PDA

View Full Version : Mars Rover Curiosity Let Down



dfw5914
11-29-2012, 10:49 PM
Either the new world order censors got to 'em, or the "big announcement" will be a yawner as I predicted.

Curiosity, the NASA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_aeronautics_and_space_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Mars (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/mars_planet/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) rover, has not found the building blocks of life in that planet’s dirt, the agency said Thursday. “Rumors and speculation that there are major new findings from the mission at this early stage are incorrect,” NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said in a statement. Tamping down expectations about a news conference scheduled for Monday, NASA said, “The instruments on the rover have not detected any definitive evidence of Martian organics.” Speculation was fueled last week when the mission’s project scientist told a reporter that data from Curiosity would be “one for the history books.” NASA later clarified that the scientist was speaking generally

A.K. Boomer
11-29-2012, 11:29 PM
Yup - Hype

I really don't have much interest anyways - rather focus on what we have left here before we destroy the rest of it... don't ever plan on "moving" --- going down with the ship...

The good ole planet earth rocked though - but we blew it.
have no real interested speculating on what it would be like to trash another planet, or any of it's occupants (if any...)

Hope we get stuck here and then choke on it like everything else we've already made that decision for...

tyrone shewlaces
11-30-2012, 01:15 AM
It's funny. I agree completely with AKBoomer's outlook regarding our future. But I can't see myself writing it in print like he did.
I'm not sure if I'm being optimistic or just ignoring the carnage.
Maybe since I'm still here and stuck with it, I'm just trying to find the silver linings where and when I can since ya only go around once.
Cheers to AK either way.

spongerich
11-30-2012, 01:19 AM
The good ole planet earth rocked though - but we blew it.

I think George Carlin said it best.. The planet will be fine. It's the people who are fu**ed.

vpt
11-30-2012, 08:17 AM
OT: Mars rover has discovered.....What?




Just more rocks.




Filler

lazlo
11-30-2012, 08:36 AM
Yup - Hype

I don't think it's hype per se -- I think it's more the case of an exuberant NASA scientist that thought they had discovered water (or organics).

madwilliamflint
11-30-2012, 10:11 AM
I think George Carlin said it best.. The planet will be fine. It's the people who are fu**ed.

Yep. "The earth is gonna shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance."

The Earth is fine.

A.K. Boomer
11-30-2012, 10:46 AM
It's the people who are fu**ed.


And there lies the most disturbing thing to me - no mention of any other lifeforms that took millions of years to evolve except for the ignoramuses that created the mess...
It's more about just people - and it's more about what cockroaches might eventually evolve into - it's what were losing along the way, and it's happening at an incredible rate...

We don't need to go anywhere else - anymore than you would allow "bad tenants" to move into a nice place after totally trashing the one they were in,

We need to be held accountable, Lets hope it all stops here... not trying to be a downer - just keeping it real...

KiddZimaHater
11-30-2012, 10:50 AM
HAHAHAHAHA..
I knew it.
Everytime the Scientific Community's gaggle of Nerds hypes-up a "ground-breaking discovery", it's usually a big YAWNER.

Toolguy
11-30-2012, 11:00 AM
Either that or they found something they don't want us to know about yet and had to stifle the broadcasting of it.:rolleyes:

philbur
11-30-2012, 11:04 AM
Don't worry, the conspiracy theorists will be along any time now.

"Scientific discovery of world stopping importance suppressed by fearful government."

Phil:)

lazlo
11-30-2012, 11:17 AM
Don't worry, the conspiracy theorists will be along any time now.

"Scientific discovery of world stopping importance suppressed by fearful government."


They found the giant head again. In a different spot :D

Weston Bye
11-30-2012, 01:10 PM
And there lies the most disturbing thing to me - no mention of any other lifeforms that took millions of years to evolve except for the ignoramuses that created the mess...
It's more about just people - and it's more about what cockroaches might eventually evolve into - it's what were losing along the way, and it's happening at an incredible rate...

We don't need to go anywhere else - anymore than you would allow "bad tenants" to move into a nice place after totally trashing the one they were in,

We need to be held accountable, Lets hope it all stops here... not trying to be a downer - just keeping it real...

We have seen this on a small scale, just within recorded history. Somebody was advance enough to create the Antikythera mechanism before the world fell into a darkness that we only recently (500 years) have overcome. I doubt that we will extinguish ourselves, but how dark will the next dark age be?

philbur
11-30-2012, 01:31 PM
It would/will be interesting to here what the Chef Scientist thought they had discovered?

Phil:)

Evan
11-30-2012, 01:52 PM
I don't think it's hype per se -- I think it's more the case of an exuberant NASA scientist that thought they had discovered water...

They have found liquid water quite some time ago. It seeps out of the side of some crater walls when in the direct sun in summer. The ground temperature can go as high as 80F. They have conclusive time lapse satellite images showing it flowing out very slowly in numerous long streaks in the sand. I made up an animation from the images.

http://ixian.ca/pics10/marswater.gif

lazlo
11-30-2012, 03:15 PM
We have seen this on a small scale, just within recorded history. Somebody was advance enough to create the Antikythera mechanism before the world fell into a darkness that we only recently (500 years) have overcome.

Uh, what? The Antikythera was an orrey. It has a single knob that you turn once a day, and it increments the positions of the Sun & Moon based on the geocentric tables of the day.
There have been far more advanced European versions since at least the Renaissance. And although we had a Dark Ages from the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Asians did not :)

In any event, AK (and George Carlin) were talking about extinction events, not Dark Ages from political/religious upheaval. George Carlin's point is that dinosaurs ruled the world, a meteor wiped the face of the Earth clean, and 100 million years later a new species evolved. So the Earth doesn't "care" in the scheme of millions of years...

By the way, Lego Antikythera, made from 1500 pieces :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPVCJjTNgk

Evan
11-30-2012, 04:01 PM
Perhaps they figured out that this unidentified bit didn't fall off the rover after all....

Yes, this is real and they have presumed it came from the rover but last I heard (could be later news) they haven't figured out what it came from.

http://ixian.ca/pics10/trash.jpg

There are also little shiny bits in the soil that they have not identified.

They also just noticed this:

http://ixian.ca/pics10/shiny.jpg

And this:

http://ixian.ca/pics10/shiny2.jpg

Evan
11-30-2012, 04:22 PM
There appears to be plenty of fodder to keep the conspiracy nuts going for years.

lazlo
11-30-2012, 04:28 PM
Perhaps they figured out that this unidentified bit didn't fall off the rover after all....

Yes, this is real and they have presumed it came from the rover but last I heard (could be later news) they haven't figured out what it came from.

Candy bar wrapper!!! :p

NASA called it "a shred of plastic material, likely benign."

Black_Moons
11-30-2012, 04:33 PM
gez that rover is just falling to pieces, How much did they pay for it again?

Evan
11-30-2012, 04:34 PM
It is a bit of a puzzle. They are very careful about removing all swarf.

vpt
11-30-2012, 07:14 PM
Interesting how the dirt clumps together as if there was moister in it. The braided wires are also interesting.

philbur
12-03-2012, 05:43 PM
So what was the big news that never was?

Phil:)

A.K. Boomer
12-03-2012, 05:54 PM
looks like pieces of duct tape to me, maybe thousand dollar a roll kevlar duct tape or somethin,

not going to yell out "hacks" just yet - going to what till we see some nice chunks of gold plated bailing wire...

lazlo
12-03-2012, 06:35 PM
Nuke-rated duct tape.

http://www.amazon.com/3M-8979N-Performance-Nuclear-Slate/dp/B000NG3ZKI

Highpower
12-03-2012, 07:55 PM
So what was the big news that never was?

Phil:)

I just saw a blurb on the news where they said they found some carbon compounds. They were quick to point out however that they didn't necessarily originate from Mars, and it could be that we had deposited them up there ourselves. It was also said that they didn't know WHICH compounds they were as of yet.

Evan
12-03-2012, 08:11 PM
The primary problem they have since and including Viking is that the soil is full of perchlorate compounds. These are powerful oxidizers. When the soil is heated in the mass spectrometer the perchlorates combine with any organics which destroys the original compounds. They are trying to figure out what the end result should be when the Mars soil is heated. They also claim that the spectrometer may have residual contamination when it left Earth. I have a hard time buying that unless somebody is grossly incompetent.

bob_s
12-03-2012, 08:38 PM
... I have a hard time buying that unless somebody is grossly incompetent.

What's not to understand, this is the same organization that flubbed their metric conversion and crashed an orbiter into Mars.

Evan
12-03-2012, 08:56 PM
That was a communications problem between contractors.

philbur
12-04-2012, 03:53 AM
They also claim that the spectrometer may have residual contamination when it left Earth. I have a hard time buying that unless somebody is grossly incompetent.

The seed of a conspiracy theory, watch it germinate.

Maybe the supposed residual contamination looked exactly like a bacteria.

I still want to know what the Chief Scientist thought he saw.

Phil:)

Evan
12-04-2012, 05:23 AM
Perchlorates in the soil implies salt water and a lot of free oxygen in the distant past. There aren't many ways to generate a lot of free oxygen in an atmosphere other than photosynthesis. Without photosynthetic plants the oxygen in Earths's atmosphere would be converted to oxidized compounds in a blink of a geological time scale eye.

ptjw7uk
12-04-2012, 08:09 AM
Lets face it the Rover's late for its first service!

peter

Rosco-P
12-04-2012, 08:35 AM
And this:

http://ixian.ca/pics10/shiny2.jpg

A Gold nugget perhaps? Will the guys from the Discovery channel's show, Gold Rush be setting up mining operations on Mars once they are done up in the Klondike?

vpt
12-04-2012, 08:59 AM
They might have a problem getting the wash plant delivered.

radkins
12-04-2012, 09:45 AM
They might have a problem getting the wash plant delivered.

Scary thought, having lived and worked in strip mining areas most of my life I find it appalling that in all probability people would trash Mars and other planets just as they have here on Earth. I once made the mistake of expressing my thoughts about the destruction of our environment during a lunch time bull session and I nearly got tarred and feathered! We were sitting under a huge rock cliff surrounded by large oak and other trees in an area that was about to be strip mined and the beauty of the area just struck me as priceless but all these idiots could see was a paycheck. I was hit with the usual "all the tree huggers should be shot", "how are we supposed to make a living" and "if you don't like mining then quit and give your job to someone else" nonsense and a sensible discussion of the situation was impossible. My point was that those rock cliffs and the forest surrounding them have been there since before humans arrived and have far more value than the minerals located under them and should be preserved for our children and future generations yet we were about to destroy them for all eternity just so one generation of people could bring home a few hundred dollars a week for a couple of years, a priceless natural area gone forever to satisfy the needs of a very few people for such a short time. Also I remember reading in a gun magazine about a heavy caliber rifle a guy had built and he was complaing that since Africa was, in his words, "about finished" there was no place left to hunt with such a gun unless we could perfect space travel and go to other planets with large game! While I understand he was just making a point it's just that very mentality is what has destroyed our world around us, it's simply incomprehensible to me for anyone to even suggest that we as humans would arrive on another inhabited world and start shooting the wildlife but I fear there are a great many people who would do just that if given the chance.

A.K. Boomer
12-04-2012, 10:14 AM
Your not alone Radkins -- couldn't agree more, just an extremely shallow and short sighted outlook on things and yet the scariest of it all is most of them are raising children and the "effect" gets compounded due to it becoming the norm - so there's not only no thought as to what is lost - there's also no thought at the moment of what were losing, and with that kind of a mindset it doesn't take many generations at all to totally trash a place...

As far as the big game hunting on another planet - well - yes that's quite a stretch simply for that being highly unlikely in the first place, but - if ever was a reality you can bet there's douche bags who would want to be bringing their guns and killing everything,,,
Just so they could hang something on the wall and tell where it was from with all the lame stories behind it...

Uhggumm; Yeah --- got that one on Mars - took three shots to put him down with my elephant gun (says the "man" with the 3" penis)

Evan
12-04-2012, 11:59 AM
The other side to that is the simple and true bumper sticker: "If it wasn't grown, it was mined". It's much more than a paycheck. It is our current way of life. The question becomes one of personal values and what you perceive being worthy of setting aside from mining because YOU think it is beautiful and worth saving. How much and what should we preserve? That is the question and there will never be full agreement on the answers. How much are you willing to give up to save the Earth from humans? Do you have a right to impose your values on others?

