I hate to be "that guy" (actually I don't), but what would you do about plumbing fixture waste piping and water connections to the house? How about if you have AC, there's piping that goes from your heat pump to the fan coil in your house. How about GAS connections? Gee that's not dangerous.

I stopped watching this show as soon as they started totally shilling shit. Adam had great reviews for a while and then he did these "Interviews" about "Hot Coming Titles" and it was:


Hard Hitting Questions like:
"Your game is so awesome when is it coming out?"
and
"If you could make your game more awesome what would you do?"
also
"Your game is awesome, wouldn't you agree?"

>> ^marinara:

if I dont have a $50 dollar electric bill, and a $50 dollar a tank of gas, what will i spend my money on?


Conversely, what would you do if your energy bills amounted to a thousand dollars?

>> ^direpickle:

The wording of the questions on this test are skewed to drive most people to the libertarian answers. Pretty much everyone that takes this test ends up libertarian. (It's run by Libertarians).


Oh yeah, the questions are written in such a way that it's hard to take the results of this test too seriously. Lots of questions are definitely trying to skew you in a certain direction, with wording like "would you do so and so, or are you a heartless asshole?"

>> ^longde:

What motivated you to caucus and would you do it again? I assume from your comments you would not.>> ^Crosswords:
I caucused once, it was a complete cluster fuck and completely open to corruption. I also find it hilarious that Republicans are always bitching that democrats cheat, and yet here in their own party is some pretty blatant cheating. Those with a guilty conscience are more likely to think others are guilty too.



Lets see, there was the general lack of nobody knowing what was going on, the drunk guy getting in a shouting match with the only person who seemed to have any idea of what was going on, waiting a long time for an election official that never showed up. A lot of potential, mostly young, voters left before voting occurred because of all the above. The lack of anonymity on voting, seemed to have an obvious effect on many people's vote, as some obviously felt pressured when they weren't in the majority, or they saw someone they knew voting opposite of them. I don't remember exactly how votes were done, I do remember we all went into our separate camps, then there was a show of hands for candidates, then a piece of paper was passed around for people to sign for which candidate they voted for. Then we voted on some other measures, and then potential delegates were selected. There was no security to the voting, just a guy with the pad of paper our names got written on, that and the general sense of people not having a clue wtf was going on.

I would probably be unlikely to go to one again, but you never know.

What motivated you to caucus and would you do it again? I assume from your comments you would not.>> ^Crosswords:

I caucused once, it was a complete cluster fuck and completely open to corruption. I also find it hilarious that Republicans are always bitching that democrats cheat, and yet here in their own party is some pretty blatant cheating. Those with a guilty conscience are more likely to think others are guilty too.

If we care about quality, and I'm not saying we do, we shouldn't allow people to kill and repost videos that didn't get the hot start they were hoping for.

Videos should be posted in the appropriate channels whether they are popular or not.

Comment upvotes should be based on the comment itself, not how you think it could benefit you.

These things can all be done legitimately and that's cool with me but it's sad to think that some people may be doing these things to game the system. If you'll sell out for a little 16x16 icon, what would you do for a real reward?

Sorry, @marinara, that this comment comes off as aimed squarely at you. This sort of thing has always bothered me and there seems to be a lot of users trying to game the system any way they can.

@bcglorf

And i think YOU are guilty of not considering the potentially devastating effects on certain people's lives if we change the law and if you want the law changed then i think you should start there. I don't like putting it like that, "i think you are" - it's confrontational and doesn't lend itself to a decent discussion, but hopefully you'll acknowledge what i'm saying this time if i use your own words.

When did i give you the impression that i am frightened? You've failed to address any of the questions i've asked you, nor do you discuss why my hopefully logical approach to instigating changes to the law is not adequate to you such that you have to label me as frightened. Are you frightened of actually reading my posts?

Understand this - i won't discuss when a life is a life until you answer why i must discuss that first (and only, it seems); if you want to start there then that is fine, but you need to justify it to me if you want me to do it as well. I start where i start because it makes most sense to me. The onus is on you to convince me otherwise.

I didn't suggest any "pro-life arguments", so i have to ask if you're reading my posts. It sounds to me like you are cherry picking the matter in order to push a point, regardless of whether i fit the required mould or not. I'm trying to discuss things with you but you're just accusing me of being frightened or being as foolish as everyone else because i don't first and only consider "when a life is a life". Why would you do that when you're trying to change someone's opinion? I've already said that this very method is gonna get pro-lifers nowhere but perhaps you didn't read that either.

Why is your starting point any better than mine? I can't phrase it any other way. Check my previous posts again (or for the first time?) to see the logic behind my approach. I am a sponge when it comes to new and useful information that can improve my understanding; ask yourself if you have anything you'd like for me to absorb before you accuse me of being frightened or foolish again please

Edit: It's very interesting to me that you accuse me of tugging heart strings (which you still haven't backed up) when you use very emotive language to say:

"Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice."

This coupled with your desire to ignore my attempts at discussion really lead me to believe you're just pushing a pro-life agenda here and not being impartial as you seemingly claim to be. I hope this discussion becomes worth having.

Comment brought forward from @bareboards2 Duped post:

The producers of this beer commercial borrowed a small 150 seat cinema playing a popular film, and filled 148 of its seats with rough-looking, tattooed bikers, leaving only two free seats in the middle of the theater. They then allowed theater management to sell the last pair of tickets to several young couples.

What would you do? Watch till the end. It is good.

