@Trancecoach
interesting.
i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better.

and in doing so i offend you?
and you respond by offending my sensibilities?

do you REALLY think i cannot think for myself?
are we in some epic battle where there is some abstract "winner"?
i thought i was talking to someone who i am quite fond of and who i also just happen to disagree with on this particular subject.

i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism.
which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room.it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790.
even blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships,a privilege given by the people,to be dissolved when the project was concluded.
and blankfist is a die hard libertarian.

or is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you?
maybe reading too many heritage foundation essays?
have any of these articles outlined the flaws in capitalism?
like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?
that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything..eventually and eventually everything will become a commodity.
to be sold and traded.

its not like it is a huge secret.
the problems with capitalism are well know and well understood,but i guess you are not one of those people.

and i am not one of those people who are good at conveying things such as these..never have been.
but i have always been respectful with you,even when i disagree.
and yet you assume my intentions.
take offense when i meant none and snipe at me from some imagined superior balcony.

i was never trying to say you were wrong.i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe.

and now as i am writing this i am being forced to question.
will he take this sentence wrong?
how will he perceive this word in that context?
and i have to admit..its kinda irritating.

but ya know what?
thats on me.
i made certain assumptions about you based an very little.
he likes floyd..check.
dropped some acid back in the day...check.
is educated and in the psychology field...check.

so every correspondence i have had with you is with that person in my minds eye.
i have written every word to you as if you were sitting right next to me.

i wrote about this before and you ridiculed me then.i should have gotten the message.
you are not the person i gave you credit for.
you are you.
and thats ok.

watch the video if you wish.its pretty informative.
or dont.
it doesnt matter.

i apologize for offending you.
/end transmission

In this case, it is. Lift a 1 kg(mass) on earth 2 metres and drop it. If will hit the earth with a force of 9.8 Newtons. (F=m x a) That's its weight though we tend to use the kg instead of Newtons to express weight. To lift that mass, you would have to exert 9.8 newtons of force.

On the moon where acceleration due to gravity is 1/6 that of earth, that 1 kg mass would only weigh about 1.8 (9.8/6) Newtons. So it would take correspondingly less force to lift it.

So our astronaut should be able to easily push himself upright in theory.

The real reason he can't do it probably has more to do with the design of the suit (top heavy, not very flexible) and the loosely packed surface composition of the moon. Like trying to right yourself while wearing an inflatable sumo outfit in a McDonald's ballpit.

The high jump answer... when a high jumper clears 7 feet he is really just lifting his centre of gravity about 3-4 feet. He just twists his body horizontal to get his legs and feet over.

On the moon then, he would only lift his CofG about 18-24 feet (plus say 3 feet for his legs). So his record jump would be less impressive than you might intuitively think.

@newtboy
"i know you are but what am i i"?

that had me cackling like a loon.bravo my friend.

please understand guys my comment is in reference to this particular thread,not any previous private or otherwise.

my commentary was also tongue-n-cheek and not to be taken too seriously.
i was poking the hornets nest...like a boss..who also happens to be a dick.

please forgive.

as for conflicting private to public messages.
well..that would infuriate me as well newt.you wont get an argument from me on that point.
that speaks to a persons character and integrity and explains a ton in regards to your attitude towards @chingalera.

our integrity is all we have.
when you take away everything,the only thing left we have to trade is our word.
our honor.
our respect for another human being.
when we lose that trust....we lose everything.

i do not know the particulars on how you all conversed in private.its none of my business and not my place to judge.

but if what you are saying is true newt (and i have no reason to believe it isnt.there is a past precedent in that regard) then i have to ask @chingalera why?

why say one thing in private and then another in public?
that is so disengenuious and un-necessary my man.
you make good solid points..often,and often i agree with them.
so why would invalidate them by interacting with such duplicity?

you cant call out newt for disregarding or dismissing your points because it was YOU who invalidated those points by your interactions with him.

and you know this.
dont act like you dont because i know your smarter than the average bear.so dont insult my intelligence by feigning innocence.

you owe newt an apology.period.

and dont prove @VoodooV right.we both were there when you flamed out and it was ugly.
and you made it ugly by taking it personal.
i never judged you for that..still dont.
but that does not mean i condoned how you played that closing scene out.
real people had real feelings hurt...including you.

now i realize this thread is destroyed and i dont even know who i need to apologize to.
so...
to the original poster:i am truly sorry for this tragic hi-jacking of your thread.

but it appears necessary.