Eventually, all the damage we do will disappear regardless of what it looks like today. Canada is covered in trees from coast to coast (slight exaggeration). A mere 50,000 years ago it was covered by a kilometre of ice instead. In the future this world will not remotely resemble the maps of today as plate tectonics recycles the plates into the magma and belches it back up as new land.

philbur
12-04-2012, 12:17 PM
It's a genetic, survival of the fittest type thing. His real wish should be that other animals on other planets are not also following the same genetic/survival of the fittest path and are by chance further down the road. Why would he assume man is going to be the hunter and not the hunted?

As we see every day, intelligence doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with compassion!

Phil:)


since Africa was, in his words, "about finished" there was no place left to hunt with such a gun unless we could perfect space travel and go to other planets with large game!

philbur
12-04-2012, 12:25 PM
Some values are self-evident.

Phil:)


Do you have a right to impose your values on others?

radkins
12-04-2012, 12:36 PM
I am aware it's much more than just that group of miners getting a pay check, others will receive electrical power generated form the coal, other businesses will benefit from the financial overflow, etc but the fact remains that what has been there for eons is destroyed for all eternity (no it will NEVER heal) for the benifit of a few people of one generation! There are other ways for us to use our Earth that does not steal from future generations, once this is gone we will need to do something else so why not do the something else now? I remember this area from years ago and I see the untold devastation that the mining has done and now that the mines are playing out people are looking for alternatives but the damage is done, there is nothing ANYONE can say that will justify this kind of damage to provide for so few for such a short time. Evan you spoke of trees which will grow back but I am talking about entire mountains being destroyed, streams being destroyed, etc this will not heal in spite of what some people try to tell us. I see so called "reclaimed" land that barely grows grass and weeds and streams that look more like sewer drains but the propaganda shows fields of prime pasture land with flowing steams, this is pure BS and I challenge anyone who thinks I am exaggerating to come and see for themselves. Reclamation is better than just leaving the land spoiled like was done for so many years but it's only slightly better, trading pristine mountain land barely touched except for logging for so called "reclaimed" mined land is a legacy future generations will despise us for. I see the area where I grew up and I remember it for what it was but see it for what it is now and I am here to tell you that NO ONE has the right to do this for so little gain by so few, reclamation is a bad joke because it would take tens of thousands or even millions of years for damage like this to be repaired!

Evan
12-04-2012, 12:42 PM
Some values are self-evident.

Yours always are, to yourself.


but the fact remains that what has been there for eons is destroyed for all eternity

Whatever it is it hasn't been there forever nor will it remain there for eternity. The universe began in 1949 and will end in the not too distant future.

lazlo
12-04-2012, 01:23 PM
What's not to understand, this is the same organization that flubbed their metric conversion and crashed an orbiter into Mars.

Actually, that was Lockheed-Martin's fault: they delivered the module in Imperial measurements, when everyone else on the JPL team used Metric.

Fasttrack
12-04-2012, 04:00 PM
Whatever it is it hasn't been there forever nor will it remain there for eternity. The universe began in 1949 and will end in the not too distant future.

That is absolutely correct. The reality of the situation is that everything will be destroyed; the physical eternity is very likely a cold, lonely place in which there is almost perfect nothingness. The currently accepted theories predict that the total mass of the universe in the future will be roughly equal to the mass of a few semi-trucks; nothing but a "handful" of neutrinos drifting aimlessly at near absolute zero.

Furthermore, there is a depressing inevitability associated with the second law of thermodynamics; in the most elementary sense, the second law of thermodynamics is a statement about the direction of time and the death of the universe. The fact that we believe the laws of physics to be the same now as they were 1000 years ago, the notion of temporal symmetry, leads to the 2nd law and all the disagreeable conclusions we must draw from it.

In colorful language: every new life, every new creature, every process which creates is associated with another process that destroys. The universe is like a giant machine that runs on "entropy"; constantly trying to return to the maximally disordered, lowest potential state. Sadly, everything we know and love about the universe is an anomaly that must be smoothed back into non-existence eventually.

While I believe it is important to preserve some things for "posterity", I see no reason why I should deliberately make myself uncomfortable in the name of "preservation" when the reality of our universe demands that those things I wish to preserve must be eventually destroyed. What difference if I am the tool of its destruction or some other element is the tool of its destruction?

And long before the universe dies, the solar system will die. Long before the solar system dies, the shape of the Earth will be significantly different regardless of the presence of humans. And then there is the all-important question that Evan alluded to: if no one is around to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a landscape, does it matter?

(This can turn into a really fascinating discussion of philosophy, e.g. what is beauty, morals, etc, etc. Without human perception, does anything really "matter"? A number of scientific philosophers and physicists have embraced or are, at least, casually interested in anthropological arguments - personally I find this dissatisfying ... but interesting nevertheless).

Nothing lasts forever. Appreciate it while its here but don't mourn its passing. All things must be destroyed.

lazlo
12-04-2012, 04:47 PM
In colorful language: every new life, every new creature, every process which creates is associated with another process that destroys. The universe is like a giant machine that runs on "entropy"; constantly trying to return to the maximally disordered, lowest potential state. Sadly, everything we know and love about the universe is an anomaly that must be smoothed back into non-existence eventually.

Just about every major religion has the same concept: "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust." Which is paraphrased from: "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19)

Or, as Bill & Ted explained to Socrates: "All we are is dust in the wind, dude." :)

philbur
12-04-2012, 05:26 PM
Most sensible people differential between what will happen 50,000 or 10 billion years from now and what will happen in their lifetime.

If some young tear-away does a wheelie with his hotrod on your front lawn are you going to be so pragmatic?

Why worry about your medical condition, death tomorrow or in 20 years time, what's the difference. Why not just end it now and save yourself the struggle.

How a person lives their life has nothing to do with the ultimate fate of the universe and visa versa. To suggest otherwise borders on the ridiculous

Phil:)


While I believe it is important to preserve some things for "posterity", I see no reason why I should deliberately make myself uncomfortable in the name of "preservation" when the reality of our universe demands that those things I wish to preserve must be eventually destroyed. What difference if I am the tool of its destruction or some other element is the tool of its destruction?

And long before the universe dies, the solar system will die. Long before the solar system dies, the shape of the Earth will be significantly different regardless of the presence of humans. And then there is the all-important question that Evan alluded to: if no one is around to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a landscape, does it matter?

(This can turn into a really fascinating discussion of philosophy, e.g. what is beauty, morals, etc, etc. Without human perception, does anything really "matter"? A number of scientific philosophers and physicists have embraced or are, at least, casually interested in anthropological arguments - personally I find this dissatisfying ... but interesting nevertheless).

Nothing lasts forever. Appreciate it while its here but don't mourn its passing. All things must be destroyed.

topct
12-04-2012, 05:50 PM
Nothing lasts forever. Appreciate it while its here but don't mourn its passing. All things must be destroyed.

Interesting sentence. A brief bit of logic, followed by a command, then a justification.

vpt
12-04-2012, 07:16 PM
It would be funny if a bug landed on the camera lens of the rover during a picture.

Evan
12-04-2012, 07:34 PM
Why worry about your medical condition, death tomorrow or in 20 years time, what's the difference. Why not just end it now and save yourself the struggle.

That is sometimes a valid option. Nobody knows for sure how long they have, regardless of their present condition.

uncle pete
12-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Radkins,
While I can understand to a certain extent your points of view, and even agree with some of it. Their also a bit ironic since this forum and hobby is about the use of metal either in material's or what the tools are made from that we buy and use. And as a miner for the majority of my working career, having someone say we have no right to that career while their of course free to work at theirs touches a nerve. How about the clear cut logging that results from about any business you'd care to name using the endless reams of paper when computers were "supposed" to change that. So should any business that uses paper be allowed to operate? How about any home electronic item you'd care to name. Just how many mines does it take so some couch potatoe can watch TV? I could go on and on. There's not a person living, job or product that in one way or another doesn't affect the environment. I'm about as far from religious as you can get, but "Those without sin should cast the first stone." If you can't grow it, log it, or mine it? then it doesn't exist. Most people who work in resource based industries are highly offended by the environmentalists today because of the un educated half baked random statements that are usually only partially true. I could quite easily make this 20 pages long about exactly what's incorrect with about any knee jerk statements ever made about mining or logging in general. Well for at least B.C. anyway.

I worked in Kimsquit B.C. some years ago. That area is generally classified as a part of the B.C. rain forest. And also incorrectly identified as a "Home of the great spirit bear" usually when their trashing the logging companies. While working there, it was a very rare day to see less than 5 grizzly bears and 2-3 black bears along with numerous moose,deer, etc. I've also seen as many as 45 in one day. In fact that particular area had such a population of those "Spirit Bears" that the B.C. Government had their own cabin in the logging camp for the express use of the bear biologists. This was a main grizzly bear study area. I got to know some of those biologists well enough that I even got to go out for a few hours with them by chopper, and I finally got some honest answers that were exactly 180 degrees different than those environmentalists would have you believe. "The reason this area has so many Grizzly Bears is BECAUSE of selective clear cut logging" End Quote. And those biologists didn't have any need and no personal gain to present the wrong facts.

Don't believe it? Have you ever seen just what grows under a first growth canopy? Pretty well nothing. There's very little undergrowth, and because of that very little to eat. So there's in turn very little to support the food chain required for a high population of Grizzly bears to be at the top of. Once those trees are knocked down, the first thing that regrows on the B.C. coast are the berry bushes, those and endless other small animals support the bears between the various fish spawning runs.Living and working in that area gives you a whole different perspective than what's usually and falsely published as fact. I also got to see just how the Western Forrest Products reclamation crew left each area after it was logged, the roads pulled in and made to disappear, and then replanted. Park like would be my best description.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is far too many base their opinions about the environment from reading or watching what gets published for general consumption. The truth is, you'd be far better off to do your own research about what the real facts are. A good start would be where and what country the major funding comes from that supports the larger environmental groups in B.C. That sure leaves anything they have to say as highly suspect. They all have their own little pet agendas, and these groups are now large enough to have full time and quite well paid positions. So uncovering problems that aren't really there just might save their jobs. What I've barely learned about what's really going on in my area makes me highly doubt almost anything I see published today as real fact about any environment.

I'll also be the first to admit that there are a lot of major environmental problems today. I'd be a fool not to. But there would be far more constructive comments made that were a hell of a lot closer to the truth if people would base their opinions on those facts, and not the sensationalism that gets flogged every day by the so called "news" corporations to make money.

And my sincere apologies for going so far off topic.

Pete

aostling
12-04-2012, 07:45 PM
Sadly, everything we know and love about the universe is an anomaly that must be smoothed back into non-existence eventually.


Was that you, in this movie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nUwZmg4W6c

Evan
12-04-2012, 07:51 PM
Excellent post Pete. I wish it could be published in the local paper.

radkins
12-04-2012, 08:09 PM
Radkins,
While I can understand to a certain extent your points of view, and even agree with some of it. Their also a bit ironic since this forum and hobby is about the use of metal either in material's or what the tools are made from that we buy and use. And as a miner for the majority of my working career, having someone say we have no right to that career while their of course free to work at theirs touches a nerve.


It's all about balance of the benefits vs costs. People were living in the area before the miners came and the land was relatively untouched, they lived there and they survived just fine for many years without mining the coal. Now the coal is gone and the income from the coal is gone but the damage is still here and will remain here just about forever, they survived without it for centuries and they are surviving without it now and they could have gotten by just fine without doing the damage they did so I ask again how can anyone honestly say the cost was worth it? Clear an area and build a highway, a town or even a factory and it can be argued that the benefits will be there for generations but to argue that destroying such precious and irreplaceable natural surroundings on such a massive scale to benefit just a few for a short time is absurd. There is a heck of a lot of difference between need and greed!

uncle pete
12-04-2012, 09:20 PM
Thanks Evan,
It might? make the paper in either of our small towns, I doubt it's really good enough. But we both know there's not a hope in anything major since it doesn't "fit" peoples perceptions today. And we both also know news companies aren't in business or have a need to publish anything truthful anyway.

Radkins,
Yes you have some valid points, but what was done environmentally even 20 years ago most likely wouldn't be allowed today. There's lots of examples just like yours where the system isn't perfect. But who's to say that coal wasn't of any real benefit? To the miners supporting their dependents I'll bet it was. Depending on your exact point of view, anyone can point their finger at just about anything and say the exact same thing. In fact since I live in a real small town, I can't really think there's all that much of any real benefit in the large cities. The problems they create seem to be far worse than the returns. Environmentally speaking their a disaster. I just don't see us all moving back into caves and living off the land anytime soon. I really wish I could agree more with you, but life just isn't that black and white. In our own way, I think both of us are mostly correct.

