|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted February 03, 2008 12:55 PM |
|
|
Nature contains resources, but isn't a resource by itself.
Pocket money your parents give you is a resource; but parents aren't. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But nature is a resource.
I stand in awe of your argument 
1) Nature gave us birth.
2) It raised us.
3) It nurtured us.
4) It gave us everything it has.
5) Yet we are breaking free from it, and seeking destiny elsewhere.
Nature is a resource. We have to protect it so that it can continue to nurture us. And us "breaking free" from it is just making us less dependent on it.
Quote:
What I said was a fact. You won't have nuclear waste dumped in USA or France or Britain.
Oh? Ever heard of Yucca Mountain?
Quote:
If it weren't for people who said the rich are exploiting the poor, you would still be living in slavery.
The reason that slavery ended was because it was no longer economically viable. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was far cheaper to use machinery than slaves. And with the Agricultural Revolution, fewer people could do the work that it used to take many to do, so not as many people were needed, and it turned out that it was cheaper to pay workers than to provide for them. Slaves weren't cheap.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nature is a resource. We have to protect it so that it can continue to nurture us. And us "breaking free" from it is just making us less dependent on it.
"Breaking free" was a figure of speech, we will always be dependent on nature.
But I'm glad we agree that nature should be protected.
Quote:
Oh? Ever heard of Yucca Mountain?
Sure. That's one site. In a wasteland.
But what about thousands of other sites where nuclear waste is dumped? A lot of them aren't in wastelands, but in places that were simply uncostly. No one pays much attention to the nature or anything about those places - as long as they're cheap.
Quote:
The reason that slavery ended was because it was no longer economically viable. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was far cheaper to use machinery than slaves. And with the Agricultural Revolution, fewer people could do the work that it used to take many to do, so not as many people were needed, and it turned out that it was cheaper to pay workers than to provide for them. Slaves weren't cheap.
In newer history. But it worked rather well in Rome, Egypt etcetera. Besides, those "payments" were rather pitiful (and still are, in many regions). Not to mention feudalism, imperialism etcetera.
My point is that the rich will always try to exploit the poor, and that the poor MUST resist that as much as possible (but of course rationally. People must be careful in resistance too, lest they end up with communism and such).
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 05:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My point is that the rich will always try to exploit the poor, and that the poor MUST resist that as much as possible (but of course rationally. People must be careful in resistance too, lest they end up with communism and such).
Ugh... More "the rich are exploiting the poor" nonsense. Look. The rich are giving the poor jobs. If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off. True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all. If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?
If a capitalist wants more money, he or she works harder.
If a socialist wants more money, he or she stops working (goes on strike).
The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 06:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.
This is the most horrible (and stupid) thing I have heard in a long time... 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 06:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The rich are giving the poor jobs.
They give jobs to well qualified people. Those are rarely poor. Unless we live in a different world.
Quote:
If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off.
If they wouldn't, they would not be rich. Excluding the corrupted politicians and other people that do not hire, but earn money in every other possible way (including theft, corruption and such).
Quote:
True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all.
Great idea. In times when people worked for food, people like you used to say "true, they don't get much food, but it's better than starving them". But at least they were honest enough to add "well, we have no choice anyway, if we let them starve we won't have anyone to work for us anyway".
Who are you trying to defend? Want some profiles of rich polish investors, who "mercifully" employed the poor, to make one kind of HELL of their lives?
Quote:
If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?
Yeah, world is so easy.. There is so much work around.. the unemployment doesn't exist, and you can freely pick the job you want.. uh, yeah. Perhaps in your country. Not in mine. Here people usually pick whatever they can.
Quote:
If a capitalist wants more money, he or she works harder.
No. He just exploits the law a bit more, steals, gets corrupted and so on. Oh wait, you always lived in your little utopian fantasy world, so it doesn't surprise me that you keep saying all that babbling nonsense. Sorry for offense.
Quote:
If a socialist wants more money, he or she stops working (goes on strike).
