Do you not understand the meaning of "Social"? And please don't post some far-off definition and give a skewed reason as to why economics can fall under social.
Secondly this thread is for talking socially, not argument. I'm fine with philosophy over economy because generally people don't argue over and take it as far as they do with economics.
Actually, economics is the science of rational thought in a world where resources are scarce or limited relative to human wants. That's a hell of a lot more interesting than the mental masturbation of "what is love", or "what is truth". Who gives a shit? How about you sit and discuss this for the rest of my life while I understand how certain aspects around the world come together.
And who gives a shit about that? You're going to be a lawyer, its not as if you can change anything with your knowledge, except that you can 'mentally masterbate' about how much smarter you are than the most powerful man on the planet (which you pretty much have been doing these past 6 months), or simply how you 'know' how to properly run the country. I've never been so concieted and arrogant with philosophy as you have with economics. In fact I find it slightly offensive that you would condemn some of greatest minds to have ever lived to be full of worthless bullshit. The unmittigated gall of you! These are men who have done nothing but seek truth, to condemn them would be like condemning every religious leader in history.
And science is the science of rational thought, the thing creating miracles daily. Philosophy meanwhile is the voice of conscience, guiding us through the intricities of modern life. How about you think about how to get rich for the rest of your life and I think about how to be happy for mine, then we can compare how fulfilling each was in the afterlife.
Originally posted by calvs
Do you not understand the meaning of "Social"? And please don't post some far-off definition and give a skewed reason as to why economics can fall under social.Secondly this thread is for talking socially, not argument. I'm fine with philosophy over economy because generally people don't argue over and take it as far as they do with economics.
You haven't been here in a LONG time.
Originally posted by Nephthys
And who gives a shit about that? You're going to be a lawyer, its not as if you can change anything with your knowledge, except that you can 'mentally masterbate' about how much smarter you are than the most powerful man on the planet (which you pretty much have been doing these past 6 months), or simply how you 'know' how to properly run the country. I've never been so concieted and arrogant with philosophy as you have with economics. In fact I find it slightly offensive that you would condemn some of greatest minds to have ever lived to be full of wothless bullshit. The unmittigated gall of you! These are men who have one nothing but seek truth, to condemn them would be like condemning every religious leader in history.
And science is the science of rational thought, the thing creating miracles daily. Philosophy meanwhile is the voice of conscience, guiding us through the intricities of modern life. How about you think about how to get rich for the rest of your life and I think about how to be happy for mine, then we can compare how fulfilling each was in the afterlife. [/B]
Read my definition for economics again. Rational thought pertaining to scarce resources in relation to human wants.
Ah yes, you sitting on your ass asking what truth is, is going to make you a lot happier than me, whose motive isn't money but actual "truth" as it relates to monetary and financial institutions. I love your arrogance though in terms fo placing philosophy over economics. I'm not trying to do the opposite, I just don't care too much about philosophy.
I love how you call ME conceited though, just because I know what I'm talking about. You keep throwing out all of these insults and assertions without an iota of proof. I don't debate philosophy just like people who don't understand economics(LS), shouldn't debate economics.
Originally posted by calvs
People who understand economics as well as you apparently do should go discuss/debate them on a forum where you have equals, no?You're pretty much an average size fish in a small pond over here and you're choosing to stay just to pick on the smaller fish 😉
I'm fairly certain the likes of Nai, Gideon, and maybe Faunus have the same amount of knowledge as me, I'm just wasting my time arguing with LS waiting on them. If they don't want to respond, great. But if you guys can discuss philosophy, I see no reason to introduce economics and finance into the social thread.
The most powerful man on the planet=automatic intelligence?
No, you just probably get a kick out of being oh so smarter than him.
And please, most of you are just as conceited about philosophy as economics.
Not really (except gideon, who's always conceited).
Some of the greatest minds? ROFL. You're going to tell me that the greatest philosophers were smarter than the greatest scientists or doctors or economists, hilarious.
No, that would be why I said some of the smartest, not the smartest.
They don't seek truth, they seek mental masturbation.
Prove it.
And without economics, we wouldn't have any legitimate financial systems throughout history.