Our environmental record in North America may not be all that great. But I'll take 50 of your examples over even one of the severe problems I've seen pictures of in India or China. Rivers polluted and filled with garbage and dead bodies so bad you can't even see the water, Air so foul you can't breath it. The Soviet Union dumped full reactors into the open ocean. Genocide, Children starving to death while a state of the art military is fully funded in lots of African countries, a lot of it done with our own donated to charity money. Exactly where do you stop pointing the finger? The problems without any real solution are endless.

For the human race to survive, we have no choice but to move on to other planets. And no doubt we'll probably do the same as we've done here. That's if we can survive long enough to make it to another planet. But we have hijacked the original thread, so I'll apologize again to the OP.

Pete

Fasttrack
12-04-2012, 10:03 PM
If some young tear-away does a wheelie with his hotrod on your front lawn are you going to be so pragmatic?



Actually, Phil, I am that pragmatic. I came home after visiting family for Thanksgiving and found a "donut" cut in my lawn along with a trash bag full of empty Pabst blue ribbon cans. I didn't get bent out of shape; my lawn is not a reflection of myself and it will heal and change in time. A couple of ruts don't matter (of course, my lawn is far from golf-course quality ;) )

Levity aside, you are quite right that there is a big difference 10 billion years from now and, say, 100 years from now. I absolutely believe that there is value and wisdom in protecting some of the natural beauty on Earth. I've had the great privilege to see a number of beautiful places in the United States alone and I hope my children will also be able to appreciate these places. But I think we have to be careful not to go to extremes. It's extraordinarily easy for people in affluent nations with comfortable incomes to complain about the damage mankind has wrought on the planet and how "evil" industry is. As far as I'm concerned, this is the height of ignorance and hubris.



Why worry about your medical condition, death tomorrow or in 20 years time, what's the difference. Why not just end it now and save yourself the struggle.

How a person lives their life has nothing to do with the ultimate fate of the universe and visa versa. To suggest otherwise borders on the ridiculous

Phil:)

That question is one that I struggled with for a significant portion of my life. One of the most resonating characters I have ever come across in fiction is Levin from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

As you say, we have no influence on the ultimate fate of the planet or of the universe. Therefore, I argue for a moderate and pragmatic approach. Save what we can but use what we need to improve the quality of life for as many people as is possible.


Interesting sentence. A brief bit of logic, followed by a command, then a justification.
Maybe I heard too many sermons growing up; the rhetoric is stuck in my head. :)


Was that you, in this movie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nUwZmg4W6c
I was right then, too. http://serve.mysmiley.net/happy/happy0006.gif (http://www.footballerpictures.co.uk)

A.K. Boomer
12-04-2012, 11:21 PM
What difference if I am the tool of its destruction or some other element is the tool of its destruction?

What? how about the difference of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years VS a hundred or two?

need I remind you your making this decision for others? and im not just talking about humanoids - and once it's a done deal it's a done deal.

look - I heard nobody of concern saying we don't need "stuff" we do - all I heard is making an effort in doing it cautiously - of having some foresight with it, and yes because in the meantime we all have to swim in this same "fishbowl" of sorts to try and not take a bigger dump than needed in it, it's a simple respect - and its a respect that's not just about humans - it's a respect for the place that "grew" us and everything else - it's an amazing place.... and as were finding out it's pretty hard to come bye,




Nothing lasts forever. Appreciate it while its here but don't mourn its passing. All things must be destroyed.


Many of your statements have an air about them that we should just use it up and not even make an effort --- "appreciate it while it's here but don't mourn it's passing" ? WTF is that?

This isn't a "bang-bang I got mine"

appreciate it to the point that it remains for longer than just a boom of ignorant masses who by the way aren't even enjoying themselves, if needed I can get you the all specs on that...

On a side note, I went to look at Aostlings Utube video and right in the list was this slightly related one,
perhaps a line you can tell your kids :-) http://youtu.be/M5QGkOGZubQ


No offense FT - but you got your nose crammed so far into the books and all the extremely far off future demise that it's effecting your view of the immediate present...

Fasttrack
12-05-2012, 12:41 AM
On a side note, I went to look at Aostlings Utube video and right in the list was this slightly related one,
perhaps a line you can tell your kids :-) http://youtu.be/M5QGkOGZubQ


No offense FT - but you got your nose crammed so far into the books and all the extremely far off future demise that it's effecting your view of the immediate present...

I've already got my top hat ready to go. I just need the vest. And the kids. Suckers ... they're gonna wish they were born yesterday.

No offense taken, AK.

Frankly, I wish I had my nose crammed into books. It's probably preferable to reality but I actually don't read much at all. From my perspective, it is you that has a tenuous grasp of reality, not me.


need I remind you your making this decision for others? and im not just talking about humanoids - and once it's a done deal it's a done deal.

You might check out game theory sometime. Maybe I should play OT and put a Wikipedia link to Nash Equilibrium or something.

Every moment is a "done deal"; the fact that we can't have a "redo" is not a logically valid reason to refrain from doing something.

I think I find your mentality more pessimistic and depressing than my own. As hard as it is to admit, I have a faith in the collective ingenuity of the human race (although not necessarily any faith in its wisdom). The industrial revolution had an enormous impact on the environment but for the damage we did, we also greatly increased the quality of living and created our own beauty. In some ways, I find more beauty and awe in the creations of man than in the natural world. It is no surprise that the cosmos is able to produce the awesomeness of Earth, but I do find it surprising yet comforting that man, born from "nature", is able to impact it in such profound ways. When I see some great steam engine or a mechanical computer or any number of technological marvels, I am more awestruck and more appreciative than when I see a natural landscape because I am sensitive to the vast amount of sacrifice that went into the technology. That sacrifice includes the "damage" done to pristine landscapes in order to mine coal, iron ore, lime, cut timber, etc, etc



What? how about the difference of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years VS a hundred or two?
What does time matter if there is no one left to perceive its passing? Regardless, it will be destroyed. Out with a flash or sputtering out, what difference does that make? If mankind lasts another 1000 generations vs lasting only 1 generation, what does it matter? There won't be anyone left to care. If I die tomorrow will I care? Nope ... I'll be dead.

I don't know. I think we have two polar opposite philosophies. I am not offended if people disagree with me. Why should I be?

You know, I'm not arguing for selfishness or disregard for one's fellow man. Those who know me also know that I will do everything in my power to help others, regardless of the cost so long as I don't become a burden to others. I'm just pointing out that many of the ... err ... "tree huggers" are ridiculous. I'd like to wind down this discussion since I've already derailed this thread sufficiently far and I don't want to offend anyone further than I already have.

beanbag
12-05-2012, 12:58 AM
AKB: If you want to live a low environmental impact per capita lifestyle, you should move to a crowded european city and live in an apartment. Small cars and high gas prices. No AC or heater. Food shipped in from large farms. Eat lots of starchy vegetables. Compost your waste. No gardening allowed (a farm can grow food more efficiently). Ride the train to the countryside on the weekends.

A.K. Boomer
12-05-2012, 01:03 AM
I'd like to wind down this discussion since I've already derailed this thread sufficiently far and I don't want to offend anyone further than I already have.


I really don't know where to start, but ughh yeah - good luck with that winding down the discussion thing, lol

I'll check for some scraps later in the morning if there's anything left and or the threads not closed :-)

A.K. Boomer
12-05-2012, 01:19 AM
AKB: If you want to live a low environmental impact per capita lifestyle, you should move to a crowded european city and live in an apartment. Small cars and high gas prices. No AC or heater. Food shipped in from large farms. Eat lots of starchy vegetables. Compost your waste. No gardening allowed (a farm can grow food more efficiently). Ride the train to the countryside on the weekends.


Hello - where you coming up with all that?, all I do is make an effort - is that a bad idea?, is it a bad idea to remind ourselves? - im not saying that just because i create one bag of trash every month and a half that you have to too - it's all perspective, to some I create a half bag too much,,,

but for anyone - when did it become a bad thing to question yourself if you could get by using less resources? yet get the exact same results, I mean shouldn't we all be doing that to some degree? where did that get lost? it's how my parents raised me and im so thankful for it... it makes me appreciate things,
It's just a great mindset to have - realizing that things are not limitless makes you grateful, and being grateful is a direct link to happiness - it really is a win win... people who get threatened by it in some way need to ask the question as to why?

beanbag
12-05-2012, 01:37 AM
The real threat is others trying to impose their beliefs and lifestyle choices onto you through force of law. (e.g. light bulb ban)

Also, I like Mars rovers.

A.K. Boomer
12-05-2012, 01:47 AM
The real threat is others trying to impose their beliefs and lifestyle choices onto you through force of law. (e.g. light bulb ban)



It's really not a threat dude, I mean - it's a light bulb, don't be frightened...

beanbag
12-05-2012, 02:01 AM
"First they came for the light bulbs..." LOL

A CFL bulb nearly burned down my place when it started smoking. Good thing I was around.

Also, I don't know if Mars rovers have CFL bulbs in them. My guess would be no.

wierdscience
12-05-2012, 02:34 AM
Let me get this straight-

We replaced a simple,safe,reliable technology with one that is more complex,less safe,less reliable.

The new one isn't made here,the old one was.

The new one requires more energy,raw materials and pollution to make for a NET LOSS in energy savings.

We are borrowing money from the new country of origin to pay for the unemployment checks of the workers here.

We are creating a hole in the economy by the loss of that industry.

Makes perfect sense:rolleyes:

It is becoming appallingly clear that the single biggest threat to the environment are the environmentalists.

lazlo
12-05-2012, 05:56 AM
The new one isn't made here,the old one was.

Do we still make lightbulbs here? The GE and Philips incandescent bulbs I buy at Home Depot are all Made in China, and have been for a long time.

herbet999
12-05-2012, 07:08 AM
It's amazing how a thread can go from talking about the Mars rover to light bulbs made in China.

Willy
12-05-2012, 08:56 AM
It's amazing how a thread can go from talking about the Mars rover to light bulbs made in China.


No the amazing thing is that after 65 posts we are all still talking.http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j31/250willy/cee48e43.jpg

wierdscience
12-05-2012, 09:31 AM
Do we still make lightbulbs here? The GE and Philips incandescent bulbs I buy at Home Depot are all Made in China, and have been for a long time.

We did up until 2009 when GE shutdown a whole slew of US plants that were making bulbs and components here-

http://www.ibew.org/articles/09daily/0908/090810_GEShutdown.htm


All the new CF bulbs are now made in China and the longest I have gotten out of them is 8 months.Last CF's I bought were GE,a twelve pack.I put the bad ones back in the original box,and returned them when the last one quit barely 8 months later,they didn't make it past the 2 year warranty.

The company in the link I posted is still making quality bulbs here and selling them as rough service bulbs.

wierdscience
12-05-2012, 09:39 AM
It's amazing how a thread can go from talking about the Mars rover to light bulbs made in China.

May as well since Nasa didn't find anything worth taking about.:D

Rosco-P
12-05-2012, 11:54 AM
May as well since Nasa didn't find anything worth taking about.:D

Maybe they did find what they were looking for. It wasn't water (or a giant face carved out of rock) and they just aren't saying.

Fasttrack
12-05-2012, 12:07 PM
It's amazing how a thread can go from talking about the Mars rover to light bulbs made in China.


How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb made in China ... ?

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/threads/56146-How-many-forum-members-does-it-take-to-change-a-lightbulb?highlight=light+bulb+forum

philbur
12-05-2012, 02:01 PM
We replaced a simple,safe,reliable technology with one that is more complex,less safe,less reliable.

References?


The new one requires more energy,raw materials and pollution to make for a NET LOSS in energy savings.

References?

Phil:)

Tony Ennis
12-05-2012, 03:00 PM
We replaced a simple,safe,reliable technology with one that is more complex,less safe,less reliable.


References?

1. CFs are more complex. There have more parts.
2. They have mercury in them. Ever read the remediation instructions if you break one of these?
3. Try CFs when it's cold out.

and 4, they produce crappy light, they take a long time to get to full brightness, and they buzz.

They are an inferior product by any measure, unless you're in the business of selling them. I am hoping LED lights get here soon.

lazlo
12-05-2012, 03:07 PM
They are an inferior product by any measure, unless you're in the business of selling them. I am hoping LED lights get here soon.

I was looking at the LED bulbs at Home Despot yesterday, and the build quality is just as bad as the CFL's posted above.
Then again, the Chinese (GE and Philips) incandescents are awful too, and last about half the lifetime they're rated.

