Yeah yeah, Yogi, all presidents are war criminals...

Personally, in the grassy knoll/confluence of gunshots multiple shooter camp-Also, without too much attention to the exactitude of details that would drive a lesser man than Socrates to slam poison, there was a conspiracy of culprits and LBJ (cock-sucking invalid), knew who the fuck did it and most-likely ordered the hit. If it smells, looks, and tastes like shit, it's an idiot who let's some committee of douchebags convince you otherwise.
This applied doubly for 9/11.

LBJ should go down in history as the filthiest, rudest, asshole ,murdering cuntbag of an American president that ever was. His shit reeks higher than any Bush's...

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

*doublepromote
*quality

I especially liked the bit at the end regarding not breaking the law. Socrates argued basically the same thing in the Euthyphro dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Basically, a rule's (law's) quality comes from within itself. It's either of good quality or inferior based on it's own merits. Furthermore, someone saying that a rule is a good rule does guarantee the quality of the rule; even if that someone is a god.

We have these laws allowing our government to do what they've done, but, regardless of constitutionality, we need the public to ask questions about whether what was done here was right for the citizens of the U.S.

Bottom line for me, the public can't ask questions when everything's been rubber stamped "CLASSIFIED." Thank goodness for whistleblowers and the sacrifice they make to bring things like this to light.

Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please
Even if in winter things tend to freeze
We've got the world monopoly on trees
And our country's bordered by three different seas

Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please
We invented the zipper, we've got expertise
We made insulin to combat disease
Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please

♫ Brits have got the monarchy
The US has the money
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The French have got the wine and cheese
Koalas chill with the Aussies
But I know that you wanna be Canadian ♫

Et si ce n'était pas assez
On a deux langues officielles:
L'anglais et le français
Ooh la la

Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please
Where else do you find mounted police
Or go to the hospital and not pay fees
Yeah I know that you wanna be Canadian, please

And when freshwater is in high demand
We've got the world's largest supply on hand
So you know that we could make a pretty good friend
But it's even better if you can be...

♫ Brits have got the monarchy
The US has the money
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The French have got the wine and cheese
Koalas chill with the Aussies
But I know that you wanna be Canadian ♫

So you're thinking to yourself,
"How do I live in this beautiful country?"
Well we've got some steps for you to follow...

STEP 1: Lose the gun
STEP 2: Buy a canoe
STEP 3: Live multiculturally
STEP 4: You're ready, there is no more!

We got beavers, caribou and moose
We got buffalos, bears, and Canadian goose
And we're sorry about Celine Dion
But she did do that good song for James Cameron...

♫ Brits have got the monarchy
The US has the money
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The French have got the wine and cheese
Koalas chill with the Aussies
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

The Greek chilled out with Socrates
Can't build a wall like the Chinese
But I know that you wanna be Canadian

In Kenya they have safaris
We've missed lots of other countries
But I know that you wanna be Canadian ♫ ♫

You saw sagacious Solomon
You know what came of him,
To him complexities seemed plain.
He cursed the hour that gave birth to him
And saw that everything was vain.
How great and wise was Solomon.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's wisdom that had brought him to this state.
How fortunate the man with none.
You saw courageous Caesar next
You know what he became.
They deified him in his life
Then had him murdered just the same.
And as they raised the fatal knife
How loud he cried: you too my son!
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's courage that had brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.
You heard of honest Socrates
The man who never lied:
They weren't so grateful as you'd think
Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried
And handed him the poisoned drink.
How honest was the people's noble son.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's honesty that brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.
Here you can see respectable folk
Keeping to God's own laws.
So far he hasn't taken heed.
You who sit safe and warm indoors
Help to relieve our bitter need.
How virtuously we had begun.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's fear of god that brought us to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.

.. in that book Plato wrote.
>> ^Trancecoach:
P.S. Plato didn't say "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates did.

I have and will again.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Life's too short to waste it on crap like Jersey Girl. I want my hour(s) back!
P.S. Plato didn't say "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates did.

Wow you're a genius, you should write and direct movies.

Life's too short to waste it on crap like Jersey Girl. I want my hour(s) back!

P.S. Plato didn't say "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates did.

@kymbos a little gossip isn't so bad now and again. In fact, it's likely programmed into our genes to be gossipy. That said, there's nothing I find particularly wrong with a curiosity about what motivates certain individuals.

Sure we'll never know with absolute certainty all of the inner workings of Steve Jobs' mind (as you pointed out), but analyzing his life and behavior will surely grant some insights about what kind of person he was and in turn how said personality reflects humanity as a whole.

I don't appreciate your "I will never know" approach here. I doubt you'd have much support among people who study Shakespeare for that idea. And as much as it makes me twitch to admit it, even studying the life of someone as lavishly ignorant as 'Snooki' would bear fruits of wisdom in the right intellectual climate. I'm not saying you have to care about him or his life, but there is always something to be gained by studying and discussion.

"An unexamined life is not worth living" as Socrates would say. Are there reasons you didn't mention for why you are suggesting the discussion should end?

>> ^notarobot:

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.



I think your right on many of the questions towards the end, but the Socratic method still allows you to be stupefied by the answer...even if it is known

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.

Jesus and Robin Hood and Socrates, and any other popular figures from more than a couple of centuries ago, have their existence/non existence blurred with legends, stories and all sorts of stupid demented bullshit to the point where no one really knows what the story is. Anyone who claims to is lying.

You take the good stuff and kind of hope they were like that. Christianity is the selective filtering of some ancient stories from an uneducated diseased fearful superstitious population of people who rarely lived past 35, warped to suit the morality and power structure of a succession of morally dubious civilisations in which the ones with the big hats claiming to know more about what 'god' thinks are invariably FAR more like the self righteous fat ruling class who had Jeebs nailed up. If that actually happened. I mean , if Jeebs was real enough to drive a nail through - they certainly nailed up thousands in that time.

I mean what about the pope/nuns/monks/water into wine etc etc? That's not in the bible. People add, and remove, whatever they want to suit their purpose. They don't seem to be afraid of retribution for it, so either they have a HUGE ego (god will agree with me!) or they don't really believe in any of that shit. The pope sure as hell doesn't, or he'd clean up the Vatican bank sharpish.

Shiny may be bonkers but at least he's not wearing a silly hat in a golden city tricked from the poor and desperate, shouting at Africans that the fantasy god he has violently imposed on them will hate them for using Jonnies to stop Aids.



>> ^hpqp:

Well considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.

@hpqp I think the Iliad is a perfect reference to how the Greeks vied the role of the Gods in war. To your end, though, people like Plato actually spoke against the Gods and called them "bad influences", and old wife's tails. Mainly, what I speak to is the any difference, no matter how small, can be used as a rallying cry. A Sparta might say "Let's go kill some Athenan bastards!" Reading history from that time is really hard, as the historians were less about telling "facts" and more about telling stories, about convoying the feeling of the day. In that, from my readings of the ancient historians, it was also a lingering justification.

Edit: O ya, and I forgot to mention, Socrates was put to death for "Corrupting the youth from the teachings of the Gods". That has to count for something!

I don't hear voices. God makes Himself known plainly, as He has made Himself known to you:

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Ha!
When Socrates hears voices, it's because of a demon. But when Shiny hears voices, it's the unadulterated word of god.