The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Lightsnake3,287 pages
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
ROFL. This implies philosophy automatically leads to progressiveness and advancement, which is certainly NOT the case. And yes, people who subscribe to keynesian economic theory are fools.

It implies nothing of the sort. I am outright stating that philosophy has led to progressiveness and advancement.

I really do NOT understand this line of thought.

Potentially because you have a flimsy grasp of morals


Even if the terrorists fight with no morals, we should still take the high moral ground?

So we should torture them for what? Spite? There's a reason interrogations tend not to use physical torture

This is ridiculous. How many people have to die before this so called "progressive" theory is viewed as retarded?

The implication people have died due to people protesting torture? Um...ok

Originally posted by Lightsnake
It implies nothing of the sort. I am outright stating that philosophy has led to progressiveness and advancement.

So has science, economics, medicine, etc. What's your point?

Potentially because you have a flimsy grasp of morals

For someone who follows moral relativism, it's downright hilarious you telling me that my grasp of morals is "Flimsy"

So we should torture them for what? Spite? There's a reason interrogations tend not to use physical torture

The implication people have died due to people protesting torture? Um...ok [/B]

I was discussing terrorism, learn how to read. To me, it appears that you claimed that no matter what happens, the US has to hold to a "higher moral ground".

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So has science, economics, medicine, etc. What's your point?

Ah, so you're placing philosophy alongside them. Very good

For someone who follows moral relativism, it's downright hilarious you telling me that my grasp of morals is "Flimsy"


Yes, strange how your grasp on absolute morality isn't so moral.

I was discussing terrorism, learn how to read. To me, it appears that you claimed that no matter what happens, the US has to hold to a "higher moral ground".


In regards to torture? There's a reason it's prohibited.
And really, the 'progressive' philosophies...saying correctly pick your battles and fight them correctly as opposed to bulldozing an unrelated country with the cowboy style we saw for eight years?

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Ah, so you're placing philosophy alongside them. Very good

I never stated otherwise. You assumed.

Yes, strange how your grasp on absolute morality isn't so moral.

You're a walking contradiction LS. Months ago you use the typical "who are you to..." line, and now you're telling me my grasp isn't so moral. And who has a great understanding of morals, you? Don't make me laugh even more than I have the past 24 hours.

In regards to torture? There's a reason it's prohibited.
And really, the 'progressive' philosophies...saying correctly pick your battles and fight them correctly as opposed to bulldozing an unrelated country with the cowboy style we saw for eight years? [/B]

You DO know that Obama increased the size of the troops in Afghanistan right? Or is this more nonsense from the king of double standards? I think you really believe that the Bush administration was corrupt and immoral while the Obama administration is the opposite. So much for realistic.

I don't like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32402226/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

Regardless what political affiliation you hold yourself in, this is going to get our boys killed.

You're a walking contradiction LS.

Not really.

Months ago you use the typical "who are you to..." line, and now you're telling me my grasp isn't so moral.

Well, the line does not judge the content of your moral system, just the presumption that you would extend it universally. He is now condemning the content of the system itself.

I bet.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I never stated otherwise. You assumed.

"I didn't mean what I really said."

You're a walking contradiction LS. Months ago you use the typical "who are you to..." line, and now you're telling me my grasp isn't so moral. And who has a great understanding of morals, you? Don't make me laugh even more than I have the past 24 hours.


Red says it better than I could

You DO know that Obama increased the size of the troops in Afghanistan right? Or is this more nonsense from the king of double standards? I think you really believe that the Bush administration was corrupt and immoral while the Obama administration is the opposite. So much for realistic.


Wait. Obama increased troop commitments in a country we have a realistic goal and pre-existing conflict with...something is wrong?
Hey, remember what I said about picking battles? One of the worst things about Bush was his focus on Iraq instead of actual threats

Originally posted by Lightsnake
"I didn't mean what I really said."

I actually never said it. Once again you prove your inability to read.

Wait. Obama increased troop commitments in a country we have a realistic goal and pre-existing conflict with...something is wrong?
Hey, remember what I said about picking battles? One of the worst things about Bush was his focus on Iraq instead of actual threats

Realistic chance? Just like the economy is getting better ROFL! LS, it's one thing that you can't be objective. It's another when you use your bias in conjunction with double standards to form an illogical argument. Thanks for another laugh.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Well once again, my view of philosophy has been tainted by liberal arts and philosophy majors. Other than that, if it helps you sleep better at night or figure something out, go for it. Although I do have a problem with people who understand philosophy well, but can't seem to comprehend how financial and monetary institutions work on this planet.