I'm surprised, though, that the Chinese halogen bulbs are well-made, and seem to last their rated lifespan.

Evan
12-05-2012, 03:18 PM
Phil beat me to it.

A local indian band has been blocking the development of one of the richest deposits of gold, silver and copper in the entire world. The mining company has been running another local mine for decades with no environmental problems other than the actual digging of the pits and the piling up of the overburden. Funny thing about that mine is that when they are finished digging it won't be reclaimed. Instead they will line the pit and use it as a garbage dump for decades. That isn't the choice of the mining company, it is the local government that came up with that idea. The amount of garbage we humans generate is ridiculous. You know the PET-G bubble packs that you need tools to open? They exist because of shoplifters. Same for packages the size of small shoebox for a product the size of a dime.

The local band had done all sorts of things to block the new mine and some of them are underhanded and dishonest. They would be a lot more believable if they would give up using all metals and return to the pre Columbian life style they "enjoyed" just a few hundred years ago. What do you suppose are the chances of that happening?

Evan
12-05-2012, 03:25 PM
I was looking at the LED bulbs at Home Despot yesterday, and the build quality is just as bad as the CFL's posted above.
Then again, the Chinese (GE and Philips) incandescents are awful too, and last about half the lifetime they're rated.


If you are willing to buy crap the Chinese will sell it to you. The bulbs I buy from DX are very well made. I don't buy the crap ones they also sell. The difference is reflected in the price, of course. LED bulbs currently sold here are extremely overpriced, by a factor of 5 or more. The sellers are taking advantage of the early adopters that haven't heard about global shopping, yet.

LED lighting has already taken over, just not in North America, yet. The Chinese cannot afford incandescent or even CFL lighting. LED is the only way to turn on the lights for a nation of 1.3 billion people. The same applies to two thirds of the world's population.

A.K. Boomer
12-05-2012, 04:40 PM
I've already got my top hat ready to go. I just need the vest. And the kids. Suckers ... they're gonna wish they were born yesterday.


FT - do you ever feel conflicted?;


"I've had the great privilege to see a number of beautiful places in the United States alone and I hope my children will also be able to appreciate these places."


Are you trying to make it difficult for anyone to take you seriously? or do you just have some difficulty being serious...:p you might just want to reconsider the reproduction thing all together?



But I think we have to be careful not to go to extremes.

ahh finally - some common ground - well kinda - that is if you weren't so "extreme"

the fact is is anyone hanging out at either end of the spectrum is more the part of the problem than the solution - and if you believe that none of it actually matters than guess what?




Every moment is a "done deal"; the fact that we can't have a "redo" is not a logically valid reason to refrain from doing something.

It's not about the moment being a done deal - it's about an action being one - some moments are loaded with them and some not so much,
But the fact that we can't have a "redo" IS totally both a logical and valid reason as to why we need to be careful with our actions (not our moments) - you simply would not be around to write your incorrect statement if what I wrote was not true...
again - another contradiction...







I think I find your mentality more pessimistic and depressing than my own.

really? Go read post 59, it's the core of why I do what I do and then look up the words pessimistic and depressing and learn there meaning - then tell me were you could possibly be getting "mislead", you want depressing? you want pessimistic? read your own thoughts





What does time matter if there is no one left to perceive its passing? Regardless, it will be destroyed. Out with a flash or sputtering out, what difference does that make? If mankind lasts another 1000 generations vs lasting only 1 generation, what does it matter? There won't be anyone left to care. If I die tomorrow will I care? Nope ... I'll be dead.


what a selfish outlook - this place is amazing, it is a gift - I enjoy the heck out of it - it does my heart good to think it could go on and on for others - it has done other peoples hearts good to know that it could go on for you and me - so much so that in a related topic they have even given their life so that you could have the freedom and luxury of acting like it's not important - and while that example may be an extreme of the ultimate sacrifice there are also people making minor little sacrifices all the time so that others can enjoy more for now and long after --- I know - I know - "suckers" --- well - maybe so - but you sure can't call em douche bags now can ya...

Who gives a crap about it ending a 100,000 years from now, so you use that as an excuse to just give up on it for the present when others long after you could enjoy? it's as relevant as you saying you like to be comfortable and being fortunate to enjoy some of the things you have, again - on the backs of others, are you making any kind of a connection here?, at least on a moral level?...



and on the personal level you state that it does not matter if you die tomorrow - yet you will fight to stay alive for as long as you comfortably can, you already have proven this, well why? what keeps you going? why not just die tomorrow? it doesn't matter right? your not going to know it - so it won't matter, yet for some reason you continue to go on,,, You think you might actually like this thing called life? or are you so much of a coward and afraid of death that your in fear of facing it?
at any rate - be it either or - do you think it might matter? of course you do, again - contradiction...

in a hurry to return to entropy? - try some crystal meth... but don't get any in my drinking water or i'll kick your ass...






I don't know. I think we have two polar opposite philosophies. I am not offended if people disagree with me. Why should I be?

Im not offended either - I just try to sort through things logically to understand a point of view, I have to admit though that due to you being all over the charts it's made it difficult to understand...

but i don't think it's a polar opposite thing as that would mean im hanging out at the other end of the spectrum and im not - you also can't pin a political emblem on me that way either as depending on the discussion either side has it's head up it's ass...

so polar opposite? no --------- I think the word you may be looking for is bi-polar... that being said - I wish you well...

Fasttrack
12-05-2012, 06:32 PM
FT - do you ever feel conflicted?;


Are you trying to make it difficult for anyone to take you seriously? or do you just have some serious "issues" just curious...:p you might just want to reconsider the reproduction thing all together?

Often. But not because of the false contradictions you cite. I find your many of your statements to be idealistic and childishly absurd. Your veiled argumentum ad hominem and your appeals to sentementality are genuinely amusing. (I mean that in a completely non-condescending way, although my word choice makes it difficult to convey that). I therefore responded with my own absurdity; of course I don't have a top hat ... no one owns top hats these days.

What's this? Do I hear someone calling "ignoratio elenchi"? I guess not everyone has a sense of humor or, equivalently, some people take the world too seriously. I never considered the possibility that anyone would take the following statements seriously:
. "I've already got my top hat ready to go. I just need the vest. And the kids. Suckers ... they're gonna wish they were born yesterday."
That was a whimsical response to your outrageous comparison between my attitude (indeed my self) and a clip of Gene Wilder berating young Charlie for sampling the fizzy cola stuff.





It's not about the moment being a done deal - it's about an action being one - some moments are loaded with them and some not so much,
But the fact that we can't have a "redo" IS totally both a logical and valid reason as to why we need to be careful with our actions (not our moments) - you simply would not be around to write your incorrect statement if what I wrote was not true...


I wrote: "the fact that we can't have a "redo" is not a logically valid reason to refrain from doing something." Being careful with our actions and refraining from doing something are two different things. The irreversibility of time is not a reason to refrain from doing something but it is a reason to make responsible decisions. There is no contradiction here.



Go read post 59, it's the core of why I do what I do and then look up the words pessimistic and depressing and learn there meaning - then tell me were you could possibly be getting "mislead", you want depressing? you want pessimistic? read your own thoughts

While I was looking up words in the dictionary I discovered the word "their". I think you should use it. The issue is not with your personal approach to life as presented in post 59. The problem arises when you and others make statements like:


The good ole planet earth rocked though - but we blew it.
have no real interested speculating on what it would be like to trash another planet, or any of it's occupants (if any...)

Hope we get stuck here and then choke on it like everything else we've already made that decision for...

A little different than what you posted in #59...



what a selfish outlook - this place is amazing, it is a gift - I enjoy the heck out of it - it does my heart good to think it could go on and on for others - it has done other peoples hearts good to know that it could go on for you and me - so much so that in a related topic they have even given their life so that you could have the freedom and luxury of acting like it's not important - and while that example may be an extreme of the ultimate sacrifice there are also people making minor little sacrifices all the time so that others can enjoy more for now and long after --- I know - I know - "suckers" --- well - maybe so - but you sure can't call em douche bags now can ya...
[\QUOTE]

You are willfully choosing to ignore the reality that nothing will go on and on forever. I don't worry about what is lost because I am confident that something new and equally amazing will be produced. I find you philosophy depressing because, according to you, "we blew it". According to you, this planet has been trashed and nothing we do can ever be as good as nature and, more importantly, mankind is doomed. "I think George Carlin said it best.. The planet will be fine. It's the people who are fu**ed." I disagree.

[QUOTE=A.K. Boomer] it's as relevant as you saying you like to be comfortable and being fortunate to enjoy some of the things you have, again - on the backs of others, are you making any kind of a connection here, at least on a moral level...

I'm genuinely confused about this statement, though. I'm calling the "tree-hugger" mentality foolish because they pretend not to stand on the backs of others when, in reality, they do. I am keenly aware of the fact that my good fortune comes at the cost of others. That is why I go out of my way to help others; I know I have an implicit debt to mankind. This is not in conflict with any other part of my philosophy; the conflict that you apparently see could best be summarized as "cost-benefit analysis". I recognize the benefits and the costs and I chose to pay the costs. I do not blow the costs out of proportion by appealing to sentimentality.




and on the personal level you state that it does not matter if you die tomorrow - yet you will fight to stay alive for as long as you comfortably can, you already have proven this, well why? what keeps you going? why not just die tomorrow? it doesn't matter right? your not going to know it - so it won't matter, yet for some reason you continue to go on,,, You think you might actually like this thing called life? or are you so much of a coward and afraid of death that your in fear of facing it?
at any rate - be it either or - do you think it might matter? of course you do, again - contradiction...


Childish. If you are asking whether I "believe what I preach", the answer is yes. I understand that this may be a difficult concept for you to understand, particularly when presented piecemeal in an internet forum. My philosophy has been a long time in developing and is not yet finished and won't be finished until I am dead. A very influential aspect of my philosophy was a series of correspondences between myself and a friend. Let me share a passage of one letter (these are my friends words, NOT MY OWN):

That being said, I guess I agree with Wittgenstein: what we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence. The culmination of emotional experience manifests itself in the search for self-fulfillment and meaning. I've struggled with these questions ever since I can remember. The way in which Tolstoy and Dostoevsky resorted to higher meaning in Christianity is acceptable for men of their time but impossible in ours, given the sophisticated scientific understanding of the universe that's available to us. Without the crutch of religion and cosmological consciousness (for which there is no proof, and even some evidence to the contrary, our old debate), what other forms of meaning are available? Is there something a little more robust, something that does not require one to stop thinking (as does resort to metaphysical nonsense), since thinking might undermine the whole operation and reveal the true meaninglessness of existence? There are many candidates, many of which I've tried myself.

...

I'm therefore necessarily back to self and rational self-interest. I've decided that avoiding the Raskolnikov's pitfalls is easy; simply acknowledge emotions, which are formed by human nature and by the contingencies of social and historical settings, and incorporate them into one's rational decision making. I use my own happiness as my sole criterion. Ultimately, this is the only possible criterion; the dead don't care about legacy. So the initial question remains: Can it provide a sense of purpose?

I believe it can. I've somewhat hijacked the Nietzschean concept of self-overcoming; I have chosen a set of values that I feel will allow me to live the richest a fullest life possible and have dedicated myself to pursuing them. As for the specific values, they include many which are primarily emotionally-based, since as I said, I believe that emotions are the only real "reasons" we have to live at all: aesthetics, relationships, creative output, freedom, culture, thoughts, health, intellect.

...





Im not offended either - I just try to sort through things logically to understand a point of view, I have to admit though that due to you being all over the charts it's made it difficult to understand...

but i don't think it's a polar opposite thing as that would mean im hanging out at the other end of the spectrum and im not - you also can't pin a political emblem on me that way either as depending on the discussion either side has it's head up it's ass...

so polar opposite? no --------- I think the word you may be looking for is bi-polar... that being said - I wish you well...

Life is complicated; people are complicated. If you believe either of those is easy to understand, you are being naive. My philosophy may be complicated and I may not communicate it well, but I assure you it does have internal consistency. I have no intention of pinning a political emblem on you ... is "polar opposite" really a political emblem? For me, the connotations of "polar opposite" are all related to chemistry...

