Boycott Google

Desiring to make everything efficient is itself inefficient and stupid.
Our problem is too much concentration of wealth and power in too few hands, not inefficiency.
If you don’t like small-scale agriculture, don’t support it with your buck.
Some people prefer food made the old fashioned way: kinder to animals, the environment, healthier, more wholesome, but if there’s no profit in it, it won’t be as available.
You’re going to need an awful lot of taxes, resources and regulations, and you’re going to get into conflict with an awful lot of people trying to control every aspect of our lives because you think it indirectly, infinitesimally affects you.

I want a varied, organic, individualistic and creative market, you can keep your efficient, sterile, totalitarian uniformity, where a handful of monstrous megacorporations are given a total monopoly.

No, I don’t want to masochistically work harder to support someone who can, but won’t work.

That’s your fetish, leave me out of it.

Speaking of (fuel) inefficiency.

I didn’t say we relatively lack new techs, I said we relatively lack new practical techs.

If anything, we’re getting unhealthier, see Weston Price.

Because of people like you, mankind won’t make it.

No, most people will have money to buy everything, only a few people won’t.

We’re not infinitely increasing the supply of workers, we’re increasingly the supply of workers a little, by cutting the voluntarily unemployed off welfare, so wages would only fall a little, but, if prices proportionally fall, that’s inconsequential.

To have a theory you need correlation and mechanism, but you have neither unless you can cite one instance when atheists allied themselves for the racially pure cause. Once you complete that task, then you can propose a mechanism that explains the correlation.

On the other hand, I have an abundance of correlation associating theists rallying together for the morally absolute cause of racial purity. And my mechanism to explain the correlation is the mindset one chooses to view the world which stems from acknowledgement of absolute truth requisite to theism.

That’s a contradiction in terms. Theists are by definition absolutists. I posted a video (on this thread I think) where two bright guys discuss every possible angle for knowing absolute truth: one says absolute truth cannot be known without god and the other says absolute truth cannot be known. The only reason to be a theist is to substantiate absolutism.

Absolute = made up. If the yardstick for determining “good values” is the absolute truth you made up, then how can the values be said to be good?

An atheist might say a good way to get from A to B is a straight line, or they might say a good way is to take the scenic route. Good and bad are relative to attainment of a goal, so whatever the goal is determines what is considered good.

Theism and democracy are antipodal. Watts noted the dichotomy of the america people who claim to be citizens of a republic but worshiping a monarchical king. If people think the best model for the universe is a monarchy, why would they think the best form of government is a democracy? Indeed, those same people insist a small group of people control the masses lest mob rule prevail. The atheists, residing on the Left, think democracy is the best form of government and reject the monarchical model of the universe.

In service of their emperor god, sure.

Then why only conservatives ban drugs? Clearly they blame the drug.

I’m with you on feminism.

Stop catering to rich people and neither are a threat. The rich cannot serve in government or it’s the fox guarding the henhouse.

Republicans ban everything. Dems only guns.

Shit!

Obedient robots.

They are like ants.

There are only greed wars and righteous wars. How many were greed wars?

Where is evidence that progressives coddle muslims? I haven’t researched it specifically, but last time I looked up Merkel, I found she was conservative. Is there someone who is not really a conservative under a socialist banner coddling muslims?

Sure, exceptions apply.

I thought progressives didn’t want a border. They also want to reduce the military.

We haven’t established that progressives are at fault yet.

I haven’t seen anything he distorted. Afterall, Hitler lamented jesus was a weenie.

.
Conjecture.

I don’t see the significance of this.

That is the assumption I reject on the basis of what I said before. You may as well claim I pretended to be christian in case I run for president one day.

Lots of time passed between 1937 and 1922. What evidence do you have that Hitler was not a christian in 1922? I call bullshit on this whole theory: replacing the bible with Mein Kampf is a silly notion and I can’t believe anyone in the Nazi party would have envisioned so. Either germans are much dumber than I thought or historians are dreaming.