If mvassilev tries to act wise, he writes all stereotypical nonsense at HC. No, I'm not a commie. My country was under communistic government until 1990 so I all can i say about your "theories" is: BS. You believe in some sort of utopia where bureaucracy, working from dawn till dusk and capitalism is the key to live a happy, rich life. I live in a realistic world where people are poor, work from nine to five with good education and earn less than corrupted idiots after primary schools that had enough luck to get born in rich families.
Quote:
The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.
You'd be a wonderful slave overseer. They pretty much believed in the same thing. Only that they preferred might over capitalism, so instead of firing, they used to beat the c*r*a*p out of the slaves, to show them a CONVINCING reason NOT to fight for ANY laws of their own.
Nietzsche is your idol, or so?
If your profile information is correct, than for a 16 year old, you are one hell of a wise guy. Furthermore, I recall you posting like that since a year or so. When I was 15, I watched dragon ball. And you, a 15 year old guy, could already explain why believeing in God is dumb, know what mechanisms rule human body and that it's "all chemistry", know and understand what is the best political system in the world (many philosophers spent lifes on that subject, but heck, mvassilev knows the best..) and craft economical theories. You're either a genious, or a seriously puffed-up wannabe wise guy. Again, sorry for offense, but I can't stand the way you try to act super-wise. If you're older or simply extraordinarily intelligent, please forgive my careless words. -_-
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The rich are giving the poor jobs.
They give jobs to well qualified people. Those are rarely poor. Unless we live in a different world.
Wrong. They give jobs to people who are well-qualified for the job. There is a big difference. Sometimes cheap mass labor is called for, and the poor are qualified for that.
Quote:
Quote:
If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off.
If they wouldn't, they would not be rich. Excluding the corrupted politicians and other people that do not hire, but earn money in every other possible way (including theft, corruption and such).
It's mutually beneficial. The poor get jobs and money, and the rich get money from what the poor do.
Quote:
Quote:
True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all.
Great idea. In times when people worked for food, people like you used to say "true, they don't get much food, but it's better than starving them". But at least they were honest enough to add "well, we have no choice anyway, if we let them starve we won't have anyone to work for us anyway".
If one rich man doesn't employ a poor man, that poor man can go to another rich man and get hired there.
Quote:
Who are you trying to defend?
A functional economy.
Quote:
Quote:
If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?
Yeah, world is so easy.. There is so much work around.. the unemployment doesn't exist, and you can freely pick the job you want.. uh, yeah. Perhaps in your country. Not in mine. Here people usually pick whatever they can.
Poor countries and rich countries are different. In rich countries, the only unemployed people are those who have unrealistic demands or have no skills and don't want to work as cheap mass labor.
Quote:
If mvassilev tries to act wise, he writes all stereotypical nonsense at HC. No, I'm not a commie. My country was under communistic government until 1990 so I all can i say about your "theories" is: BS. You believe in some sort of utopia where bureaucracy, working from dawn till dusk and capitalism is the key to live a happy, rich life. I live in a realistic world where people are poor, work from nine to five with good education and earn less than corrupted idiots after primary schools that had enough luck to get born in rich families.
The Soviet Bloc called itself Communist but really was state capitalist. In Communism, the workers own the means of production. In the Soviet bloc, the state did.
Quote:
craft economical theories
It's clear that you have no knowledge of economics. I adivise you to read Charles Wheelan's "Naked Economics". It's a great book, and where I got most (but not all) of my economic ideas.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
|
Thanks for NOT answering my doubts about your way of thinking  Avoiding the subject does not make it vanish.
Quote:
Wrong. They give jobs to people who are well-qualified for the job. There is a big difference.
Wrong-what? you repeated my words, only writing them in another order.
Quote:
It's mutually beneficial. The poor get jobs and money, and the rich get money from what the poor do.