I think you could have much fun with Frithjof Bergmann. Quite funny guy and, as somebody interested in philosophy, he's also quite interested in economy. That aside: One can't understand how financial and monetary insitutions work without understanding philosophy first. Economy is not a science built on charts and some numbers. It involves a nice deal of ideologies and - yes - philosophies, that one has to understand before the ability to understand the system. I, as a typical member of the "liberal arts and philosophy majors" you dislike so much, have a better overview on economic topics than most people studying economy I know. And, just to add that - I don't like economy majors, who can tell you how every financial and monetary insitution works, but can't tell you how people work.

Which brings me back to the question you had asked. First concering German economy. Yes. We had a decline of exports in the first quater but it has (albeit only a little bit) risen in the second quater (0.3 %). Yet, I don't think we will be affected by the crises as much as China. Why?

a) Unlike China, Germany is producing (and exporting) high-quality products only. So why people might stop buying the cheap stuff exported from there, they won't stop buying stuff with a "Made in Germany" placed on it somewhere so fast.

b) Germany is the market-leader for technology (and that by far) for everything related to renewable energy. Considering the fact that this is about to become a big market (also thanks to Obama), guess who will make the cash there...The related branches have constantly grown with a ration of more than 10 % in the last years over here.

c) Over here, we have a - compared to the USA - rather conservative economic system. At least from what I can judge. Most people over here don't have credit cards and, generally, don't spent more than they actually have. So a crisis in the financial market doesn't hit Germany as hard as it would hit the USA or England.

Then, regarding to your question about the German health care system (about rich people). In general, every German who has work pays 15 % of his anual income to the health insurance system, with another 15 % of that income being paid by the employers. Those 15 % are capped at an anual income of 50,000 Euro per year. For that money, everything that has to be done (based on a catalogue that is updated recently) is covered by the health insurance.
Now: If you earn more than that, you're free to change into the private health ensurance. In general, they will take more money, but also cover additional stuff, that the general health insurance doesn't pay for. For example: Laser-based operations at the dentist.

In both cases, you're free to spent money for additional treatment that your health insurance doesn't cover. Just as example: Professional Tooth Cleaning.

Nai, what kinds of things are covered? You said things that "Have to be done" Any dental at all? Eyecare?

How does that translate into say cancer treatment, or whatnot? Does have to be done mean they just cover treatment for the symptoms? Or how about rehabilitation for accident victims?

thanks for the insight too by the way.
Talking politics is good, because everyone always learns something along the way.

Not me.

Originally posted by truejedi
Nai, what kinds of things are covered? You said things that "Have to be done" Any dental at all? Eyecare?

How does that translate into say cancer treatment, or whatnot? Does have to be done mean they just cover treatment for the symptoms? Or how about rehabilitation for accident victims?

thanks for the insight too by the way.
Talking politics is good, because everyone always learns something along the way.

Poliwut?

Originally posted by Borbarad
I think you could have much fun with Frithjof Bergmann. Quite funny guy and, as somebody interested in philosophy, he's also quite interested in economy. That aside: One can't understand how financial and monetary insitutions work without understanding philosophy first. Economy is not a science built on charts and some numbers. It involves a nice deal of ideologies and - yes - philosophies, that one has to understand before the ability to understand the system. I, as a typical member of the "liberal arts and philosophy majors" you dislike so much, have a better overview on economic topics than most people studying economy I know. And, just to add that - I don't like economy majors, who can tell you how every financial and monetary insitution works, but can't tell you how people work.

I never really viewed it that way before. The reason is because the study of economics implies people will make the rational choice when faced with a scarcity issue to maximize their own utility, so I wasn't aware that I need to understand how people work. Also, how does understanding philosophy make me understand how people work? I can read the news or go outside and understand how people operate. Not to mention, there are very few people who study philosophy, who know much of anything else. You seem to be the exception to the rule.

Which brings me back to the question you had asked. First concering German economy. Yes. We had a decline of exports in the first quater but it has (albeit only a little bit) risen in the second quater (0.3 %). Yet, I don't think we will be affected by the crises as much as China. Why?

a) Unlike China, Germany is producing (and exporting) high-quality products only. So why people might stop buying the cheap stuff exported from there, they won't stop buying stuff with a "Made in Germany" placed on it somewhere so fast.