I posted that on here myself a couple weeks ago. What’s your point? In the whole nazi party, two guys were paganists. And that’s theism.

Talk about dreaming! You’re struggling to defend a far-fetched and nonsensical theory in effort find some redemption for christianity, and the extents to which you’re going on this crusade are totally transparent. You have incentive to lie and are appealing to others who have incentive to lie in order to paint Hitler as a liar in his own book.

Find some hard evidence that Hitler himself said in 1922 that he was not a christian and was bullshitting the people, not some historian’s opinion nor the opinion of some random nazi member.

Until you do that, the only evidence on the table was in 1941 with Hitler’s table talk. And the most plausible explanation is that he was once christian and changed his mind, like 99% of all other atheists.

And I’m still not convinced he was ever an atheist:

[i]In his summary Langer outlined eight possible scenarios for Hitler’s course of action in the face of defeat. The most likely scenario, he suggested in a prescient moment, was that Hitler’s belief in divine protection would compel him to fight to the bitter end, “drag[ging] a world with us—a world in flames,” and that ultimately he would take his own life.

Langer based his assessment not only on Hitler’s repeated references to “divine providence,” both in speeches and in private conversations, but also on reports from some of Hitler’s most intimate associates that Hitler truly believed he was “predestined” for greatness and inspired by “divine powers.” After the war Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, one of Hitler’s chief military advisers, seemed to confirm the Langer thesis. “Looking back,” he said, “I am inclined to think he was literally obsessed with the idea of some miraculous salvation, that he clung to it like a drowning man to a straw.”[/i] theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ry/302727/

  1. Hitler was born catholic.
  2. At some point he lost faith in christianity.
  3. But never lost faith in god.

All this is moot anyway since what’s at issue is whether the people were theists and whether Hitler needed to leverage that theism in order to commit atrocities.

So, suspect is a better word. “I don’t have faith confidence in my statement, I know suspect it to be the case.” That isn’t reasonable lol

Cheater lol

If you didn’t do that, then how would you pass his class? I tell my friend that he could never get a degree because he’d have to tell his professors they are wrong. Plus, history is subjective and it’s difficult to really prove anything.

The thing about Chomsky and Watts and Hitchens is they devour books, which is something I can’t do, certainly not to the extent they can, then they rehash in a way normal people can absorb. Watts hardly had a novel notion and just about everything he said was plagiarized from someone else.

Me, on the other hand, most of my theories are novel and original. I developed the redistributive taxation model myself without outside influence, then found Watts agreed with me; then found Wolff agreed with me; then found Chomsky agreed with me. I developed Jared Diamond’s theory before I knew who Diamond was. I posted it online and some guy said “That looks a lot like Diamond’s Gun, Germs, and Steel”. I said, “What’s that?” He suggested I read his book, but I said I don’t read books. Then, after making fun of me, he sent me the youtube link to the movie. I watched the movie and thought it was an hour of time to say 5-min-worth of stuff. Glad I didn’t read the book.

Anyway, Hitler is someone else’s idea, but most of my work is my own and I use highly regarded intellectuals for confirmation. But still, critical thinking aside, it’s not likely Chomsky is going to be wrong. It’s more likely that you are going to be wrong.

Yes and they want the poor to pay for it.

Republicrats aren’t seeing the money, so why do they care? No, it’s about fairness to their dimwitted minds: they think if the rich have to pay a tax that’s it’s only fair that the poor also pay the tax. That’s the rationale behind the gas tax: let the ones who use the roads pay for the roads. But the corps get far more use from the roads than regular people.

There are only two ways: either the economy is circular or unidirectional: either the wealth recirculates or moves up.

Bernie threw his hat in the candidacy.

So what? They have the right not to work if they don’t want to. You want to force them to work for the profit of another. You can’t stand it that someone is not prostituting themselves like you are. Well, you can either quit working and join them or else continue working and continue having more money. What’s your problem?

Conservatism = the haunting fear that someone somewhere might be having fun.