>> ^eric3579:

What does he say? I've always wanted to....


Kick a duck up the arse.

If the company policy is no resistance, would that not encourage more robbery? What is the point in having weapons for defence if you're not permitted to use them? Walgreens could have praised his courage but added; "We do not recommend all employees react in this manner. However, it is the individuals choice to defend themselves if they feel their life is threatened." As for some of the comments; it is easy to sit at your desk and site statistics or studies AFTER the fact. Are you seriously saying that in a similar situation you would think; "I should be ok because my chances of getting killed, according to a recent study, are pretty low, or would you do what he did? I hope you never have to find out.

>> ^syncron:

WHHYYY, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???


To feel accepted in a society that would ultimately taunt you and reject you as someone abnormal or just "regular?"

I mean he doesn't have intellect, looks or such. It is sad, but no one would probably even like this guy unless he tried this hard...

WHHYYY, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???

>> ^chilaxe:

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy)

Markets aren't meritocracy.
>> ^chilaxe:

and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else)

Honestly, I don't really know what I'm in favor of. Given all the discussions I have here, I'm pretty sure your conception of "collectivism" differs from mine, and I only have a vague notion of what you're trying to say when you refer to "experientialism." It doesn't matter though, because your parenthetical ascribes a position to me that I have already explicitly disavowed (along with the premise it's based on).
>> ^chilaxe:
It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind

It's no more relevant than talking about the ecological impact of unicorn migration, seeing how meritocracy doesn't exist.
>> ^chilaxe:
(it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends)

Anecdotes aren't data. Especially considering the cognitive biases of the source.
>> ^chilaxe:
"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"
Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on.
I'm asking you to respond to a hypothetical, specifically what would you do if material wealth wasn't connected to how you spent your time? Would you just become a couch potato? Or would you still feel driven to do something worthwhile, because being idle doesn't appeal to you?

I think if you are who you say you are, you'd still choose to do things that are useful and meaningful to society in such a situation. I know I would.

>> ^chilaxe:
I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

Too bad you aren't a rationalist, then.
>> ^chilaxe:
But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests.

Sure it is. Who becomes a janitor because it was their passion? Lots of people get channeled into jobs that don't align with their passions, largely for reasons beyond their control.

As for "socioeconomically valued paths" my point is that that's a pretty strong external constraint on your ability to choose how to live your life, and that "freedom" doesn't entail making those constraints and pressures stronger.

One can make the argument that a society with that level of paternalism is more beneficial for everyone (I sometimes even believe that myself), but one can't seriously contend that such pressures constitute the very definition of freedom.

But if your goal for society is to promote rationality, markets aren't your mechanism.

Bill Nye doesn't get paid more than Sean Hannity, and Judge Judy gets paid more than the entire Supreme Court. There is no meritocracy, and there is no connection between rational behavior and their reward. Hannity and Judge Judy both would probably lose their jobs if they started publicly promoting rationality instead of inanity. Not to mention, Paris Hilton can probably buy and sell them all.

One can play a certain shell game with this, and say that it's rational for the producers to pay Hannity to be publicly inane because it's going to make them money, but this just further amplifies my point -- markets give rational people incentive to do irrational and destructive things, like give Sean Hannity a TV show, or try to rig the real-estate market, or to base a business on encouraging young women to become prostitutes.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^VoodooV:
The sooner we abolish parties, the better. Party politics is what got us here.

How exactly would you do that?
You'd pretty much have to take away people's right to freely assemble, or forbid politicians from saying what they think about the issues before they're elected...

Uhh...no, not quite taking it that far. Not interested in slashing the Bill of Rights. There will always be unofficial groups and coalitions and there will be nothing you can do to stop that, nor should you. But what we can do is just refuse to recognize people as Reps or Dems, we can abolish any sort of official backing. Disband the RNC and the DNC. Simply refuse to give it legitimacy. When the state of the union happens, refuse to give a "opposition party rebuttal" At the very least! abolish this whole "reps sit on one side of the aisle, dems sit on the other side" nonsense. There is nothing wrong with people getting together, but the gov't doesn't have to recognize it and give it legitimacy so that the party eclipses the person as it is now.
The founders were definitely wary of parties and rightfully so. I don't see any problem with a concerted effort to at the VERY LEAST, discourage parties. We're seeing first hand the damage that can be done when party comes before country.
That and make all elections publicly funded..period. You'd see some drastic changes for the better


I guess my point is you're not being realistic about the dynamic at work. What's that going to cure? Are blankfist and I going to accidentally start voting for the same candidates? Probably not. Will liberals and conservatives generally refuse to organize into voting blocs to maximize their influence? Definitely not.

More to the point, what mechanism would prevent unofficial voting blocs from forming in the House and Senate? Once they form, are we really making things better by forcing them to pretend they don't exist? By refusing to let people come up with some shorthand word for them like Democrat or Republican (or Green, Monster Raving Looney, etc.)? By refusing to give TV air time to someone who wants to rebut the President?

It'd be a bit like trying to ban "alliances" in the game of Survivor. You'd have to intervene in almost every conversation to successfully do it, and even then people will still constantly be trying to do it under the radar, because the advantages are just too great. And that's a situation with at most 20 people under the most Orwellian level of surveillance possible...

Publicly funded elections on the other hand are a great idea, but that's wholly different from trying to kill organized parties. Publicly funded elections are about trying to neutralize the effect of money on the electoral process, and that's the real issue, IMO.