quartering of soldiers without consent. The Army can be deployed for disaster relief without violating any constitutional rights, and they have done so already in the past.

>> ^imstellar28:
although we might have to use hand gestures (a form of non-verbal language)

So by which hand motion do I clearly undertake a contractual obligation to hold the rope? Gesture is just an extreme case of language which shows the inherent vagueness in communication. How is the clear, predictable activity of a fetus not just as clear a communication of it's intent? On what grounds do you disregard it's action, but consider the waving of my hand an unambiguous indication of mine.

Here is the biological definition: ...

I understand the words definition, I am challenging your understanding of the word as it applies to reality, where the lines are not as clean as you appear to need for your arguments to hold.

Sentience ... can be clearly defined.

If you can do so without resorting to circular definitions, I would be happy to hear it.
sentient -> mankind -> sentient ... seems a bit strained.

Given an arbitrary object, how do you test it for sentience, make sure your test works for humans passed out cold in a drunken stupor.

^You have the inalienable rights to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to choose whether you live or die unless you sacrifice that right by committing a serious crime or unless someone takes that right from you by murder or war. The right to choose to live is FAR greater and more significant than the right to convenience and financial security.

Also, I don't know where you're getting your data on animals, but it's bunk, TONS of animals are born without the full capacity to survive on their own. Think of as many animals as you can and count. You'll find a great deal of them require care after birth/hatching. I'll make a short list. ALL birds, all primates, and ALL mammals. (All mammals statement is pending review).

You say you can be only either pro-liberty or anti-abortion. I say pro-liberty and anti-abortion are synonymous. The child's liberty is forfeit when it is killed. What can be more selfish than ending a life for convenience? Those who abort a child because of incest or rape I can understand even if I don't like it, but abortions of convenience are detestable to me and about 45% of this nation. But even in extreme cases, the mother should at least consider taking the child to term and offering it up for adoption. Again I say, I've never met an adopted person who regrets life and I've known several. And, if they did, they have the choice of ending their lives when they see fit. No one has ever been able to argue against this point to me. No one.

In addition, some abortions performed by Planned Parenthood have been confirmed to be "induced birth" abortions where the birth of the child is induced chemically, then the child is left to die on its own afterward. FFS. That is murder! You might as well throw the baby in the dumpster. More pre-mature babies have been born and survived! JEEZ!

The only comfort I can imagine in all this is the Christian belief that children under the "age of accountability" who kick the bucket get a free ticket to be with God forever.

>> ^gwiz665:
^Haha, never been called genocidal before, but sure why not. I'm just fed up. I doubt that this could ever happen, and I don't really think it should. Genocide is never the answer.
I know quite a bit about islamic culture and I have little sympathy for it (hmm, I just mean Islam, not the surrounding culture: arts, music etc). If I could purge the religion without harming the people, I would. Religion is foolish, vicious and evil.
Lately Islam is the center of attention, but Christianity is equally foolish and in extreme cases exactly as vicious and evil. For some reason "main stream" Islam is still waaay more extreme than main stream Christianity.
I think that with the current US government we could easily see a wipe-out of Afghanistan, if a westerner had been in that situation. Hell, I could see them letting a westerner get stoned to get us into war (or rather a bigger war than the current) there, if only there had also been oil.


I actually wasn't talking about reading up on Islamic culture, I was talking about reading up on the complex interactions between societies, as well as the the history, motivations, and current and past consequences of our foreign policy in the middle east.

^Haha, never been called genocidal before, but sure why not. I'm just fed up. I doubt that this could ever happen, and I don't really think it should. Genocide is never the answer.

I know quite a bit about islamic culture and I have little sympathy for it (hmm, I just mean Islam, not the surrounding culture: arts, music etc). If I could purge the religion without harming the people, I would. Religion is foolish, vicious and evil.

Lately Islam is the center of attention, but Christianity is equally foolish and in extreme cases exactly as vicious and evil. For some reason "main stream" Islam is still waaay more extreme than main stream Christianity.

I think that with the current US government we could easily see a wipe-out of Afghanistan, if a westerner had been in that situation. Hell, I could see them letting a westerner get stoned to get us into war (or rather a bigger war than the current) there, if only there had also been oil.

"On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have the courage
to hold myself and others
accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the Constitution,
the community,
and the agency I serve,
so help me God."

http://tinyurl.com/6r6n97

After a year of asset protection I have never ever had to lay into some one. Asset protection is basically a private police officer, but I never exercise my duty outside of my jurisdiction. I am no longer in asset protection.

And if we did, it was Assault and Battery. On extreme cases conspiracy to commit.

He said "Back Up Bitch," and then smashed her. Out of line, out of control and completely fucked.

You never ever lay a hand on a private citizen like that, you take them by the arm and tell them they are under arrest for disobeying an officer of the law. That is the law, you cannot ever harm a private citizen, no matter how much of an asshole they are being.

Officers of the law have to tell a citizen why they are being arrested, no matter what. If they don't it is false imprisonment. The bill of rights requires it. Now before we scream about how she was going on and egging him on, thats exactly what he should not have done to her. Read my bold comment.