How are you going to increase everyone’s salary when the only possible way (outside of dictating wages) is to give people money for free? Read carefully: The only way to cause wages to rise is to give people the option not to work. Once people have the option to opt-out of the workforce, corps will have to raise wages to entice them back in. Alternatively, you could be dictator and decree wages higher or you could socialize all of industry such that every industry is under the management of the government and then everyone will be a government worker, then you could set wages how you like. But as long as private industry exists, then wages will be based on people’s options, and if people do not have the option to work, then wages will always be low. The only way to hurt the poor is to hurt yourself.

Having properly reared kids is imperative to society. People’s knowledge about those other things doesn’t matter so much.

I don’t remember what it was.

Put it to a vote. People said it should be illegal to smoke around kids, so I’m betting they would be onboard with compulsory parenting education.

Kids should be in the parent’s care, but the parents should be educated how to care.

FIFY

Because you force them to work.

The US doesn’t have democracy, and yet the US is still the most powerful. That is my point: in spite of a feudal system, the US prevailed BECAUSE of the oceans. Greece and whatever reinforce my point.

What’s funny is the most socialist countries are at the top of the economic prosperity list while the most capitalistic are at the bottom, except the US, which prospered because of the oceans and in spite of capitalism. Race, apparently, has nothing to do with anything.

According to a list of private consumption I found online (and haven’t verified yet, but I will), Brunei is the the most socialist country, publicly spending a whopping 80% of GDP. ceicdata.com/en/indicator/v … ominal-gdp

Economic growth during the 1990s and 2000s, with the GDP increasing 56% from 1999 to 2008, transformed Brunei into an industrialised country. It has developed wealth from extensive petroleum and natural gas fields. Brunei has the second-highest Human Development Index among the Southeast Asian nations, after Singapore, and is classified as a “developed country”.[13] According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Brunei is ranked fifth in the world by gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity. The IMF estimated in 2011 that Brunei was one of two countries (the other being Libya) with a public debt at 0% of the national GDP. Forbes also ranks Brunei as the fifth-richest nation out of 182, based on its petroleum and natural gas fields.[14] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei

According to that list, these countries spend more than 50% of GDP publicly:

Brunei
Macau SAR
Qatar
Luxembourg
Ireland
United Arab Emirates
Singapore
Oman
China
Saudi Arabia
Algeria
Norway
Kuwait
Sweden
Netherlands
Bahrain
Thailand
Malta
Iran
Denmark
Botswana
Czech Republic
Slovenia

I’m going to start a thread on this when I finish collecting data.

Did the US send arms to rebels in germany to overthrow the government like in south american countries?

As the US closed bases in germany and began to leave, democracy increased. The more the US gets out of the way, the more democracy takes hold. The only reason the US exists in other countries is to prevent democracy for its own profit.

I have no idea.

They are. So are mexicans. And Indians. And anyone else.

Europeans were technologically advanced by virtue of horses, domesticated animals, grains, good soil. We’ve been over that.

Ditto

When did they have the chance?

If you think race, or at least culture has anything to do with this, you’ve got the blinders on.

1 scientist out of every 100 might tell me that. Unless the two you mentioned are the only two.

How do you figure that? It’s stupid to want an engine to make more power with less fuel?

Wealth concentration is inefficient.

I don’t usually, but it’s because it’s expensive and inconvenient and not really a protest.

We are talking in the context of taking a scientific approach to society, so profit is not a main driving force. Welfare of animals and nutrition would be variables taken into account once we change the focus from profit to efficiency.

Well that’s what I’ve been trying to say: the only reason we can’t engineer an efficient society is those who are against it are still sucking air. The faster they crash their harleys, the sooner we can get on with it.

No one is taking that away, but I don’t want 1000000000000000000000000000000000 farms charging outrageous prices for hype.

Then don’t work.

No let’s put this in perspective.