I enjoy spirited discussion. I am always happy to discuss things via email as well. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate venue for discussion than this thread? I hate to subject the rest of the readers to my barbed tongue... PM me and I'll send you my email address.

lazlo
12-05-2012, 06:44 PM
AK and Tom: you guys need to get a room :)

A.K. Boomer
12-05-2012, 07:42 PM
That was a whimsical response to your outrageous comparison between my attitude (indeed my self) and a clip of Gene Wilder berating young Charlie for sampling the fizzy cola stuff.

since were nit picking - I think it was called "urpa burpa cola" and he wasn't berating charlie - it was his gramps. but since were nitpicking - I could be wrong. should I have used nitpicking together or separate - they both came up ok on spellcheck (oops - but spellcheck didn't - maybe should have separated?- we still good, how many o's in oops? what if I want to give it more effect?:rolleyes:)





I wrote: "the fact that we can't have a "redo" is not a logically valid reason to refrain from doing something." Being careful with our actions and refraining from doing something are two different things. The irreversibility of time is not a reason to refrain from doing something but it is a reason to make responsible decisions. There is no contradiction here.


ok - here's the deal - you wrote kinda what looks as something I can only describe as a "vague mess" in reply to a statement I made in which it still makes it look like a vague mess;
"need I remind you your making this decision for others? and im not just talking about humanoids - and once it's a done deal it's a done deal."
and I made that statement in response to you making the statement of

"And the kids. Suckers ... they're gonna wish they were born yesterday."

which does clear things up and make your statement not so vague, and in fact make's the statement of yours "doing something" sound rather sinister -

but ------- now we find out the statement was all a joke, Ah hah ohh good one FT, care to put a little smiley face by it next time? might have been your track record that threw me in the wrong direction,
good shock value though mate...

as far as the top hat and vest thing -- Im sorry - but it kinda fits... and yes I admit that's a pretty bad thing when someone could take you seriously on that - you can put the blame on me if it makes you feel any better about yourself...





While I was looking up words in the dictionary I discovered the word "their". I think you should use it.


great - but remember - it's called urpa burpa cola comprendo? and it was charlies gramps - u cool with dat?

oh and also there's this brain fart of yours;


Remember when you said, "I think George Carlin said it best.. The planet will be fine. It's the people who are fu**ed

No FT - I don't remember that at all - now I remember making a comment about that... you imagining things again?




The issue is not with your personal approach to life as presented in post 59. The problem arises when you and others make statements like: "The good ole planet earth rocked though - but we blew it.
have no real interested speculating on what it would be like to trash another planet, or any of it's occupants (if any...)

Hope we get stuck here and then choke on it like everything else we've already made that decision for...



A little different than what you posted in #59...

it is --- a little of my own brand of shock value thrown in to get the ole ball rolling - seems to have worked and although somewhat jaded on the flip side looks like your just going to have to deal with it...
:) but have a nice day...




You are willfully choosing to ignore the reality that nothing will go on and on forever. I don't worry about what is lost because I am confident that something new and equally amazing will be produced. I find you philosophy depressing because, according to you, "[B]we blew it". According to you, this planet has been trashed and nothing we do can ever be as good as nature and, more importantly, mankind is doomed.
Im not willfully choosing to ignore that at all - it is the reality - Hello,,, most likely going to take along time but it's fact - and something new and amazing might come out of it - but sorry - only for a while - then nothing eventually as everything reverts to entropy,,, so if your not worried because something will always continue maybe you should be - because it wont - see - yet another contradiction,,, but why would that matter, that's the difference - if it's out of your hands then whats the worry, im only talking about the stuff we can effect - and it's allot for along time....

as far as the "we blew it" thing, ooooooops - guess I forgot to throw in a smiley face too - my bad dude...


Remember when you said, "I think George Carlin said it best.. The planet will be fine. It's the people who are fu**ed." I disagree.

no -again that's something you made up - stop asking me that... lol




I enjoy spirited discussion. I am always happy to discuss things via email as well. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate venue for discussion than this thread? I hate to subject the rest of the readers to my barbed tongue... PM me and I'll send you my email address.

I enjoy it too - and I always thought and still think your a good kid (well - a kid to me because im sooooo old)
and make no mistake - you don't own the patent on the barbed tongue - and in fact iv been told mine can be somewhat of a treble hook... so no worries bro - now go get naked - drop a hit of acid and hug the biggest tree you can find....
EDIT; I am just kidding...



But I am proud to say this - im very happy to be connected to this place we call home - and "mined" from all its wunnerful minerals....

beanbag
12-05-2012, 08:04 PM
I'm therefore necessarily back to self and rational self-interest. ... I use my own happiness as my sole criterion.

Was he going thru an early-20's Ayn Rand Individualism phase? LOL

Also, I don't think the Rover read Ayn Rand, because if it did, it wouldn't take no stupid orders from Mission Control.

darryl
12-05-2012, 08:07 PM
I think what Carlin said was 'the planet will be fine- it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas'

But speaking of this other planet, Mars- is that what this was all about, simply that some kind of bug had landed on a lens? :)

beanbag
12-05-2012, 08:13 PM
My philosophy may be complicated and I may not communicate it well, but I assure you it does have internal consistency.

With some free parameters and renormalizations, LOL.

A.K. Boomer
12-05-2012, 08:28 PM
But speaking of this other planet, Mars- is that what this was all about, simply that some kind of bug had landed on a lens? :)

Yes ---- and it's not BS, it's been confirmed By vpt,,, I think he goes by the name of Andy... give it a little time - his phone has got to be ringing off the hook..

lazlo
12-05-2012, 09:43 PM
Was he going thru an early-20's Ayn Rand Individualism phase? LOL

You actually read through all that crap? That was worse than a Tiffie post!


I'm therefore necessarily back to self and rational self-interest. ... I use my own happiness as my sole criterion.

LOL! Enlightened self-interest -- the official manifesto of psychopaths :)

beanbag
12-05-2012, 10:02 PM
You actually read through all that crap? That was worse than a Tiffie post!



I read it once and it turned me anti-social, so I had to read it again to undo the damage :rolleyes:



LOL! Enlightened self-interest


As opposed to the "regular" kind :)

Rustybolt
12-06-2012, 09:27 AM
LOL! Enlightened self-interest -- the official manifesto of psychopaths

Steve jobs was a psychopath?

lazlo
12-06-2012, 10:52 AM
LOL! Enlightened self-interest -- the official manifesto of psychopaths

Steve jobs was a psychopath?

Steve Jobs said he was inspired by Hank Reardon (Atlas Shrugged) when starting Apple, but he was most definitely not a follower of Ayn Rand's "philosphy" of selfishness. In fact, he was a devout Buddhist, which is about as polar opposite Ayn Rand's personal philosophies as you can get.

In any event, the cover of August's Wired Magazine :)

http://www.wired.com/magazine/wp-content/images/20-08/cover-2008.jpg

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 10:54 AM
And don't forget dead, mean no disrespect - just felt it an important thing to point out...

but it's ok cuz he doesn't know it....

lazlo
12-06-2012, 11:25 AM
And don't forget dead.

Um, that too! LOL! :)

The most famous adherents of "Enlightened Self-Interest" are Alan Greenspan, Clarence Thomas, Paul Ryan and Rush Limbaugh. Speaks volumes :)

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 11:34 AM
Yes it does, kind scary...

Fasttrack
12-06-2012, 12:37 PM
Temporarily ignoring a number of posts, I would like to interject a quick comment:

Ayn Rand's philosophy is the most cited and least understood philosophy in modern history. People have enormous misconceptions about "enlightened self interest" and the fact that people like Rush Limbaugh claim to follow enlightened self-interest while actually engaging in self-interest only serves to confuse people further.

Enlightened self-interest, as opposed to self-interest, is acting IN THE INTEREST OF OTHERS, ultimately serving their own self-interest. As a simple example, I try to make the people I love happy. Why? Because ultimately it makes me feel good when I do something nice for someone. Although I am not a strict adherent to Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is the only modern philosophy that has the greatest degree of internal consistency and most palatable axioms. It has a solid foundation in science and draws largely on game theory - a well studied topic in mathematics. In essence, Objectivism and the associated ethic is the philosophical analog of the Standard Model. It has flaws and unanswered questions. It has limited applicability in some areas. It is not complete ... but it is one of the best models we have. Unfortunately, it is easy for "psychopaths" to claim they acted in enlightened self-interest when in reality, they acted in self interest.

The knee jerk reaction to Ayn Rand's philosophy is a clear indicator of ignorance on the subject. Ayn Rand engages in her own style of "shock value" in her fiction. I think this tendency is what ultimately causes the misconceptions regarding her philosophy. Her philosophy was initially presented with too much flare and unsubstantiated opinion. It has since been boiled down and reevaluated as a complete philosophy and is actually very solid (as "solid" as any philosophy can be, anyway ;) )

(Edit: In short, there is a fundamental problem with every major modern philosophy excluding Ayn Rand's {which actually has its roots Aristotle's philosophy}. The fundamental problem is in the ethic associated with the philosophy. The most simple and superficial way to touch the problem is to ask yourself the question: "why do I try to be good", i.e., what motivates you to try to be a good person or where do your morals originate? {This presupposes that you follow a philosophy in which there is a well defined ethic that generates morals that you live by})

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 12:53 PM
As a simple example, I try to make the people I love happy. Why? Because ultimately it makes me feel good when I do something nice for someone.


And then there's this;




I find your many of your statements to be idealistic and childishly absurd. Your veiled argumentum ad hominem and your appeals to sentementality are genuinely amusing.

Sorry FT - just thought it good timing :)
Im seriously happy for you that your not an android...

Little word of advise Kid --- really shouldn't take a book to figure that one out - Comprendo? You got a built in owners manual - open to page one...

Fasttrack
12-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Little word of advise Kid --- really shouldn't take a book to figure that one out - Comprendo? You got a built in owners manual - open to page one...

I'm going to pull an "OT" and post a quote from Wiki:

"Sentimentality originally indicated the reliance on feelings as a guide to truth, but current usage defines it as an appeal to shallow, uncomplicated emotions at the expense of reason.[1]"

If you want to hug a tree because it makes you feel good then, by all means, go a hug a tree! The problem is when "tree huggers" start making unsupported claims about how the world is trashed and how awful mankind is. This is usually followed by a self-righteous example of how they are reducing their environmental impact and how big companies need to stop exploiting the planet. It's ridiculous.

I used the term sentimentality to refer to the implicit arguments that there is something almost divine about "nature" (where "nature" is inexplicably distinguished from mankind's development).

(By the way, is there a better and less potentially offensive term to use than "tree-hugger"?)

It's interesting that you say I shouldn't need a book to figure that out - although I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. The great irony is that a number of novels include this essential message. Regardless, my philosophy is not taken from a single book; it is taken from the human experience as presented in books and as personally experienced (and as reasoned). My own experiences - although far broader than you will ever realize because I will never share my childhood publicly - are not enough to come to any reasonable conclusions. That's extreme hubris to presume that my own life experiences are enough for me to develop any kind of personal philosophy.

p.s. - AK I am sorry for "putting words in your mouth". I wrote the reply while simultaneously preparing for a quantum field theory exam. I was reviewing the thread when that line popped out at me and I snagged it before realizing that you quoted it and didn't type it yourself. I edited my post to remove it, but apparently I had the same line in there twice? <shrug>

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 02:27 PM
The problem is when "tree huggers" start making unsupported claims about how the world is trashed and how awful mankind is.



Not a tree hugger pilgrim (is there a less offensive name for pilgrim?)- just don't have my head buried in the sand either,
First line of defense for evolving a solution is to recognize we just may have a problem to begin with...
This is especially crucial when destruction consequences are vastly delayed and therefor benefit greatly in being caught early...

Very convenient to find a wiki quote to suit your needs - welp - convenience can be a double edge sword... Lets take a look at these "unsupported claims" ohh Tiffer would be proud of us both now lol ;


"According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused extinction,[33] known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated [6] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.[34] More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth.[35]"

Even if these guys are off 5 fold its shocking right?
Now lets go back to your self serving quote shall we? (not that there's anything wrong with that);

"I try to make the people I love happy. Why? Because ultimately it makes me feel good when I do something nice for someone."

Hmmm -- Ok, what about pets? I mean most on here would agree they are an extension of their family - and I mean they have feeling too - also have nerve endings that can feel pain and such, ok - so I think we'd all agree that this benefits us too and in fact test studies prove it.
So if this is the case what are the results of creating suffering on other creatures that have these same attributes? can feel pain both emotionally and physically?
You ever flip that one around in your head? Hows that one make you feel? or is it something they conveniently left out in your "books".

It's a cold hard truth that we all have to get by. but it does not hurt in asking with how much?

That's really where im at, and it would be great if we could have sane constructive posts about sharing all the creative ways of being thrifty, and yes even having less impact, but I admit that's self serving too cuz the more I seem to get into it the better i feel...

philbur
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
The problem is who/how do you decide what is in the best interest of others. Sounds like you are letting the tree huggers back in to me.