Slavery is beneficial too. Slaver gets cheap labor, slave gets food and gets NOT beaten. Too bad the weight of the "benefits" is completely unjust, but that doesn't mean a sh*t to you, as I see. You don't care for justice? I wonder how clever you'd get if you were forced to take such job. Oh, you "aim for getting a good job", right? You "rise your qualifications"? You're 16 years old. You have no qualifications. If your parents died, hypothetically, and left you with nothing, you'd be forced to take a job or to die out of starvation. And you would feel what being a cheap labor means. Literally. I wonder if your "opinions" wouldn't change a bit then.
Quote:
If one rich man doesn't employ a poor man, that poor man can go to another rich man and get hired there.
And find the same horrible treatment and beggarly wage. What's the difference?
Quote:
A functional economy.
Stalin also called his economy "functional".
Quote:
Poor countries and rich countries are different. In rich countries, the only unemployed people are those who have unrealistic demands or have no skills and don't want to work as cheap mass labor.
where do you live? Is your family rich? Did you even worked ONCE in your life? Answer me please and don't avoid the subject.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 07:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If your profile information is correct, than for a 16 year old, you are one hell of a wise guy. Furthermore, I recall you posting like that since a year or so. When I was 15, I watched dragon ball. And you, a 15 year old guy, could already explain why believeing in God is dumb, know what mechanisms rule human body and that it's "all chemistry", know and understand what is the best political system in the world (many philosophers spent lifes on that subject, but heck, mvassilev knows the best..) and craft economical theories. You're either a genious, or a seriously puffed-up wannabe wise guy. Again, sorry for offense, but I can't stand the way you try to act super-wise. If you're older or simply extraordinarily intelligent, please forgive my careless words. -_-
Well, I don't watch much TV and I read, think, and debate a lot. Hence, my thinking.
Quote:
Wrong-what? you repeated my words, only writing them in another order.
Being qualified is relative. If a hospital goes under and a star heart surgeon is let go, he will not have too difficult of a time finding a new job. If some auto worker's manufacturing plant goes under, he was only qualified to work in that plant, and it will be hard for him to find a new job.
Quote:
Slavery is beneficial too. Slaver gets cheap labor, slave gets food and gets NOT beaten.
Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.
Quote:
Oh, you "aim for getting a good job", right? You "rise your qualifications"? You're 16 years old. You have no qualifications. If your parents died, hypothetically, and left you with nothing, you'd be forced to take a job or to die out of starvation.
Sure, it would suck for me. But I would attempt to get an education in my spare time, and raise my qualifications. Being cheap mass labor isn't fun, but it's better than being unemployed. They shouldn't complain; they should get better.
Quote:
And find the same horrible treatment and beggarly wage. What's the difference?
Then why would I work for the second man? Why not the first man? If the second man wants my labor, he would have to give me some sort of incentive for it.
Quote:
Stalin also called his economy "functional".
Free-market capitalism works within a democracy, and has worked for much longer than state capitalism.
Quote:
where do you live? Is your family rich? Did you even worked ONCE in your life? Answer me please and don't avoid the subject.
America. No, they are middle-class. No, because I'm getting an education so I wouldn't have to be cheap mass labor. And I'm well-versed in economics (for my age and level of education, that is).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.
So that is the only advantage? A poor guy can choose which slaver will own him? Uhh, right.
Quote:
Then why would I work for the second man? Why not the first man?
If the second man wants my labor, he would have to give me some sort of incentive for it.
In my country, people - those, who aren't qualified to do anything but simple jobs - are afraid of losing their job. Because no one needs them anyway - students will happily take their jobs as part-time jobs and do it for less cash. And you advise them to look for another employer? It's pretty much like you lose a job => you can't find another for a year here. And it does not concern uneducated people only. Studies like philosophy, political science and such offer pitiful outlooks. There is no need for such people in my country - humanistic studies don't guarantee ANY job. If you find one, you can get like 300 euro per month. And it takes a lot of effort to find one. Trust me, if you live in a place like this, finding a job isn't the easiest thing to do - and when you finally get one, you try to maintain it. And capitalistic slavers really enjoy that fact.