@chingalera i realize that much of what you do is to shock people out of complacency.
to get them to perceive a situation with different goggles.
many times the weapons you use are confrontational language and a persistence that rivals the most glorious case of OCD.

those intentions are noble.
i agree and am of a similar mindset.this is probably why i can read choggie-speak with little trouble.

i understand what you are trying to do.

but how can you expect someone like @newtboy to listen to anything you have to say when you cant keep even basic correspondence open and honest?
it invalidates everything you attempt from then on out.
your words have to have the weight of your integrity behind them for them to have ANY impact.
you lose that and your words become dust.

sounds like you will have to work to gain the respect from @newtboy.i wish you well in that endeavour.

please understand i consider you a friend @chingalera and hearing this has upset me a great deal.

and @VoodooV,
you may be right brother.i do not know what the future brings.hopefully ching will prove you wrong.i know he could if he wanted.

but i disagree with keeping the riff raff out.
i dont mind confrontation or arguments.in fact i LOVE them and @chingalera has a talent for poking the hornets nest and shattering the monotone-vanilla-circle-jerk-clones into a frenzy.

and that my friend..is a good thing.

@chingalera keeps the locals buzzing,constantly challenging pre-concieved notions and ideologies and i love that fucker for that.he keeps this site interesting.his antics bring lurkers to actually comment/post and others who usually side-line to jump in.

all good things.

but...
i cannot abide the darker side.
the hurtful side.
maybe i am being naive'....i always see redemption for those who the entrenched masses see as unredeemable.i always feel i can save those who are truly lost.

i always see the human first and the actions last.

so you may be right.i just hope you are wrong.
maybe this thread will impact my friend and remind him we are all humans.

i dont know.........
i hope though...
i hope.

@ChaosEngine again,as i told newtboy,no argument here.
hopefully this derailed thread has cleared some air and brought the things to the table that needed to be discussed.

which from my viewpoint is about integrity.
you cant admonish people for being egocentric and then turn around and be egocentric yourself.
it weakens the very position you were trying to make in the first place.(ching,not you CE).
it is hypocritical.

i am a dissident.
a radical.
a subversive.
even to the church i am an apostate.
so i understand @chingalera on a certain level.he has never treated me other than a friend and compatriot.so it pains me to see how he deals with those he disagrees with,and just how far he will take a story to a painful conclusion.
this does not give be joy or pleasure.

he is a righteous dude.passionate,sensitive and creative and has soooo much to offer.
im sorry ya'all didnt get to see that side of him.
but maybe thats on him,because you all should.

there is a reason he has been invited back multiple times and its not because he whined about it but rather he truly is an exceptional human being.

maybe he should show that side more.
takes honesty and courage,but that boy has a huge capacity for that.

@chingalera
balls in your court brother.
what ya gonna do?

*note* for all those who read to this point.
cookies and milk will be served in the back storage room.
free fondlings for the ladies.
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!

You're way off, and you clearly haven't read or understood any of the authors named in my comment. Had you developed an informed opinion before spouting off on the basis of the Kool-Aid you've drank, you'd understand that, without government, there'd be no "big guys" to exploit the subsidies and cronyism that are implicit in the original monopoly that is "government."
If you think that some how government (i.e., kleptocrats) are "overseeing things," then you've got some learning to do. The corruption and co-optation of the market is not a "problem" to be "fixed" by the government. It is a direct effect of government. To think otherwise is a fatal conceit, one whose costs get higher by the day.

But, you can believe whatever you want to believe.


"The politicians are real, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians’ will are real, the buildings they inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed “authority” is not. And without that “authority,” without the right to do what they do, they are nothing but a gang of thugs. The term “government” implies legitimacy– it means the exercise of “authority” over a certain people or place. The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of” government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to rule (”authority”), there is no reason to call the entity “government,” and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers. And that, in reality, is what every “government” is: an illegitimate gang of thugs, thieves and murderers, masquerading as a rightful ruling body." -Larken Rose

"Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler tells NBC10 that police officers yelled warnings at the teen and fearing for his safety, they fired a stun gun to subdue him. The D.A. says the Taser struck the boy in the face and with his hands cuffed, the boy had no way to brace himself against falling face-first."

Source: NBC10

I usually search for videos related to articles I read, that's why the title or the description might contain information that is not part of the corresponding video.

The corresponding church was built in Dixon, Illinois.