If you can't define an adequate process for correctly establishing the "best interest of others" you don't have a philosophy that’s worth a damn. As you point out, every psychopath (or banker) on the planet hides behind the same argument. Anders Breivik is a recent example. He murdered 77 Norwegians in order to save the remaining 4.7 million from their own governments' immigration policy.

If the only measure in your philosophy of the "best interest of others" is you own instinct then in reality your approach has no more validity than the “sentimental” approach of the tree hugger. From where comes your right to determine what is in the best interest of others?

A better philosophy might be naked greed collectively limited by the society in which it is allowed to operate. Instead of the naive concept of self-interest in the best interest of others you have the more pragmatic concept of self-interest on a leash. The recent banking crisis is an example of the failure of the former and a need for the latter. Governments failed to keep the greed of bankers on a short enough lease and the bankers were (understandably) unable to control themselves.

Phil:)



Enlightened self-interest, as opposed to self-interest, is acting IN THE INTEREST OF OTHERS, ultimately serving their own self-interest. As a simple example, I try to make the people I love happy. Why? Because ultimately it makes me feel good when I do something nice for someone. Although I am not a strict adherent to Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is the only modern philosophy that has the greatest degree of internal consistency and most palatable axioms. It has a solid foundation in science and draws largely on game theory - a well studied topic in mathematics. In essence, Objectivism and the associated ethic is the philosophical analog of the Standard Model. It has flaws and unanswered questions. It has limited applicability in some areas. It is not complete ... but it is one of the best models we have. Unfortunately, it is easy for "psychopaths" to claim they acted in enlightened self-interest when in reality, they acted in self interest.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
Enlightened self-interest, as opposed to self-interest, is acting IN THE INTEREST OF OTHERS, ultimately serving their own self-interest.

The knee jerk reaction to Ayn Rand's philosophy is a clear indicator of ignorance on the subject. Ayn Rand engages in her own style of "shock value" in her fiction.

I think you'll find that most will disagree with that Tom:


“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.”

Ayn Rand has been described as a classic sociopath by many eminent psychologists. She was a devout follower of Nietzsche, especially his notion of an Übermensch: a Super Man, who is devoid of all forms of guilt, shame, and unconstrained by external authority. To the point that Nietzsche claimed that his Super Man could commit murder as an art form. Hence the famous murder case of Leopold and Loeb, two law students at the University of Chicago and Nietzsche fans, who attempted to commit the perfect crime. If you've seen Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope", it was about Leopold and Loeb.

So not surprisingly, Ayn Rand was fascinated by serial killers, who are frighteningly close to Nietzsche's Super Man. She was enthralled with William Edward Hickman, a serial killer whose gruesome murder of a 12-year-old girl shocked the world.

She wrote:

“Other people do not exist for him [Hickman], and he does not see why they should.” [He has] “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

So she describes Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

Ayn Rand wrote many letter to Hickman, becoming what was described at the time as a Hickman groupie, and vehemently protested his hanging.

In any event, although Objectivism was trendy during the 2006 - 2008 ransacking of Wall Street, the best, most concise reading is her collection of essays entitled:

"The Virtue of Selfishness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness)"

It's frightening material -- like peeking inside the head of John Wayne Gacy.

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 03:51 PM
Pardon me - is this seat taken? thank you....


http://www.kimfab.com/popcorn.gif


Compliments to Kimfab fella's - gotta give credit where credit is due... :)

Evan
12-06-2012, 04:38 PM
http://ixian.ca/pics10/gid.gif

Evan
12-06-2012, 04:41 PM
It's starting to look like anything other than pictures of Mars should be banned. No wonder it is named after the God of War...

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 04:48 PM
http://ixian.ca/pics10/gid.gif

Now that's what you call having the last word...

Fasttrack
12-06-2012, 04:49 PM
"According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused extinction,[33] known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated [6] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.[34] More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth.[35]"


Similar predictions have been being made for the past 300 years or so and each time the prediction turns out to be false. The most obvious example of this is the "Malthusian catastrophe" predictions (which I believe came up in discussion here recently...). You realize that a number of theories regarding Holocene extinction site Ancient Roman as the beginning of the extinction, right? It would seem man's role is more incidental than causal.

Don't get me started on pets, AK. I have a pet kitten (quickly becoming a cat) but I think the concept of pets is absurd. Everyday I wonder why I have this cat and then I remember I'm doing it because it causes my fiance to be happy and the value of her happiness outweighs the absurdity of enslaving myself to the care of a creature that will never truly love me. I know I know ... all the pet owners out there are up in arms claiming their dogs or cats love them and blah blah blah. Let's not start that discussion! ;)


The problem is who/how do you decide what is in the best interest of others.

You hit the nail square on the head, Sir! As I said, Objectivist philosophy - namely the ethic of enlightened self interest - has some problems but it is an extremely strong philosophy and is worthy of study. I also pointed out that I am not a particular adherent to that philosophy but it did shape my personal philosophy. In essence, the problem is the classic one of "greater good". Who and what determines the "greater good", but this is a problem that exists in other philosophies as well.

You are quick to point out the evil that was done in the name of enlightened self-interest, but what about the evils committed in the name of religion or any other ideal? As far as I'm concerned, the reality of the situation is that there will always be those who find ways to justify their actions.

In particular, there is a subtly that is being overlooked. You asked:

From where comes your right to determine what is in the best interest of others?
What are the alternatives? I suggest that my existence gives me the right to make decisions that maximize the benefit of others. Perhaps motivated by self-interest, I weight the contributions differently depending upon who the "others are". E.g., I weight the happiness of my family slightly higher than the happiness of my friends so when I have to chose between visiting my old friends or my family, I chose family because the hurt I cause to my friends is outweighed by the happiness I bring to my family (even though I may prefer to visit old friends). That is my right as human interacting with other humans.

:edit: Damn - I got sidetracked. The subtlety I mentioned is rooted in my question about alternatives. Your question seems to suggest that I am imposing my will on others and that is not the case. I am conducting my personal affairs in a way that I believe will maximize the well being of those around me. At some level, sure this is a crap shoot, but there is a big difference between making choices with the best interest of others in mind and imposing on someone. (An example of the latter would be a government requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. An example of the former would be taking extra care when operating a vehicle because I know that some motorcyclists aren't wearing a helmet ... and this is just an example ... not an opening to debate about helmets!)

lazlo
12-06-2012, 04:50 PM
It's starting to look like anything other than pictures of Mars should be banned. No wonder it is named after the God of War...

It was certainly a side of Tom (Fastrack) that we've never seen! :)

Then again, that's what your 20's are for: figuring out who you are, your personal values...

Fasttrack
12-06-2012, 04:59 PM
I think you'll find that most will disagree with that Tom:



Is that so? I was recently involved with a philosophical publication reviewed by the Ayn Rand institute. I've also been in communication with a number of very highly regarded philosophers whose interests span the full spectrum of modern philosophies. They all agree (as much as any philosopher is willing to "agree") with the above statement. The fact that the general public misconstrues the philosophy is well established. Furthermore, Ayn Rand's mental state has no bearing on the validity of her philosophy - as I'm sure you realize (it's a logical fallacy). We should evaluate her idea independently from her craziness - that's the reason why her philosophy is so often misconstrued as I noted above ... her fiction is loaded with her own ... erm ... "flavor".

Fasttrack
12-06-2012, 05:04 PM
It's starting to look like anything other than pictures of Mars should be banned. No wonder it is named after the God of War...

http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_59.gif (http://www.footballerpictures.co.uk)

Bah... maybe I'm just in a piss poor mood 'cause I'm too cheap to burn my propane so I'm freezing my butt off when I'm sitting at the computer.


It was certainly a side of Tom (Fastrack) that we've never seen!

Then again, that's what your 20's are for: figuring out who you are, your personal values...

I told my fiance before we started going out that I was an a@@hole. Maybe I should have warned you guys, too? http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_59.gif (http://www.footballerpictures.co.uk) I thought that was what my teens, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s were for ... As I understand it, my 70's + are for getting away with being crotchety.

(Boomer - I'm using smiley's for ya, brother)

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 05:04 PM
Similar predictions have been being made for the past 300 years or so and each time the prediction turns out to be false.

Irrelevant - show me 400 modern day Biologists that made any of such predictions 300 years ago...




Don't get me started on pets, AK. I have a pet kitten (quickly becoming a cat) but I think the concept of pets is absurd. Everyday I wonder why I have this cat and then I remember I'm doing it because it causes my fiance to be happy and the value of her happiness outweighs the absurdity of enslaving myself to the care of a creature that will never truly love me. I know I know ... all the pet owners out there are up in arms claiming their dogs or cats love them and blah blah blah. Let's not start that discussion! ;)





Dude you need a dog...
my dogs love me unconditionally when their hungry - I mean it - their not faking it...

and to sometimes witness them working together as a team to achieve this goal is a marvel esp. when you consider they hate each other...
of course sometimes it turns to aggression that's directly aimed at me - in that case I just give them the food as fast as possible, it's what got those two the nicknames the velociraptors, all that aside they are sweethearts - I mean everybody's got a few quirks right?

philbur
12-06-2012, 06:51 PM
What are the alternatives? I suggest that my existence gives me the right to make decisions that maximize the benefit of others.

You existence may give you the ability, however there is no inherent property of your existence that bestows any rights whatsoever. The person best placed to determine what would maximise the benefits of others is the others. It is arrogant, or at least naive, to suggest otherwise.

An alternative would be to ask them!


I weight the contributions differently depending upon who the "others are". E.g., I weight the happiness of my family slightly higher than the happiness of my friends so when I have to chose between visiting my old friends or my family, I chose family because the hurt I cause to my friends is outweighed by the happiness I bring to my family (even though I may prefer to visit old friends). That is my right as human interacting with other humans.


The correct outcome of this concept depends on your ability to correctly read your family and friends desires with respect to the frequency of your visits. Possible you have bestowed most benefit on your friends by not visiting them as often as you may perceive that you should.

The outcome of the philosophy is utterly dependent on the perceptions of the person applying the philosophy.

Phil:)

Rustybolt
12-06-2012, 07:09 PM
So he gave away all his wealth?
He left all of his discoveries to the public?



I'll save you the trouble.
He didn't create Apple because he was a Buddist.
He created Apple to get rich and he did.- self interest
The collateral benefit to his creating Apple is that he made a whole lot of other people wealthy along the way.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 07:24 PM
I was recently involved with a philosophical publication reviewed by the Ayn Rand institute. The fact that the general public misconstrues the philosophy is well established.

Misconstrues what? That altrusim is the root of all evil? That religion is for the weak? That she valued serial killers above all because they alone were not bound by emotion?

The Tea Party has created a groundswell of renewed interest in Objectivism -- they like the parts in her philosophy about not paying taxes and absolutely no government provided infrastructure (roads, hospitals, police, fire department... should all be private and for profit). But they don't actually read her books (which, My God, are incredibly dry), and the Ayn Rand Institute isn't going to tell you about Hickman, just like a Scientologist isn't going to tell you the weird stuff about L. Ron Hubbard.

But by and large, the personalities of people who are drawn to "Enlightened Self Interest" make up the bulk of their reputation as sociopaths :)

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rand-family3a-470x394.jpeg


I told my fiance before we started going out that I was an a@@hole. Maybe I should have warned you guys, too? http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_59.gif (http://www.footballerpictures.co.uk)

That's the thing Tom, I've "known" you for a long time, and you're not. That's why I'm surprised you were attracted to the Ayn Rand cult of Nouveau Nietzsche:)

The best way to get a feel for her, IMHO, is to watch her interview with Mike Wallace. Fascinating!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEruXzQZhNI

lazlo
12-06-2012, 07:29 PM
So he gave away all his wealth?
He left all of his discoveries to the public?

He didn't create Apple because he was a Buddist.
He created Apple to get rich and he did.- self interest

Well Jobs sure didn't create Apple because he was an admirer of Ayn Rand, because he wasn't. Steve Jobs was a Democrat -- a major financial contributor, and not coincidentally, he put Al Gore on his Board of Directors, where he remains to this day.

So don't try to claim him as one of yours :D

beanbag
12-06-2012, 09:01 PM
The best way to get a feel for her, IMHO, is to watch her interview with Mike Wallace. Fascinating!



