|
| Thread: Should the EU be dissolved? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 27, 2013 10:55 AM |
|
|
artu said:
(the monkeys running around are not the same as our ancestors)
In the same way as you are not "the same" as your mother or father? Cuz I can definetly argue that prezent day "species", another slippery word, are in fact the same as the ones that lived long time ago (bazillions of years as they say).
Just a reminder - "microevolution" happens, it's a scientific fact that can be tested, observed, repeated and offers a refutation mechanism (just as the scientific method requires). i.e: the's alot of variation withing the dog kind like chiwawa, great danes, bulldogs, etc. While, very different, they are still dogs.
On the other hand - "macroevolution" is neither testable, repeatable, observable or consistently refutable. It fails the scientific method miserably. It's a theory of the past and the "evidence" for it can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but evolutionist often choose the one that fits their worldviews better. When new evidence comes along, making that worldview incompatible with it, they just change the interpretation to fit their just-so-storytelling. Don't believe me? Check the coelacanth story. Was it evolving any limbs? Cuz it took quite a time, it isn't finished not even today..
And about the analogy.. totally inadequate indeed.  Hope this helped
Thank you.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 11:28 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:35, 27 Sep 2013.
|
Wow, there's so much wrong with this, I don't know where to correct.
There is no macro and micro evolution, there's just evolution. Micro evolution is a term used by creatonists, at a point where they realized they were getting totally ridiculed and bulldozered by scientific data if they deny evolution completely, they instead started to talk about only micro evolution occuring. That's as stupid as saying, there are dialects of a language (undeniable as we can witness it) but no language actually evolved from Latin, because it's in the past and we can not test it. How can you test such a long process, from A to Z anyway, if you had a time machine, do you think you would be able to see Latin speaking parents giving birth to French speaking children or early humanoids giving birth to Neanderthal or something? You can not repeat Earth's surface cooling down or the Big Bang or the Moon emerging from the remains of a crash... Are these not scientific either? Dozens of separate branches of science including geology, paleontology, bio-geography, molecular chemistry, genetics support evolution, all their data are consistent within each other. And most importantly, there is no -put aside scientific- natural alternative anyway, the only alternative is hocus pocus. Sigh...
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 12:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no macro and micro evolution
Macro and micro terms were added to the debate because evolutionists frequently use equivocation tactics to give credit to their theory.
But if you don't like those terms you can just call them variation within a kind and microbe to microbiologist evolution. The latter has never been experimentally tested and observed, thus not scientific. Creation has never been observed or tested either, but at least we don't lie to our students that it's a scientifically proven fact.
Anyway, you can easily disprove me by making an experiment: try to breed any kind of animal, a dog for example to produce a non-dog. Or a cat to produce a non-cat. Or a darwin finch to produce a non-darwin finch. Then you might convince me that microbe to man evolution is a scientific fact, until then it's just a just-so-story.. I might as well add that experiments over thousands of generations of say.. flies have been made, quite alot to prove at least something about evolution. All of them with the same results, either disabled or dead flies. There wasn't a single non-fly individual, hope this sheds some light on the subject.
Quote:
the only alternative is hocus pocus.
Isn't Big Bang hocus pocus? "Of course not, it's a proven science fact".. You'd rather believe that 'Nothing is the cause of Something' than 'Something is the cause of Something', won't ya? Yep, totally logically sufficient.
Spontaneus generation is another evolutionary assumption. You can't have evolution unless you have a living organism, which by materialistic means could only have arisen from non-living matter.. a soup.. /roflmao
And there are so many more "miracles" that had to occur for this to be true that calling it scientific is not even a funny joke. You need more faith to believe evolution than to believe creation. Couldn't make that leap of faith.
The latin analogy is a bit faulty because there were external factors at work, like the native languages and dialects.
Em.. we can't possibly discuss such a subject here, it's quite dense and nerve wrecking. You might as well reply to this and then we should just stop and focus on the main subject of this thread : The EU.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 01:11 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:31, 27 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
Anyway, you can easily disprove me by making an experiment: try to breed any kind of animal, a dog for example to produce a non-dog.