This is debatable Nai. People buy Chinese products because they are cheap. With world consumer spending going lower and lower daily, it's going to affect Germany more than China because Germany pays its employees a lot more and will therefore lose out on the economic contraption that's currently occurring.

b) Germany is the market-leader for technology (and that by far) for everything related to renewable energy. Considering the fact that this is about to become a big market (also thanks to Obama), guess who will make the cash there...The related branches have constantly grown with a ration of more than 10 % in the last years over here.

You're not talking about alternative energy are you? And how does this help their economy exactly when they're producing but consumers aren't buying and the unemployment rate isn't dropping?

c) Over here, we have a - compared to the USA - rather conservative economic system. At least from what I can judge. Most people over here don't have credit cards and, generally, don't spent more than they actually have. So a crisis in the financial market doesn't hit Germany as hard as it would hit the USA or England.

Wel, Germany is going to be hit from a different angle. The fact that there aren't lax credit requirements in Germany or that consumers rarely spend what they don't have, is great in terms of building up a surplus or reducing a deficit. The problem is, and with China also, is that the economies of the world are in a depression and therefore are contracting. Germany is going to really hurt itself because now they're producing TOO much. They'll have thousands of warehouses with products, just like China.

Then, regarding to your question about the German health care system (about rich people). In general, every German who has work pays 15 % of his anual income to the health insurance system, with another 15 % of that income being paid by the employers. Those 15 % are capped at an anual income of 50,000 Euro per year. For that money, everything that has to be done (based on a catalogue that is updated recently) is covered by the health insurance.
Now: If you earn more than that, you're free to change into the private health ensurance. In general, they will take more money, but also cover additional stuff, that the general health insurance doesn't pay for. For example: Laser-based operations at the dentist.

This sounds surprisingly efficient. At the same time, you don't have huge deficits which would make this plan unsustainable, like in America.

So guys, all this debating... when's the election?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So guys, all this debating... when's the election?

When are you running Beefington? You're surely the best candidate since your know-all on economics is flawless.

Originally posted by calvs
When are you running Beefington? You're surely the best candidate since your know-all on economics is flawless.

It IS flawless, I've more than proven that with my dismantling of Lightsnake. However, I don't think I'm up to the "full of shit" that belongs with all politicians.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It IS flawless. However, I don't think I'm up to the "full of shit" that belongs with all politicians.

Time for a change perhaps? It clearly works..

Originally posted by calvs
Time for a change perhaps? It clearly works..

Haha it's hilarious how many people Obama seduced with that slogan. I'd like for anyone to point out one thing that he said he's going to do, that he's currently doing now. His approval ratings are under 50% now? Hilarious. Let him continue throwing money at the consumer with more stimulus plans and "cash for clunkers". He'll be laughed out before his term is up.

I'm not fond of his promise to keep lobbyists out his administration, and then putting lobbyists in his administration.

I admit i had really high hopes for Obama. I didn't vote for him, because i'm obviously a pro-life kinda person, but I hoped he would do what he said economically, I was actaully excited about that part of his admin.

And then the spending came. The ridiculous spending. And i lost hope.

Originally posted by truejedi
I'm not fond of his promise to keep lobbyists out his administration, and then putting lobbyists in his administration.

I admit i had really high hopes for Obama. I didn't vote for him, because i'm obviously a pro-life kinda person, but I hoped he would do what he said economically, I was actaully excited about that part of his admin.

And then the spending came. The ridiculous spending. And i lost hope.


I'll admit it too. I didn't scream "Lol socialism". The guy seemed genuinely intelligent and funny, like a cool college roommate. I would have voted for him over McCain as well. However, his grasp on monetary and fiscal policies is absolutely terrible and at times, he doesn't know what to do other than to assure people everything is going to be alright, and most retarded liberals buy this. However, the democrats aren't united on Obama's policies because even they realize that they're piss poor and can only drive our economy further into unsustainable debt.

And here's the kicker, which many Liberals bring up of course. I don't give a shit if our president is a liberal or a conservative, republican or democrat. If he's doing good for our country and increasing economic prosperity, his political affilations are meaningless. My hope is for this country to survive, not for a conservative/republican to make it happen.