Me: I want to take money from bezos and give it to people who don’t work.
You: You’re going to take from someone who is not me and give it to someone who is not me? Oh the horror! I can’t stand it! This doesn’t affect me, but drives me insane because I cannot bear the thought that someone somewhere might get something for nothing!
Me: Bezos gets astronomical amounts of somethings for nothing. Amazon never made a single dime of profit in 16 years, yet bezos was worth over $50 billion. Why aren’t you having a cow?
You: It only bothers me when poor people get something for nothing. They should be forced at gunpoint to work for bezos so he can have more money for nothing, then we can tax bezos and use the proceeds to magically raise my wages.
Me: So bezos is just a proxy to funnel the fruits of the forced-labor camp back to you. I see.
You: No! Everyone’s wages go up!
Me: Yes, but most-especially yours. At the end of the day, it’s a scheme to force people to work to increase your own wages.
You: No! Umm… er… ah… No! It’s not!
Me: What it boils down to is you can’t tolerate someone getting something for nothing. You think everyone should suffer to survive.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQirNLiVL9w[/youtube]

just
26:02
because of a psychological hang-up, and
26:04
that hang-up is that money is real and
26:06
that people ought to suffer in order to
26:11
get it but the whole point of the
26:14
machine is to relieve you of that
26:15
suffering. It is an ingenuity you see. We
26:18
are psychologically back in the 17th
26:22
century and technically in the 20th.

Love Weston Price.

Mankind won’t make it anyway. The universe won’t last forever.

If you cut people off welfare, then people are forced to work to survive. Because people are forced to work, wages will plummet. Why pay high wages if people are forced to take whatever you offer? “I offer you 25 cents per day. You can take it or go starve. I have a line of applicants a mile long after you.”

The only things holding wages up as high as they are now is welfare, min wage, government jobs, and parents.

I think we’ve covered enough ground for now, I might return to this thread at a later date.

slaves to whites, that is. Well, I don’t have a full answer, but here’s part of my reaction to this issue. Asians are very good at making themselves slaves to themselves (and their families), cutting off their own emotions, cutting themself off from the joys of life, and ignoring interpersonal dynamics - or perhaps better put, hiding their reactions to them. These all benefit people who live in fucked up societies. Whites are not as good as the Asians at this, and blacks are worse than that. Fine, you can say, they are worse at something. I don’t think these are things to be good at. I am going to black box the culture vs. nature issue, just acknowledge that there are differences. I am going to generally what is, of course, a spectrum. Asians would (seem to, I would argue) thrive while internally ripping out things I consider essential human from their souls. Whites can do it, and often look at the Asians and think ‘where is the person or the individual, or the life soul in that person.’ Well, blacks look at whites and wonder the same thing. What is that deadness? This is fucking LIFE?

There is a real downside to loving life, especially the bristling passionate on inside yourself.

Most of us pretend. Most of those pretending are not aware of how much they are sitting on emotionally or giving up or are not really that alive, just kind of husks walking around doing what they are told and believing it.

When I am with blacks, as opposed to white and Asians, I feel like I am more in the real world, with people who are actually reacting to it and feeling it. This doesn’t make it all peachy. The real world has those of us who feel swirling with stress and not pleasant reactions (amidst the rest) but I feel in a room with people actually connected to reality and giving a shit abuot it, and also connected to their own reactions to it and really caring about that. I feel that less with whites, and even less with Asians.

People who succeed in our society often cut parts of themselves out. I am not sure that being better at this is simply better.

I am tired of all the zombies.

Fascinating documentary:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViswN602_k[/youtube]

@Serendipper

I can give you examples of predominantly theistic nations allying themselves, against the ‘racially pure cause’, can you give me an example of a predominantly atheistic nation allying itself against the racially pure cause?

Atheist Ayn Rand was a moral absolutist, theist Spinoza was a moral relativist.

And for some people, being a theist makes them happier, because they feel cared for.

I’m not necessarily against, and may be in favor of someone absolutely supporting values I relatively support.

And while absolute = made up, made up doesn’t necessarily = absolute.

An atheist may say it’s relatively, or absolutely good to kill a person, or people.