Without philosophy, we wouldn't have any kind of morality beyond the instinctual, and society would probably be a smoking wreck.
Ah yes, you sitting on your ass asking what truth is, is going to make you a lot happier than me, whose motive isn't money but actual "truth" as it relates to monetary and financial institutions.
'Actual truth'? I thought that was God, who also falls within the realm of philosophy.
I love your arrogance though in terms fo placing philosophy over economics.
Strength of the mind supersedes that of the body.
I love how you call ME conceited though, just because I know what I'm talking about. You keep throwing out all of these insults and assertions without an iota of proof.
Proof? What on earth are you talking about now?
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, you just probably get a kick out of being oh so smarter than him.
Prove it.
'Actual truth'? I thought that was God, who also falls within the realm of philosophy.
Proof? What on earth are you talking about now? [/B]
You keep saying that I'm either conceited, or I haven't proven my argument, yet you have offered nothing more than that.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Religious zealot? And lightsnake continues the self pwnage with remarks that make no sense and aren't even remotely accurate. So much for living in reality. And it's funny how you think without philosophy we would have never gotten this far through civilization, but you don't take Jewish philosophy or character development seriously. And Lightsnake strikes out with more double standards. Man you're on a roll today.
Oh, and I have a hard time believing we wouldn't have survived without "what is love, what is truth, is the glass half full or half empty" nonsense. Rofl
What's next? "WAAAH, SOCIALISM!"
Originally posted by Lightsnake
You've cheerfully admitted you'd ban pork and shellfish if you could. Case rested.
You don't get philosophy in the slightest we see...
And given you subscribe to the economic theory that's left us in economic crisis, I think that 'thrill' you get is a bit trumped up.What's next? "WAAAH, SOCIALISM!"
I don't get philosophy just like you don't get economics. And actually, the theory I subscribe to is a theory that has worked for thousands of years. Shows how much you really understand. Stick to philosophy LS, you're getting your ass handed in this debate. I stick to what I know, do the same.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
This looks like the person advocating the preservation of embryos against the mother's will because they [b]might feel pain is calling the torture by waterboarding, a technique that convinces the victim they are drowning, a technique that washed out all of the operatives subjected to it in an attempt to develop resistance to it an "insignificant talking point."I realize that I might be missing some context, and I certainly hope I am, but that looks like blatantly insensitive hypocrisy to me. [/B]
I think you are missing some context. Its insignificant, because LS and i were talking about Obama. Not W. He kept bringing up W. That is why it was insignificant. I'm against waterboarding because somebody being waterboarded will tell you whatever you need to hear to stop waterboarding them.
I think it is a useless tool in gathering intelligence. That said, I don't see the corollary you were trying to draw between terrorists and babies. One hardly compares to the other.
DS, you've said some dumb things. A subset of the dumb things you've said includes this:
You're going to tell me that the greatest philosophers were smarter than the greatest scientists or doctors or economists, hilarious.
They don't seek truth, they seek mental masturbation. And without economics, we wouldn't have any legitimate financial systems throughout history.
Here are some reasons why this was a dumb thing to say:
1. For a very great percentage of recorded history the philosophers were the scientists. Most notable, perhaps, is Aristotle, who set the foundation for the "scientific inquiry" of the next thousand years or so.
2. Intelligence ('smarts'😉 has not changed a great deal throughout the ages. That philosophers were stuck writing on papyrus rather than blackberries (blackberrys?) does not make them less intelligent.
3. Your assertion that their stated goal is a deception is an example (of which I have seen many during the last few days) of an individual possessing greater knowledge of another's motives than that person himself.
4. The final line of your paragraph is a tautology. It is not a tautology with which I agree, (having, I suspect, a rather different view of 'legitimate' than you) but it is accurate according to conventional definitions. (Caveat: did the Persians have economists before they started coinage? Did the traders on the Indian Ocean?)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Here are some reasons why this was a dumb thing to say:
1. For a very great percentage of recorded history the philosophers were the scientists. Most notable, perhaps, is Aristotle, who set the foundation for the "scientific inquiry" of the next thousand years or so.