Quote:
Free-market capitalism works within a democracy, and has worked for much longer than state capitalism.
Yes, it theoretically works like that. But it looks nice in theory only. Or perhaps it looks like that in the richest countries? I've never been to any, so I can't tell for sure. One thing is certain, though: Nepotism rules my country and many post-soviet union ones. A simple example, I tried to get a nice job for my last summer, and I'm pretty sure I was the best for it. But ultimately the chief's cousin got it, despite his horrific english which was pretty much the biggest requirement. And they were kind enough to inform me he was better than me. Too bad I know him personally, and he barely knows a word in English. -_-
Quote:
America. No, they are middle-class. No, because I'm getting an education so I wouldn't have to be cheap mass labor. And I'm well-versed in economics (for my age and level of education, that is).
I see. I don't know much about the situation in America (except that it is a better place to live in), and perhaps I was a little too harsh. It definitely doesn't look the way you describe it in my country, though. I'm used to harsh reality, that's why I got a little annoyed looking at your posts. I'm sorry.
Perhaps we don't agree in many ways, but I'm happy to see you're able to keep a polite discussion even when someone sorta attacks you personally. That's a useful feature in life. Keep it up.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.
So that is the only advantage? A poor guy can choose which slaver will own him? Uhh, right.
You don't understand what an advantage that is, though. He can choose to job with the highest pay and/or the best working conditions. And if millions of people do this, then the market responds.
Quote:
In my country, people - those, who aren't qualified to do anything but simple jobs - are afraid of losing their job. Because no one needs them anyway - students will happily take their jobs as part-time jobs and do it for less cash. And you advise them to look for another employer? It's pretty much like you lose a job => you can't find another for a year here.
Percisely. If people don't have skills, it's hard for them to get a new job. That's why education is important. People need to invest in themselves, in their own human capital.
Quote:
And it does not concern uneducated people only. Studies like philosophy, political science and such offer pitiful outlooks. There is no need for such people in my country - humanistic studies don't guarantee ANY job.
It's almost the same here in America. Not all skills are useful. Only marketable skills are. The only place a political scientist or philosopher can get a job is at a university, and they don't pay too much there. But that's not their main source of income. Their main source comes from writing books in their field. Sometimes it takes several tries, but sometimes they are moderately successful.
Quote:
And capitalistic slavers really enjoy that fact.
No, they don't. They would rather have top-of-the-class Harvard graduates working for them. But they don't, because the Harvard graduates can find better places to work. Only the unskilled (and those with non-marketable skills) would work for them. Which is why it's important to have marketable skills.
Quote:
Yes, it theoretically works like that. But it looks nice in theory only. Or perhaps it looks like that in the richest countries? I've never been to any, so I can't tell for sure. One thing is certain, though: Nepotism rules my country and many post-soviet union ones. A simple example, I tried to get a nice job for my last summer, and I'm pretty sure I was the best for it. But ultimately the chief's cousin got it, despite his horrific english which was pretty much the biggest requirement. And they were kind enough to inform me he was better than me. Too bad I know him personally, and he barely knows a word in English. -_-
And capitalism is responsible for this because... ? Yes, nepotism sucks. And there is no specific recepie for making a poor country rich. The general recepie is improvements in education, production of marketable human capital, and free trade.
Quote:
Perhaps we don't agree in many ways, but I'm happy to see you're able to keep a polite discussion even when someone sorta attacks you personally. That's a useful feature in life. Keep it up.
Thanks.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DarkShadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 08:55 PM |
|
|
|
what has the current discussion to do with original topic?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2008 09:48 PM |
|
|
Gallow mentioned the beauty of nature, I said that nature is a resource, and it went on from there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2008 12:27 PM |
|
|
Really this was a discussions about god and religion and the current topic seems to have gone a long way from it.
Personally I would like to discuss this topic, but in a different thread as not to ruin this one.
But just to the issue of "nature being a resource" I believe that to be an extremely limited and even dangerous view of hardcore materialistic people who's main goal in life is wealth and money... But that is a different story.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 04, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
|
@TA:Quote:
But Moonlith is right: Unlikely, but not impossible.