Are animism, deism, pantheism, polytheism and trinitarianism (gracious or merciful monotheism) on the one hand, and democracy on the other antipodal?

When did Mao claim or his followers proclaim him to, literally be a god?

They blame the dealers and users too, that’s why they imprison them, meanwhile progressives blame the addiction, which they attribute to an absent or abusive conservative father, capitalism, poverty…anything and everything but the individual.

While instituting checks and balances (which ought to include the division and, right limitations of powers (I have little respect for corporate sovereignty, but great respect for the sovereignty of individuals, families, communities, nations and small businesses) will help, any and every institution, including, perhaps especially government, is corruptible, and government corruption is the worst, because it’s organized violence.

Democrats ban you from banning people, and behaviors from your family, business, country, club, community and church.

Trump, like Hitllary can get away with soft tyranny, not hard.

Greed masquerading as religious, or secular righteousness is the rule, real righteousness the exception.

And the German parties to the left of Merkel want to coddle them even more.

Trump wants to ban all or some Muslims permanently or temporarily, ban all Muslim refugees, institute more background checks and surveillance on and of Muslims and he’s not afraid to use the term radical Islam, meanwhile democrats oppose him on all this.

They want a looser border, and while they, say they want to reduce the military, they’re often nearly as hawkish as Republicans, and both the green party, and the libertarians would probably reduce the military a hell of a lot more.

Here’s just one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Referring to Hitler as Christian makes about as much sense as referring to Stalin as a communist.
Other than claiming to be Christian, not only was everything Hitler did and said unchristian, but it was anti-Christian.
There’s no such thing as a perfect Christian, but so what?
There’s no such thing as a perfect anything.
Hitler was about as far from Christian as one could possibly get.
The question now is: for how long was Hitler, consciously anti-Christian?

The Nazi Party was at best apathetic about Christ’s divinity and at worst hostile to Christ, and so at best apathetic about or hostile to Christianity.

If we caught a political party pretending to be Christian for at least the last 8 years of its existence (1937-1945, which is when they committed their atrocities, mind you), than not only is there no reason to believe they weren’t pretending to be Christian the entire time, but if anything they probably were.

Adolf Hitler

Historians probably have fair-good reasons for believing this was Alfred Rosenberg and the Nazi Party’s intent, what reason do you have for disregarding them?
You haven’t presented any.

There’s too much emphasis on Hitler and not enough on the Nazi Party.
even if Hitler was Christian (which he wasn’t, in fact he was (consciously) anti-Christian), the Nazi party had some pagans, irreligious theists, so it can’t be blamed solely on a single religion.

I have no incentive to lie, I’m agnostic, and insofar as historians have reason to lie, Hitchens, who was an atheist and vehemently anti-Christian, all the more so.

The point is not all theism is equal, some forms are easier to use to commit atrocities, or good deeds for that matter than others.

I have reason to suspect.
It’s irrational to be 100% certain of anything.

This is a philosophy forum, not his class, there is no authority here.

Says the guy who casually dismisses what multiple historians have to say about the Nazi Party’s religion.

Perhaps unlikely, but if unlikely, that still doesn’t mean it’s not worth critically examining him.
It’s also unlikely he’s 100% right and his reader 100% wrong where they disagree or his reader has doubts or questions, and if the reader doesn’t critically examine everything, he’ll never uncover what Chomsky is wrong about.

Two heads are better than one.
So long as the reader is fairly knowledgeable and reasonable, if he critically interprets Chomsky, he, and you’ll be getting Chomsky’s brain + the reader’s, instead of just Chomsky’s.

Insofar as history and sociology are art, Chomsky may be popular among academics primarily for his art.

Insofar as history and sociology are about man’s love of authority, certainty and hierarchy, he, and his school of thought may’ve been somewhat arbitrarily chosen to be number one, because there has to be a number one, even if many of the alternatives are about equally knowledgeable and reasonable.