2. Intelligence ('smarts'😉 has not changed a great deal throughout the ages. That philosophers were stuck writing on papyrus rather than blackberries (blackberrys?) does not make them less intelligent.
3. Your assertion that their stated goal is a deception is an example (of which I have seen many during the last few days) of an individual possessing greater knowledge of another's motives than that person himself.
4. The final line of your paragraph is a tautology. It is not a tautology with which I agree, (having, I suspect, a rather different view of 'legitimate' than you) but it is accurate according to conventional definitions. (Caveat: did the Persians have economists before they started coinage? Did the traders on the Indian Ocean?) [/B]
This is very debatable. However, my opinion of philosophy has been tainted by college classes and pseudointellectuals. If you're legitimately out to pursue some sort of goal, more power to you. If you're here to regurgitate something so people will think you're smart, then you're an idiot. Unfortunately, the majority of college students fall in the latter category.
Originally posted by truejedi
I think you are missing some context. Its insignificant, because LS and i were talking about Obama. Not W. He kept bringing up W. That is why it was insignificant. I'm against waterboarding because somebody being waterboarded will tell you whatever you need to hear to stop waterboarding them.I think it is a useless tool in gathering intelligence. That said, I don't see the corollary you were trying to draw between terrorists and babies. One hardly compares to the other.
So your only objection (which is, admittedly, one of my strongest) to waterboarding is that it doesn't work? You find nothing wrong with the pain inflicted upon those suspected of being terrorists? Those presumed innocent by the United States justice system?
The corollary holds because pain inflicted upon a living, breathing human being has to be worth at least as much as that upon a grouping of cells that *may* survive to term.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So your only objection (which is, admittedly, one of my strongest) to waterboarding is that it doesn't work? You find nothing wrong with the pain inflicted upon those suspected of being terrorists? Those presumed innocent by the United States justice system?The corollary holds because pain inflicted upon a living, breathing human being has to be worth [b]at least
as much as that upon a grouping of cells that *may* survive to term. [/B]
I'm sorry, do you have a better way to weed out the terrorists?
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So your only objection (which is, admittedly, one of my strongest) to waterboarding is that it doesn't work? You find nothing wrong with the pain inflicted upon those suspected of being terrorists? Those presumed innocent by the United States justice system?The corollary holds because pain inflicted upon a living, breathing human being has to be worth [b]at least
as much as that upon a grouping of cells that *may* survive to term. [/B]
hmmm... Not my only objective. I don't like the idea of the torture. If you haven't noticed though, i've always tried to take sides where the most lives are spared, period. If one man, for instance, had info about explosives that would kill thousands, I wouldn't take any joy in it, i certainly wouldn't like it, and i probably wouldn't be able to sleep later, but I would feel like it needed to be done. I couldn't do it myself, i know that much. I've never even been able to punch someone that deserves it, I'm just not a violent person. But if someone did, and it saved literally thousands of lives, ... I still don't know. But i wouldn't dismiss it out of hand i guess.
I would have to have absolute proof that that man knew. For instance, if he was telling me "I know about an explosive that will kill thousands, but i'm not telling where." Then I would feel like it was justified, IF IT WORKED. But it still wouldn't work, so what is the point. I guess.
How would you feel about that? Torture one man and save 10,000? If you had proof that he knew, and just wasn't telling?
Oh, Btw Red, did you recognize the thing i was saying about the Geneva convention earlier?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Aristotle was also a big fan of fiat currency and his suggestions instituted a period of large inflation.
Where did I claim that philosophers were less intelligent than other groups?
DS:
the greatest philosophers were smarter than the greatest scientists or doctors or economists, hilarious.
Explain this
You all have a degree of insight that seems to surpass that of normal humans.
This is very debatable. However, my opinion of philosophy has been tainted by college classes and pseudointellectuals. If you're legitimately out to pursue some sort of goal, more power to you. If you're here to regurgitate something so people will think you're smart, then you're an idiot. Unfortunately, the majority of college students fall in the latter category. [/B]
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm sorry, do you have a better way to weed out the terrorists?
Torture one man and save 10,000?
it still wouldn't work, so what is the point.
...I missed the Geneva thing, repeat it?