All dogs come from wolves. Dog is a name of a group of animals and obviously a doberman and a collie are not "the same" animal. There are indeed, new dog breeds that didn't exist even 500 years ago, new sub-species that were not seen before and no longer can mate with wolves. What you insist on ignoring is, for a more drastic change, (like first mammals who were rodents to hippos for example), you simply need more time. If I pick some of the existing species and trap them in an isolated island, then wait for 500.000 years, the island WILL have a different variety of animals than the rest of the world. There ARE islands, geologists CAN date their separation times from mainlands and the life variety fits. That is, if the island got cut off from a continent before the time of mammals, there are no mammals there, if it's relatively a new island, there are this time mammals with sub-species that vary accordingly to the time of the separation.
And the Big Bang is not hocus pocus, an explosion is not a sophisticated life form. Saying a sophisticated life form, with all it's complexity just popped up from thin air is ridiculous beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't know if you are a troll or seriously believe in this creationist propaganda but you don't know the basic information about evolution, it does not work the way you think it does. It's about little differences accumulating and resulting in different gene pools over huge amounts of time. Saying that can not be tested (in the sense you expect it to) is, and I'm repeating myself here, saying we can not have scientific knowledge about any process that takes millions of years, which is of course wrong in every imaginable way possible. Evolution and creation won't turn into symetrical speculations just because you don't want to give up on your mythology. Sorry to burst your bubble but evolution IS a scientific fact, there is no modern biology without it and the theory explaining that fact gets backed up by countless data each and every passing day.
Quote:
The Latin analogy is a bit faulty because there were external factors at work, like the native languages and dialects.
It's not only the vocabulary that changes but also the grammar of the language itself, when you think of mutations as the cause of change, the analogy fits, it was meant to emphasize that change overtime, when it accumulates, causes sub-species to later turn into completely different species. The categorization of this is something abstract and we use it to group things, it's just slicing a continuous process into rooms and identifications as a type of information. Of course, linguistic evolution and biological evolution are not the same in every aspect, but in both we see little differences first evolving into sub-categories and then into bigger differences, and the difference eventually becomes so drastic, we call the thing in front of us, something else other than what it was called before.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 02:59 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
so thanks to EU you get to work on stuffs your country doesn't need? 
It does need it. But if it weren't for EU, nobody would care and we'd still use prehistoric technology "because it works".
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Supporters of a totally free market indeed claim there is an invisible mechanism that sorts everything out and puts thing in balance (they sometimes even use biological evolution as an analogy in their arguments, which is flawed, because there is no "balance" or order in that sense in nature, organisms go extinct all the time, all of them may go extinct). This claim is relevantly being refuted when a crisis comes every now and then and the state interferes this way or the other.
I don't know what you mean by "balance", or by "totally free market", for that matter. Different supporters of free markets claim different things, some of which may be incorrect - just because they reach the right conclusion doesn't mean they do it for the right reasons. However, we were talking about economics, which is more specific. The relevant claims being made there are the following:
1. In a free market, people engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange are a central determinant of market conditions, because all production and consumption is driven by people's preferences.
2. A free market reduces moral hazard, because firms, whether they do well or poorly, experience the consequences of the results. If you know you're not going to be bailed out if things go poorly, you're going to be more prudent.
3. If you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.
4. Taxation and trade barriers create inefficiency in the form of deadweight loss.
5. Recessions have a variety of causes, but the general idea is that there is a change in what the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade are, and markets take time to adjust to them, sometimes because of government intervention.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 05:58 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:59, 27 Sep 2013.
|
By balance, I mean they claim the law of supply-demand will eventually solve everything, and by "totally" I mean your kind of free market in which everything is left to capitalist dynamics and there is no state or public service at all.
Quote:
2. A free market reduces moral hazard, because firms, whether they do well or poorly, experience the consequences of the results.
Which again is the key to our disagreement, because as usual you're talking about what's ideally going to happen according to you as if it's an an objective fact, while many people including myself reminded you times and times again, capitalism means multiplying your capital and when you get big enough, the market is no longer something you play under the rules of, it's something you can manipulate and give direction to.
Edit: By the way Mvass, are you influenced by Ayn Rand? Everything you say fits like a glove to someone who does.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 06:07 PM |
|
|
No one claims that the law of supply and demand would "solve everything" (whatever that means). With time, patterns of sustainable specialization and trade change, because people's preferences, absolute productivity, and relative costs change. If they change faster than all prices can adjust (which is the case), then a general equilibrium cannot be reached, though temporary equilibria in some markets do exist.
Few economists are anarcho-capitalists, so you seem to be arguing against a strawman.
And even monopolies are subject to market constraints.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 06:13 PM |
|
|
|
What strawman? This isnt the first time we're talking about this, werent you the one who was against any sort of constraint on principle?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 06:27 PM |
|
|
What I read, the folks said they had no work their own country. Then they came to France and found no work. BUT, they would still come back to France. Why?