IMHO that interview shows what a clear thinker she is, and Wallace, if he is representative of our country at that time (I wouldn't know) shows how afraid (and/or unreceptive) Americans were of her ideas.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 09:20 PM
IMHO that interview shows what a clear thinker she is, and Wallace, if he is representative of our country at that time (I wouldn't know) shows how afraid (and/or unreceptive) Americans were of her ideas.

You mean the part where she says that citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or that taxing citizens to pay for national infrastructure is taking money forcefully? :)
Mike Wallace seems like large and in charge to me -- cracks me up that he's smoking during the interview!

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 09:23 PM
I told my fiance before we started going out that I was an a@@hole. Maybe I should have warned you guys, too? http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_59.gif (http://www.footballerpictures.co.uk) I thought that was what my teens, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s were for ... As I understand it, my 70's + are for getting away with being crotchety.


I'm with you on this one Tom.Way I see it the bulk of the damage to this country was done by bleeding heart people suffering from self guilt who wanted to make themselves feel better.Worst is they appoint themselves as authorities on the subject and then demand the rest of us follow suit with whatever insanity they dream up.

I too am a self described a--hole,stick to it,it's us against them:D

I agree with your assessment of Ayn Rand,people who don't understand the concept do knee jerk,but they they also worship at the alters of folks like Howard Zinn.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 09:29 PM
I too am a self described a--hole,stick to it,it's us against them:D

I agree with your assessment of Ayn Rand,people who don't understand the concept do knee jerk

Considering her most devout followers are Alan Greenspan, Clarence Thomas, Paul Ryan and Rush Limbaugh, how can they possibly be wrong? ;)

I mean, this guy is clearly a philosopher! :D

http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/rushcigar.jpg

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 09:51 PM
Considering her most devout followers are Alan Greenspan, Clarence Thomas, Paul Ryan and Rush Limbaugh, how can they possibly be wrong? ;)





And your point is what exactly?That their polar opposites are somehow deity and above reproach?

Your post on Steve Jobs appointing Al Gore to his board of directors and being a Democrat just proves that even intelligent people can do completely stupid things.

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 09:53 PM
It was certainly a side of Tom (Fastrack) that we've never seen! :)

Then again, that's what your 20's are for: figuring out who you are, your personal values...

At what point do you intend to grow out of your 20's?:p:D

lazlo
12-06-2012, 09:55 PM
And your point is what exactly?

That it takes a special type of person to choose utter selfishness as a personal philosophy.

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 09:57 PM
Double post

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 10:01 PM
That it takes a special type of person to choose utter selfishness as a personal philosophy.

Yet all of them donate huge sums to charity,in other words personal sacrifice,while many icons on the left give nothing,but insist others do.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 10:18 PM
Yet all of them donate huge sums to charity,in other words personal sacrifice,while many icons on the left give nothing,but insist others do.

Ah, see -- you haven't read her work. Altruism "is the root of all evil", and personal sacrifice is weakness and immoral. Seriously.

More specifically:


"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue"

...and as far as self-sacrifice:


"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger."

Good thing your firefighter, LEO, priest, teacher, ... isn't an objectivist.

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 10:25 PM
You mean the part where she says that citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or that taxing citizens to pay for national infrastructure is taking money forcefully? :)
Mike Wallace seems like large and in charge to me -- cracks me up that he's smoking during the interview!

So a citizen who produces nothing should be allowed to vote(for his own selfish interest) on how much the government is allowed to take from one that does?

Should a citizen who doesn't own a car be forced to pay for roads they never use?What about schools?Why should I be forced to pay property taxes to support schools even though I have no children?

When Obama recently said-"if you have a business or a company you didn't build that,you didn't build the road and bridges it took to make your success" he put the chicken before the egg.It was precisely the taxes paid by those businesses that made the infrastructure possible,not the other way round.If it were not for those businesses there would be no need for the infrastructure.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 10:41 PM
Should a citizen who doesn't own a car be forced to pay for roads they never use?

Yes.


Why should I be forced to pay property taxes to support schools even though I have no children?

Because you're a member of society.

Colbert had the best synopsis of the NeoCons choosing Ayn Rand as their messiah: there've been more Ayn Rand books sold since Obama was elected in 2008 than were ever sold while she was alive! :)


http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:221335

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 10:43 PM
Ah, see -- you haven't read her work. Altruism "is the root of all evil", and personal sacrifice is weakness and immoral. Seriously.

More specifically:


"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue"

...and as far as self-sacrifice:


"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger."

Good thing your firefighter, LEO, priest, teacher, ... isn't an objectivist.

None of the people you cite are are required to do anything to save you or anyone else in harms way,infact the one you left out,a policeman is also not required to put himself in harms way to save another either.Instead it is left to the individual to make that judgement on their own.If it were not there would be a distinct shortage of people filling those positions.

lazlo
12-06-2012, 10:46 PM
None of the people you cite are are required to do anything to save you or anyone else in harms way

That's exactly the point Darin -- they chose to put themselves in harm's way to help you. To a sociopath, that's weakness ;)


Infact the one you left out,a policeman is also not required to put himself in harms way

LEO == Law Enforcement Officer. See above.

One final Ayn Rand quote: "Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue." Aristotle is rolling in his grave!

But this guy agrees! :)

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/greed.jpg

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 10:52 PM
Possible you have bestowed most benefit on your friends by not visiting them as often as you may perceive that you should.



Oh hey now -- we don't have to get cruel about it,,, lol (but good one)

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 11:00 PM
Yes.

That's not an answer,that's an opinion.


Because you're a member of society.

An education isn't a right,it's a privilege.So your telling me I have to pay for someone else's privilege which they can choose to abuse and waste with impunity because they themselves didn't have to pay for it?Our great society education system spends the most and yields the least in case you haven't noticed.



Colbert had the best synopsis of the NeoCons chosen Ayn Rand as their messiah: there've been more Ayn Rand books sold since Obama was elected in 2008 than were ever sold while she was alive! :)

And copies of the Constitution and the Federalist papers and so on and so on which is actually a good thing.

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 11:06 PM
The best way to get a feel for her,


Really? you really had to word it like that? I don't have a clue as to who that lady is but she's creepy,
she also sounds like a twit in many ways... she really thinks that that could work for the masses?

I will say this much - both in appearance and ideals I can now understand FT's fascination with entropy...

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 11:12 PM
That's exactly the point Darin -- they chose to put themselves in harm's way to help you. To a sociopath, that's weakness ;)

Once again you missed the point entirely.



One final Ayn Rand quote: "Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue."

Yet the left insists it is a virtue to subsidize failure and it is all about the money.


But this guy agrees! :)



Fiction.

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 11:21 PM
That's not an answer,that's an opinion.

No - its actually an answer - that is if you have mail and UPS and other things show up at your house - and if your friends pick you up and take you places once in awhile --- and even if you walk to the store to buy food to eat as the goods your consuming have weight and have to be shipped in and therefor wear out the roads,,, all for little ole u..
But - if you never receive stuff, and nobody ever comes to visit you or take you anywhere and you just stay home and stare at the wall then yeah your right - why should you have to pay... then again if that's your life you might want to try and "get a new one"...




An education isn't a right,it's a privilege.So your telling me I have to pay for someone else's privilege which they can choose to abuse and waste with impunity because they themselves didn't have to pay for it?Our great society education system spends the most and yields the least in case you haven't noticed.

having never had kids I feel your pain --- it would be a whole lot easier to police that one and iv often wondered the same thing.

Arcane
12-06-2012, 11:22 PM
Once again you missed the point entirely.




Yet the left insists it is a virtue to subsidize failure and it is all about the money.



Fiction.That's ok because the right insists it is a virtue to subsidize success. :D

herbet999
12-06-2012, 11:35 PM
I'm confused... did the mars rover find ayn rand?

A.K. Boomer
12-06-2012, 11:41 PM
I'm confused... did the mars rover find ayn rand?

was speculation - but now diminished after finding some feminine hygiene items...

wierdscience
12-06-2012, 11:59 PM
No - its actually an answer - that is if you have mail and UPS and other things show up at your house - and if your friends pick you up and take you places once in awhile --- and even if you walk to the store to buy food to eat as the goods your consuming have weight and have to be shipped in and therefor wear out the roads,,, all for little ole u..
But - if you never receive stuff, and nobody ever comes to visit you or take you anywhere and you just stay home and stare at the wall then yeah your right - why should you have to pay... then again if that's your life you might want to try and "get a new one"...


UPS pays for the privilege,so does the Postal Service,so do the trucking companies,so does everyone else who uses the road.If a friend comes by and offers me a ride that is their choice to do so.If I call and ask them for a ride I pay them for their trouble as it costs them to do so.

As for interstate highways they should be financed with tolls.Why,because tolls are direct payments from the user to the provider.The indirect method of payment through taxation allows misappropriation by politicians.Why is our infrastructure failing in the US?Because the taxes we paid were collected and dispersed to pay for other projects instead of paying for repair and maintenance.

wierdscience
12-07-2012, 12:09 AM
That's ok because the right insists it is a virtue to subsidize success. :D

Taking less from the productive is not a subsidy.

If you want more of something subsidize it,if you want less of something tax it.Do you really want more failure?

Arcane
12-07-2012, 12:19 AM
Joke Darin. Joke!

wierdscience
12-07-2012, 12:34 AM
Joke Darin. Joke!

:mad: Just kidding!:D

Fasttrack
12-07-2012, 12:40 AM
Oh hey now -- we don't have to get cruel about it,,, lol (but good one)

:D It did not occur to me that Phil's statement could be taken in that way until you said something. Then I busted up laughing ... He's right but Phil who says I don't ask the others when I'm making my decision? In general, I agree with you assessment but I think there's more to it. As I said, there is a difference between trying to live my life in a way that benefits others - a sort of passive philosophy - vs "imposing" my choices on others.

Darin - thanks for the support! As is the case with any discussion of philosophy, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with everything as you've typed it, but in general I'm with ya.

Robert - I won't continue to argue the point but you clearly misunderstand Objectivism. I have read nearly all of Rand's works and spoken with many philosophers from many different areas in philosophy regarding hers and other modern philosophies. The fact that the people you site claim to be followers of her philosophy is meaningless. I can tear apart any religion or philosophy by citing examples of people who claim to be followers and commit atrocities or are otherwise just major d-bags. So far you've completely missed my point; those people are not true followers of Objectivism. They understand it the same way you do and use it as rationale for behavior that deviates from the morals generated by the Objectivist ethic. As you said yourself ... those guys aren't philosophers. The fact that they are in some sense "wrong" does not mean that the philosophy they claim to adhere to is in any sense "wrong". That's another logical fallacy.

A.K. Boomer
12-07-2012, 12:45 AM
UPS pays for the privilege,so does the Postal Service,



Sometimes not that simple ---- you create wear on the roads just in your existence of being a citizen sitting at home collecting junk mail that you don't pay for or pay anyone to send you - yet the mail truck makes a special delivery just for you, so even though you don't own a car your wearing things out and not paying for them. just because someone else is compensating does not make it right - costs will be absorbed by others if the Junk mail goes in the trash and no action becomes of it, again - part of being a citizen...


As for interstate highways they should be financed with tolls.Why,because tolls are direct payments from the user to the provider.The indirect method of payment through taxation allows misappropriation by politicians.Why is our infrastructure failing in the US?Because the taxes we paid were collected and dispersed to pay for other projects instead of paying for repair and maintenance.

There's some real costs in toll collecting, plus it's a damn hassle - they are generally better maintained roads though...

wierdscience
12-07-2012, 01:08 AM
Sometimes not that simple ---- you create wear on the roads just in your existence of being a citizen sitting at home collecting junk mail that you don't pay for or pay anyone to send you - yet the mail truck makes a special delivery just for you, so even though you don't own a car your wearing things out and not paying for them. again - part of being a citizen...

The people who send that junk mail,pay to do so.Maybe if they paid more of the real cost they wouldn't send so much?


[
There's some real costs in toll collecting, plus it's a damn hassle - they are generally better maintained roads though...

Look at modern tolling,it's called a Freepass,you pay for it,it sticks to your dash board the toll booth scanner scans it and deducts the toll from your Freepass account as you pass underneath at interstate speed.Very efficeint and low cost.

The point is Alex we are taxed when wealth is created and not when it is consumed.We have very little control over what our tax money is spent on as a result.The road use priviledge taxes and fuel taxes are most times not spent on maintaining the roads.This is why we have failing infrastructure,those revenues are dumped into the general fund and dispersed.When it comes time to fix the roads the money isn't there and here come the budget deficits.

It is a far more efficient,fair and balanced system to tax wealth when it's consumed.Only thing is politicians don't like the idea because it takes control out of their hands and puts it back in to yours.