Actually, @silvercord, it was Congress members who moved the barricades so the vets could enter. It wasn't the vets themselves -- they had more respect for the rule of "law."

This shutdown corresponds with thousands of middle schoolers going to Washington DC. Kids, some of the low income, who worked for a year to get the funds to go. They are certainly getting an education about how Congress works.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/10/01/hey-teabaggers-thanks-for-teaching-a-very-important-civics-lesson-to-8th-grade-students-at-st-mar
y-magdalen-in-everett

I wish this conflict were as simple as the courageous young woman reporter in this video portrays it but it doesn't take much research to discover that the FSA is increasingly being co-opted by anything BUT pro-democracy elements, namely Islamic jihadists allied with al-Qaeda.

For example:

"Hundreds of fighters under the command of the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) have reportedly switched allegiance to al-Qaeda-aligned groups, in a move described as a huge blow to moderate rebel forces.

Activists and military sources have told Al Jazeera that the 11th Division - one of the biggest FSA brigades - has switched allegiance to the al-Nusra Front in Raqqah province, a border province with Turkey.

A video was uploaded to YouTube on Thursday purporting to show members of the 11th Division parading through Raqqah with Nusra fighters.

In the video clip, a voice can be heard saying in Arabic, "Raqqah ... September 19, 2013 ... The convoy of Nusra ... God is great ... Nusra in Raqqah province."

The switch, if confirmed, tightens Nusra's control of Raqqah just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) attacked members of the Free Syrian Army in Azaz, on the border with Turkey.

The Reuters news agency, citing sources inside Syria, also reported that entire units of the FSA had joined Nusra and the ISIS in recent days.

The Raqqah Revolutionaries - which is part of the 11th Division - has about 750 fighters in total, according to a source close to al-Qaeda linked forces.

Abdulhamid Zakarya, military spokesman of Chiefs of Staff of the FSA, denied that Division 11 had joined Nusra. However, he said it had signed an agreement to collaborate in military operations.

In a separate statement, the FSA also condemned the ISIS for its actions in Azaz, saying it was going against the principles of the Syrian revolution.

“ISIS no longer fights the Assad regime. Rather, it is strengthening its positions in liberated areas at the expense of the safety of civilians. ISIS is inflicting on the people the same suppression of the Baath party and the Assad regime.”

Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Antakya in neighbouring Turkey, said that if proved true, the switches of allegiance would be a serious blow to the FSA's strength, and could have significant implications outside of Syria.

The US State Department designated Al Nusrah Front a terrorist organisation on 11 December 2012. There are financial sanctions in place.

"This means that the FSA has suddenly lost serious amounts of loyal fighters ... it's basically being swallowed up by Nusra," she said, adding that it would be very difficult for the West to support a rebel army dominated and commanded by al-Qaeda linked groups."

@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.

So, basically what you're saying is that you really are a fucking idiot.

You're claiming physical effects. It doesn't matter if they come from a spiritual thought process or karma or whatever, you're claiming a physical effect (the curing or prevention of diabetes and cancer) which means it's measurable and testable.

A simple test would be to take a medical history for a load of people in America who are living the spiritual lifestyle and believe the rubbish (the more people the better). Then take a medical history for a corresponding control group, this would be people living in the same areas, eating at the same places with the same type of exercise regime and so on. If - as you claim - the spiritual aspect of your life protects you from illness then the spiritual people should show a lower incidence of illness.

Please tell me what's wrong with that? It's science and it's testing the effect you claim.

Oh yeah, you won't. I forgot about the whole fucking idiot thing...

For anyone who might not know, gorillaman is somewhat of a complete freak....dedicated room, little-black-book fulla mates and corresponding safety words, whole nine yards.

That's a more reasonable statement. It was fairly close though, and not true for every year.

The corresponding figures for Australia make an interesting comparison:

All deaths:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3303.0Chapter42011

Homicides (doesn't have the detail of the U.S. equivalent):
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

I did look at the Canadian statistics too, but they were all expressed in terms of incidents per 100,000 people so it was a bit hard to compare... the nearest I found was this rather old report directly comparing Canada to its Southern neighbour:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

It's a bit narrow minded, no? or maybe inexperienced. you would expect a person who is aware of other cultures to know of names that do not correspond to what he or she deems as related to his own culture. when you hear a persons name to be OSAMA, you know exactly what comes up to mind. I guess prejudice comes in many forms

What a douche!

If you want to be the Daily Show, just go apply for a correspondent position on the Daily Show! Asshat.