My 2nd question is; if there is no work for them anywhere what are they supposed to do?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 06:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I read, the folks said they had no work their own country. Then they came to France and found no work. BUT, they would still come back to France. Why?
socialism? (no not the party in power)
Quote:
My 2nd question is; if there is no work for them anywhere what are they supposed to do?
work more? (to pay more taxes? )
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 06:51 PM |
|
|
artu said:
What strawman? This isnt the first time we're talking about this, werent you the one who was against any sort of constraint on principle?
If you think I'm an anarcho-capitalist, you really don't read what I write.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 07:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:13, 27 Sep 2013.
|
|
(Although you were quite reluctant to disagree with anarcho capitalism) I dont think you are an anarcho-capitalist since you dont object to the existence of a state but I do know you use free market in a much broader sense than usual and you are against almost any kind of public service other than the police, courts etc etc. US, for example, is a country that most of us would define as a free market in everyday sense of the term, according to you it's far from it. So, it's quite safe to say, even though you are not an anarcho capitalist, you're not very far away from it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 07:29 PM |
|
|
If a free market is one in which private property rights are strongly protected, and people have freedom of association, the US is by no means a free market.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 19:38, 27 Sep 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
If a free market is one in which private property rights are strongly protected, and people have freedom of association, the US is by no means a free market.
This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while, unless you want to say that the US doesn't support private property and freedom of association..
Edit: Can you please explain this in more detail? I might agree on this if what you said it's actually what I think you said
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 07:38 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:39, 27 Sep 2013.
|
@mvass
Okay, we're tracking off topic here so I'll move to the relevant thread.
(You wanna take this outside, punk )
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 29, 2013 01:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
4. Taxation and trade barriers create inefficiency in the form of deadweight loss.
So does monopoly, but it's a logical product of the free market. Unless you start curbing the "rights" of overly successful companies to a degree (or, if companies can't have rights, call it powerful individuals in charge), they will eventually be able to enforce effective monopolies, won't they? They will grow so large that hardly anything will be able to grow in their shadow. Not to mention rampant intellectual property and patent laws, which can always be wrought upon by the strongest lobbyists so they suit them the most. Lobbying was always an effective means to get what you want in the US. Basically, it comes down to pressuring the government with wealth, right?
The entire free market versus central planning scale is akin to choosing between a jungle and a zoo. There is no ethics in there, aside, perhaps, from animal cruelty groups, which would be unions - PETA being the mobster one.
I haven't been following for a while, but where exactly would you draw the line and call a system economically ethical? I'm asking for curiosity's sake, trying to figure out what and why you consider more ethical and efficient than, for instance, the social democratic economies of the Nordic countries.
Seems to me the US is, as of now, in the state of being a preserve with the government being the folk with Australian accents going around filming Animal Planet shows about curing cheetahs and feeding elephants - bailing out General Motors and similar. Those species are becoming endangered and unsustainable, but no one wants to risk the change their extinction would bring to the ecosystem. Besides, Animal Planet loves animals as much as the Gov loves corporations, and for very similar reasons.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2013 01:22 PM |
|
|
Market monopolies can not exist but if you insist, why not name a single market monopoly in the history of mankind that has been negative for consumers?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 29, 2013 01:35 PM |
|
|
If it did not exist, why add the catch for it to have to have been negative for the consumers?
Taking into account the precautions taken for curbing monopolies such as Standard Oil throughout history, and also considering there never was a genuinely free market in your terms, there were fewer monopolies unsupported by the government than there would've been had circumstances been different. Microsoft is, however, close. It's been fined about it, but that's it. Whether you consider Microsoft's service a positive or a negative thing depends on your point of view. Economy considers monopolies unable to reach Pareto optimality, and therefore bound to generate deadweight loss - ergo, be negative for consumers. There is also a large number of effective cartels, or monopolies distributed between a few large companies. This is also evident on the local level in many places, and can only grow worse with globalization.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2013 01:56 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 13:59, 29 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
If it did not exist, why add the catch for it to have to have been negative for the consumers?
Because I expected you to reference Standard Oil, which is commonly perceived as having being a market monopoly without actually being one as they neither owned the market nor used coercion to stop competition. Standard Oil had a very dominant position on the market and they accomplished that mainly through appeasing consumers by continously pushing prices down.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