This is bullshit, just like that guy who decked the bike rider, same shit different place.

If I cant do that in my line of work then they cant either we are all governed by the same laws, that we swore to uphold.

>> ^gwiz665:
Evil does not exist. Good does not exist either.
Actions can have relative properties, which can be evil or good, but these properties are all relative to every single individual. Evil and Good are absolutes, absolutes like these do not exist. Absolutes are for simple minds.

>> ^Xax:
So Hitler wasn't evil? Child rape isn't evil? I don't see any room for relativism there.


Someone who truly believes in the superiority of the Aryan race likely sees Hitler as a hero. Likewise, someone who believes in the absolute authority of elders or someone who believes all people must fend for themselves regardless of circumstance may not think child rape is inherently evil. These viewpoints are not dominant right now, but they surely exist.

Besides, even taking a more mainstream view of morality doesn't guarantee absolute good or evil. It's possible that Hitler's holocaust killed someone that would have been even worse before they could come into their power. It's possible that someone who rapes a child gets prosecuted and incarcerated for it, making it impossible to develop into the mass murderer hiding within them only a few months down the road. These are long shots, but you cited a couple of pretty extreme cases.

People and societies seem to settle into a set of "correct" values, so we all have something to work from. Once we decide our values are absolute, however, we cut ourselves off from those people holding opposing viewpoints.

>> ^Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.


So, you're suggesting you would like the school of your children to whack them in the butt with a paddle? I'm sure glad you weren't my parent. I'm not wholly against the odd smack FROM A PARENT when the situation warrants it, but:
a) It should be done in extreme moderation and only in extreme cases where the child really, really needs to remember how bad the thing they did was.
&
b) It is the PARENT'S choice, in any given moment. I would never want some detached teacher deciding that some puny 'wrong' deserved getting their butt whacked with a paddle. Give them detention, make them write out lines, make them apologize to whoever they did the wrong to, but do not inflict physical harm on my child.

I don't understand how you're trying to shoot him down either? What are you trying to say is the source of our ethical decisions? Are you saying, "well, some people a long time ago wrote down these things, so let's just follow them blindly because... well, we'd rather not have to think about or discuss it ourselves, that requires too much damn thought, and we have better things to do, like bashing gays." Or are you saying "We should seek to better pick and chose which parts of the bible to believe in?" Because if you are, how is that any better than starting with a blank slate? If you're going to discuss and work out what parts out of a text you are going to follow, then why even have the damn thing in the first place?

And if you're going to follow it fully then you're going to be completely contradictory and also an incredibly violent person. (Check out this sift to see the problems with trying to actually follow the bible for a year)

You seem so against norms changing over time, so you are, then, FOR slavery? FOR stoning to death for a myriad of crimes? Really, your position is by FAR the more untenable.

I'm not anti-porn; I'm anti-porn in relationships. I agree with gorgonheap 100%. Porn is destructive to healthy relationships. I realize most of the guys on this site are porn connoisseurs and don't want to hear it. However, if you look at the research, you might be in for a surprise. From a 2004 Time article:

"[Psychologist] Mark Schwartz, director of the Masters and Johnson clinic in St. Louis, Mo., says porn not only causes men to objectify women—seeing them as an assemblage of breasts, legs and buttocks—but also leads to a dependency on visual imagery for arousal."

And I realize you [generalization] don't care for the site that thepinky references, but please just take a look at the quotes on this site. The last three are quotes from a book and from a researcher. I understand they're not what you want to hear, and you might think they're extreme cases - the second quote from a wife of a porn user certainly is. I have heard complaints similar to the ones Ana Bridges identifies. Women don't want to think their significant other is thinking about anyone but them when they're doing the deed. Use of pornography gets a lot of women second-guessing.

Dr. Phil has a message board dedicated to women whose lives and marriages have been torn apart because of porn. One woman: "...laying in bed hurt because he would rather be on the computer. Before porn I never found myself alone at bedtime." This is an excerpt from a great message from a women... I wish I could link to the individual messages.

"These days, if you're anti-porn, you're called "insecure" and "behind the times". I assure you it is because I HAVE self esteem that I'm anti-porn. These men are deluding themselves about what they're actually witnessing. It's all an ACT. It's PRETEND. And maybe that's just what they want...pretend sex. I have been through the whole porn thing with my ex...whom I was married to for over 20 years. I understand the pain of being lied to...and substitued. Porn IS a substitute...and if they don't think so, they're in denial about the whole thing. What better way for a man (or woman) to come home from a long hard day, and that night have a wonderfully emotional loving experience with the woman he professes to love?

...[hypothetical situation to another poster on the board] If he were the jealous sort, and his wife loved innocent, harmless flirting...yet it caused him considerable pain, isn't that along the same lines? HE would be asking her to stop doing something that *she* loved to do. Because it caused him PAIN. I just don't think these men understand the true amount of pain that this causes to the women. It has NOTHING to do with esteem issues."

She goes on, and I think it's a great post, but way too long to quote the entire thing.

For those of you disagreeing with the concept that porn is inherently wrong or bad, I agree to a point. Porn itself doesn't cause problems - porn in a relationship likely will.