I thought scientists always chose the "more likely" scenario (like how unlikely it is for us to all dream up an illusion of the same evidence ).
Then again, as Corribus stated, probabilities increase with the sample size (e.g the size of the Universe), however that is not infinite, and I have to say the probability per sample is closing to infinitesmall, or rather 1/infinity in math. Let's take this approach. There are a lot of factors besides "combinations" of particles that lead to so-called 'life':
1) the laws of physics. They could be "designed" in such a case as to not support life at ALL. Or in fact the question of their very existence remains to be clarified. Time falls in this quite well. In fact, the difference between the different time definitions we employ (before, current, after) are only illusions.
2) the combinations required for this to work, as has been stated before
3) the EXISTENCE of the BIG BANG itself. Or rather, the existence of such an explosion that allows life to be created. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the existence of the Universe. I'm talking about the existence of THIS EXPLOSION, that combined with the "specially" designed laws of physics, and the correct amount of energy (or matter), is infinitesmall. Yes and all that is because of the laws of physics. Can you imagine a world with completely different laws of physics? How about one with none? Why do particles obey such 'laws' anyway?
Personally I'm not into probabilities because I do not think they can shine up the so-called 'truth'. Mathematically, any probability, no matter how high, has an infinitesmall chance of being 'true'. That means probabilities have an infinitesmall (1/infinity) of telling the 'truth'. This is easily demonstrated by calculus using limits (since they are both 'constants' or of the same degree, so they tend to the same thing). There was a book about this but I can't recall it's name.
Sure we as humans, in our 'straight' logic, think that higher probabilities express truth. But if you get into it, well you gotta do it for yourself to really understand.
So again I'm not into the probabilities thing but I thought that showing that 'life' is really "unlikely" might be interesting to add. In fact, it's much more unlikely than we can think, much as "we can't name any higher number than infinity".
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2008 07:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This puts the obserdity of a godless organized reality into plain view. Read slowly if you care to believe.
How could a perfectly organized reality be godless? One must see how I mean perfectly to understand the obserdity. (sry cant spell) Open any dicitionary to any page and look at the words. How could a meaningless, aimless existance with no direction other than CHANCE produce all of these things? Humor, love, war, all of the elements, the universe, concepts, purity, morals, the list goes on by nearly millions or billions. How can all of this be produced by chance, a big bang, or a cloud of dust, or any godless variation.
God allows imperfection, within his/her creations limitations. Reality is well to orchastrated and organized to be a part of a Godless, aimless direction.
There is a god, who I refer to as the most high, or mystery creator. Mystery because there is much beyond the eye and mind.
P.S. the death, whats the difference between an impersonal god and a personal one?
P.S x2...
I mean, how can a reality with NO direction, based on chance, happen to turn into the life we see today? Impossible. There are trillions of variations of a godless reality and the chance of one actualy "working out" by chance alone is nearly unstatisticle, at best.
THERE IS A DIRECTOR, A CREATOR, A GOD PERIOD
For me, this is simply not a `proof` of God. (Improbability is not impossibility.)
The Universe only appears to be ordered because we have put that label onto things. The Mona Lisa is no different intrinsically to the Universe than a canvas that I have just slapped paint onto in a similar fashion. We may see the first as more organised but is it? And, we are ourselves a product of the Universe. I find it hard to put into words, but I think you have a flaw somewhere, on top of the fact in order for you to be able to say that the Universe is highly ordered, it must already be so, otherwise you would presumably not be capable of such thought. That is, if there were a Universe that did not have such order, there would be no humans present to posit that God may or may not exist. For you to be able to suggest the idea of order meaning the existance of a God, it is necessary that the Universe developed in an organised fashion - not unlikely at all. Your text serves only as a personal justification of why you believe in God. It does not end the matter, `period`!
As ever for the OS, I'm frustrated that I can't write how I feel.