Fasttrack
12-07-2012, 01:18 AM
I said I was going to leave it alone, but I am genuinely interested ...



To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger."[/INDENT]

Good thing your firefighter, LEO, priest, teacher, ... isn't an objectivist.

I would like to discuss a couple of things here. First, how many firefighters and teachers do you know? My work in academia and my work in the professional pyrotechnic industry has brought me into close contact with a fair number of teachers, firefighters and EMT personnel. None of them are truly altruistic, despite the general public's idealized view of them. In fact, I will point out that the drowning person example is very apt for firefighters and other rescue personnel. When the situation becomes too dangerous for them, the rescue operations are abandoned. What looks like daring rescues are nothing more than what they are trained to do. I am not belittling the sacrifice, bravery or hard work of these people but I am saying that they are more objectivist than you realize. Any fire chief will tell you that he would never send his men into a situation where "the danger is great". The definition of great danger is dependent upon the people involved in the situation - so a firefighter with proper training and PPE has a different perspective than the general public.

The second thing is also regarding the example of the drowning stranger and is actually two related questions. First, why is self-sacrifice "good"? I believe self-sacrifice CAN be good but it is not altruistically good. Let me illustrate with my second question/scenario:

If I recall correctly you have at least one, fairly young daughter. You are married and I assume are the major source of income for your family. Now suppose that you are out for a walk and you happen across a drowning stranger. Since we are building up a particular scenario, let us also suppose that you are not a particularly strong swimmer and that the stranger is drowning in a pond that was partially iced-over the temperature outside is very low. The essentials of the situation are that you are faced with a situation where, if you attempt to save the stranger, there is a very high likelihood that the county coroner will be looking at two bodies instead of one. Now, the altruists tell us that you should try to save the stranger anyway. But what happens if you are not successful saving the stranger? You have left behind a daughter that needs a father and family that depended upon you for their well-being. I say it is immoral to risk the well being of your family to save a stranger when the risk is so large; again it's a cost benefit analysis. On the other end of the spectrum, suppose you were a member of the Coast Guard and were trained to perform cold water rescue missions in the sea. Then it would be immoral not to try and save the stranger because the practical risk to you and your family is greatly reduced by your knowledge/training. What do you say? Are you an altruist? Would you risk leaving your daughter fatherless to save a stranger when the odds are most definitely not in your favor?

A.K. Boomer
12-07-2012, 01:32 AM
The point is Alex we are taxed when wealth is created and not when it is consumed.We have very little control over what our tax money is spent on as a result.The road use priviledge taxes and fuel taxes are most times not spent on maintaining the roads.This is why we have failing infrastructure,those revenues are dumped into the general fund and dispersed.When it comes time to fix the roads the money isn't there and here come the budget deficits.

It is a far more efficient,fair and balanced system to tax wealth when it's consumed.Only thing is politicians don't like the idea because it takes control out of their hands and puts it back in to yours.


I really do agree with you on this --- and this is one of the biggest area's where the Left needs to evolve, we do need smaller more efficient government, that being said I think the right needs to keep its nose out of the pro choice option,
I do not like seeing big religious influence in politics, and I also believe unneeded wars are just as bad as big government, well - actually on a moral level a whole lot worse,,,

all that being said - I do kinda like it when You and Lazlo go at it because I learn allot from you two,
the thing is is both you guys are right and also wrong too. but if you ever got along enough to put your heads together you both have the combined answer... your both very intelligent guys...

Evan
12-07-2012, 04:23 AM
Why should I be forced to pay property taxes to support schools even though I have no children?

Because you're a member of society.

Because everyone benefits from having educated people that can actually work for a living and pay taxes.

lazlo
12-07-2012, 08:26 AM
That's ok because the right insists it is a virtue to subsidize success. :D

Nah, the right wants to privatize success (profits), and nationalize failure. Remember the $4 trillion in Wall Street bailouts?


I'm confused... did the mars rover find ayn rand?

It's the big head that's Ayn Rand!

lazlo
12-07-2012, 08:32 AM
IFirst, how many firefighters and teachers do you know?

Well, my Wife is a teacher, and several of my shooting partners are LEO's. Does that count? :)


None of them are truly altruistic,

So they're not truly evil? :)


Any fire chief will tell you that he would never send his men into a situation where "the danger is great".

Hence all the firefighters and police that charged into the World Trade Centers to help get as many people out, knowing they were going to die?


if you attempt to save the stranger, there is a very high likelihood that the county coroner will be looking at two bodies instead of one. Now, the altruists tell us that you should try to save the stranger anyway. But what happens if you are not successful saving the stranger? You have left behind a daughter that needs a father and family that depended upon you for their well-being.

You're repeating Ayn Rand's quote that I posted above, justifying her selfishness. Personally, I would attempt to save the stranger. That's the way I was raised.

lazlo
12-07-2012, 08:57 AM
Because everyone benefits from having educated people that can actually work for a living and pay taxes.
This ^^^^^. When you live in a society, you don't get to pick and chose the laws and government support that are convenient for you. I'm not on unemployment, but I gladly pay taxes for unemployment. It's basic human decency. Weakness, according to a sociopath.

The big problem I have with the Tea Baggers re-discovering Ayn Rand is that they don't read her work. They pick and chose sound bites from the John Galt speech that suit them: government regulations are bad, taxes are bad, government should stay out of my life.

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rand-family-protest3-470x388.jpg

But the reality is that she created a cult that worships selfishness. It's remarkably similar to Scientology in a way: marginal fiction writer devises a strange philosophy which attracts a cult following of, shall we say -- non-mainstream personalities ;)

To wit: I've read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and "The Virtue of Selfishness" (from which I pulled those quotes last night). I wholly agree with the frequent characterization of Ayn Rand as a sociopath, and Objectivism as "a ditzy dilettante’s bastardized Nietzsche".

That she worships Nietzsche's Super Man, and models Howard Roark (the hero of Fountainhead) after him, is pretty telling, IMHO.

Some good reading:

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
(http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html)

...and:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rzV8OBbJL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

wierdscience
12-07-2012, 09:46 AM
Because everyone benefits from having educated people that can actually work for a living and pay taxes.

But that's not what we are getting,increasingly we are getting glorified daycare centers.Education has become an assumed right and one that is taken for granted by parents and students alike.

A.K. Boomer
12-07-2012, 10:02 AM
You're repeating Ayn Rand's quote that I posted above, justifying her selfishness. Personally, I would attempt to save the stranger. That's the way I was raised.


Yeah - I agree - part of the piece of the equation that FT left out is one has to live with oneself also...

You find out allot about yourself this way when you take up white water kayaking, personally - I knew I had it in me but never to the level that it was proven to myself - these situations only arise on very rare occasion in every day life --- but they can be a seasonally occurrence in a swollen spring melt class 4+ river...

There are people on this planet that know themselves so well that they can say they will do whatever it takes to save someone no matter what - Im in awe as I cannot commit to that, all I know is when the situation has risen in the past I was the brief owner of the heart of a lion... I was also about a decade younger (in my 40's) so maybe that also had something to do with it - I was also pretty good in a boat at the time...

Ask me that question today and I will still say "I don't know" but I actually think I do,
just one of those guys who has a tough time with commitment I guess... lol

wierdscience
12-07-2012, 10:08 AM
This ^^^^^. When you live in a society, you don't get to pick and chose the laws and government support that are convenient for you. I'm not on unemployment, but I gladly pay taxes for unemployment. It's basic human decency. Weakness, according to a sociopath.

Oh?I didn't realise we were living in a full blown dictatorship.Paying unemployment taxes isn't weakness,but it does create weakness.Payments used to last 26 weeks,then 52 and now 96 with talk of extending them further.At what point does unemployment become retirement?


The big problem I have with the Tea Baggers re-discovering Ayn Rand is that they don't read her work. They pick and chose sound bites from the John Galt speech that suit them: government regulations are bad, taxes are bad, government should stay out of my life.

They don't read her work?Wern't you the one claiming a resurgence in book sales:rolleyes:It's interesting how the D-baggers believe that doctrine from a book must be followed lockstep,probably explains the popularity of Marx in their ranks.

Some government regs are bad,taxes as they are collected and spent now are bad and the government has no business in anybody's life.

lazlo
12-07-2012, 10:31 AM
They don't read her work?Wern't you the one claiming a resurgence in book sales:rolleyes:

How many people own Bibles, but have never read it. Most.

Tell me honestly Darin -- have you read Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? I'm going to ask you some plot questions... :)

A.K. Boomer
12-07-2012, 10:47 AM
Weird and Lazlo - you guys are doing it again,

your both right and your both wrong...

Iv listened to you two long enough and due to you both I have all the answers so ask away,

Ok - we have to start somewhere - so lets start with entitlements --- it's 12% of the tax budget - crazy huh, now we can't just yank the carpet out from underneath it - we have to "ween" these sucklers off the nipple slowly or it will be chaos - everybody knows you don't just walk up and yank a binkie out of a kids mouth - esp. when its cherry flavored, - so here's what were going to do , gubbermint started it and gubbermint needs to get involved to end it (sorry WS, I know you normally don't like that but trust me)
so it's not just one state that requires drug testing - its the entire country,
Ok -- then after that settles in we then require work for things like food and stuff ---- they show up and run their own generic food places - the food is very low grade, it shows up as bulk ingredients and they process it - package it and then they can take some of it home with them,
Ok, after that process is in place ------ here's the clincher --- there then is ingredients in the food that makes them sterile, nobody suffers - everyone gets to live out there existence - and in 40 or 50 years guess what - problem solved - no more sucklers,

You like that WS? yeah? - yeah? ----------- well guess what buddy - the defense budget is double that of the entitlement program, yup - hovering at around 24% it is the largest single chunk of the tax dollar spending pie, with all the waste a good part of it can be looked at as nothing more than an extension of "big gubbermint" want to walk the walk and practice what you preach?, your going to need to get real here... You gotta give something up to Lazlo,
You also have to write Rush Limphose is an asswhipe 50 times and turn it in by the end of the day.

so - sorry - no more senseless wars, wars that will be consuming tax dollars for over 70 more years from many of these brave people that will still be in needing care - and that's just the money factor - what it does to people and families is beyond comprehension,
It's not just about the $480,000 dollars annually that it takes to put one set of boots on the ground in a place where we don't belong - there are repercussions we will be facing down the line for stirring up a hornets nest in the first place, What a lack of foresight, what a waste...
The savings would not end just there - if we kept out of trying to police the globe we could downsize the entire shabang and even be more powerful then we are right now...

Lazlo - you happy with this? good - you have to write Al gore is a douche 50 times and turn that in at the end of the day...

see how easy it is to meet in the middle?

That's just for starters, we can go into other tradeoffs if your interested in ever making some real unreal progress...
but neither of you will ever accomplish anything hanging out at opposite ends of the spectrum without compromise...

lazlo
12-07-2012, 10:59 AM
How did this turn to politics? I thought we were discussing Tom's foray into Ayn Rand?

That the Tea Baggers have picked her as their cultural icon (without knowing what she was all about), is beside the point.

By the way, I'm not a liberal, or a leftie. It's just that Darin's so far to the right, even an independent seems liberal to him :)

A.K. Boomer
12-07-2012, 11:04 AM
How did this turn to politics? I thought we were discussing Tom's foray into Ayn Rand?

That the Tea Baggers have picked her as their cultural icon (without knowing what she was all about), is beside the point.

By the way, I'm not a liberal, or a leftie. It's just that Darin's so far to the right, even an independent seems liberal to him :)

You must have missed this;
"Oh?I didn't realise we were living in a full blown dictatorship.Paying unemployment taxes isn't weakness,but it does create weakness.Payments used to last 26 weeks,then 52 and now 96 with talk of extending them further.At what point does unemployment become retirement?"


and he's got a very good point...

lazlo
12-07-2012, 11:48 AM
Lazlo - you happy with this? good - you have to write Al gore is a douche 50 times and turn that in at the end of the day...


Oh yeah -- Al Gore's a douche, but you at least have to give him credit for inventing the Internet.

I just brought him up because he was close friends with Steve Jobs. Wingers try to claim Steve Jobs as an example of a "good" industrialist, but he was a hippy, a Buddhist, and ultra liberal :)

A.K. Boomer
12-07-2012, 12:01 PM
You gotta admit it's great when you can slam someone using their own invention - it's just makes it all the sweeter,

Ok WS - balls in your court, time for a little whoopin up on you know who, don't worry - he's so blitzed out of his mind on pain meds that he wont feel a thing...:p