So, do you believe that God is continually interfering in the Universe, guiding what happens?
And why should you believe that there is one God, and not more?
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted February 04, 2008 07:45 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 19:46, 04 Feb 2008.
|
I believe there could be more than one entity which is godly, but I also believe there is one most high, unless they are so advanced, they unlike humans, do not need one or have one with more power and control.
It's proof to 'me', correct. Its why I belie.... no...
Its what I've come to see after I started believing in God. Granted IF there was no God (I think of God in a very vuage undefined way)it would be highly improbable for the universe, including earth, to end up even in the same ball park as it has. The odds of it occouring, resulting in such a efficiant enviroment, would be like 1 and 100000000000000000000. Seriously.
"But the universe could be limitless therefore there are limitless opportunities for the 1 in 1kabillionjillion is probable" You may say. Well, I would sooner believe in the powers of a director who atleast nudged us in this direction than I would believe in a 1 in 1kabillionjillioon chance.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 04, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 22:45, 04 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
I believe there could be more than one entity which is godly, but I also believe there is one most high, unless they are so advanced, they unlike humans, do not need one or have one with more power and control.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are "bigger" things we cannot see or comprehend. But why people choose to believe we already "know" it and all the truth about it is written in a book called the bible, is beyond me.
Quote:
It's proof to 'me', correct.
Glad we got that clarified. I can't stand it when people claim things as a fact when it's merely an opinion.
Quote:
Its why I belie.... no...
Its what I've come to see after I started believing in God. Granted IF there was no God (I think of God in a very vuage undefined way)it would be highly improbable for the universe, including earth, to end up even in the same ball park as it has. The odds of it occouring, resulting in such a efficiant enviroment, would be like 1 and 100000000000000000000. Seriously.
And that leads one obviously to conclude the only logical alternative explanation is that some great entity thought it amusing to give us life and spend billions of years watching us.
Quote:
"But the universe could be limitless therefore there are limitless opportunities for the 1 in 1kabillionjillion is probable" You may say. Well, I would sooner believe in the powers of a director who atleast nudged us in this direction than I would believe in a 1 in 1kabillionjillioon chance.
Would you say the same if you won the lottery? I think this chance-based discussion has come along before.
Why is it MORE likely that some god decided to do all this for us (I would like to point out that so far the only "facts" listed in the bible are either A) proven to be false by science or B) based on beliefs, lacking backup, and to-be-proven-false by science in the future) rather than that we simply have been insanely lucky? Do understand that if we weren't alive, we wouldn't even be concious or capable of realizing we were lucky. Is it really that hard to believe that we are simply "an accident"? Just so happens to be an accident that grew to be concious about its own existance.
I think it's more likely we're just an accident that happened to become concious, rather than the creation of some great god. The latter, in my opinion, is merely a belief by people who cannot or don't want to accept our existance is INSIGNIFICANT, and desperately cling to a God-concept to make-belief they have a purpose, to believe that we "matter" in this world.
@ mvassilev: I think the main issue between you and Doomforge is that you look at capitalism from a theoretical point of view. In practise, there is not ONE rich person who doesn't try to exploit his labor force. If a person has 5 people in his service, it would be better. They are face to face, know each other, etc.
However, the bigger a cooperation is and the more people are in its service, the more the rich guy will look at its workers as "tools" to exploit and use as efficiently as possible. There is no humanity or symbiosis in it, it's exploitation. Proof: Thousands of people work so they can feed themselves, while only ONE person becomes extremely wealthy and can afford luxery. I wouldn't call that justice. In that sense I like how it was in the ancient city of Athens, where rich people were EXPECTED to spend money to benefit the whole community, not just themselves.
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted February 05, 2008 12:11 AM |
|
|
Balklava Said:
Quote:
What I said was a fact. You won't have nuclear waste dumped in USA or France or Britain. You'll have it dumped in places like Afghanistan.
You could try to think about it once in a while.
False actually. Too Expensive to import. They would usually do it in some poor suburban area or trailer park where few people live.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