Chomsky may be highly regarded because he’s primarily, well, highly regarded, many of his colleagues may’ve happened to be mistaken about him, and the colleagues of those colleagues may’ve had faith in their judgement, and so on down the line, so a big part of Chomsky’s success may be luck, many people highly regarding him primarily because many people highly regard him, and few people ever critically examining him.

They want everyone to pay for it.

Republicrats are bribed by special interests who stand to gain from their allegiance.

You think too much about money, and not enough about the fact that those who choose to work will have to worker harder for less stuff if millions of people quit their job to live solely off UBI.

Here’s what I mean by what I’m now calling BSI (basic supplementary income):
Government directly pays the employed and involuntarily unemployed 10000$ annually at the richest 1%'s expense in addition to whatever their employers or welfare are already paying them themselves, it doesn’t force employers to raise their wages.

How’re you going to know how to take care of your kids if, according to you, you don’t even know how to take care of yourself?

The US has more democracy than say Brazil, Russia and China.

The following countries in your list have mid-low GDP per capita (PPP), which’s one way to measure a country’s standard of living: China 16624$, Algeria 15150$, Thailand 17786$, Iran 20030$ and Botswana 18146$, world average: 16779$.
Standard of living is not the same as having a large economy, for example China has the second largest economy in the world, but it also has the largest population in the world, so it’s spread thinly among the people, the average Chinaman is just scraping by.
I find it awfully suspicious most of the well off countries in your list are oil rich and/or small (Brunei, Macau, Qatar, Luxembourg, Ireland, the UAE, Singapore, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Bahrain, Malta, Denmark, Czech Republic and Slovenia).
I wonder if that has something to do with it?
The only exceptions are Norway and Sweden.
And as you know, correlation doesn’t necessarily = causation.
Did Brunei, Macau, Qatar and so on start spending a lot of money on the public before, or after they made it to the top?

No it helped rebuild those countries.

Why’re some tributaries more prosperous than others?

No it’s because they have bigger brains and iQs, like east Asians, which you conceded.
Jared Diamond’s theory that the environment (alone) can explain why Europeans were more successful than others in many ways, is heavily academically contested.

If they were as adventurous, ambitious and explorational as Europeans, they would’ve found them, they had the technology.

That’s like saying what breed of dog a dog is, and how it was nurtured, has nothing to do with how successful of a hunter it’ll be.

Of course race has implications for success, the only sensible question is, to what degree?

Perhaps it’s a few more prestigious scientists than you think.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cnwlN1CC28[/youtube]

Race is a sensitive topic in the multicultural west, but in the monocultural east, their scientists have no qualms or reservations about attributing outcomes to race.

Norway is oil rich

No, as far as I know, there have never been atheists rallied together for anything except the extermination of theism. That’s my point: how can you rally atheists together for any cause? There is no moral absolute to appeal to.

Rand was an idiot.
Spinoza believed in god like I do and Alan Watts did.

What are you saying by that?

Absolutists scare me though.

True but so what?

As a matter of expediency maybe.

Deism and pantheism have no monarchical authoritarian to worship, so no. I don’t know what the others are.

When did they not? Emperors have always been perceived as gods, so how could Mao have not been also perceived that way? It’s as if people suddenly decided the next pope is not christ incarnate.

The progressive position seems accurate to me. You can’t blame the plant for how you raised it. You can’t blame the child for how you raised it. You can’t blame citizens for the society they grew up in.

The drug war is meant to criminalize undesirables. Prisons are concentration camps. If you can’t make the rich richer, then you’re herded into slums or prisons. Chomsky gave a lecture on this.

If rich people cannot exist in government, then it’s hard to see how corruption could manifest.

What’s the problem? Why do you want to ban people?

If your club is private, you can ban anyone. If your club is open to the public, then it’s open to anyone. If you think you can ban people from a public club, then the public can ban you from a public society by the same logic. So either play fair, or have your own ethics imposed on you. Makes sense right?

The settlers pushed the natives out because they wanted the gold (Dahlonega, GA had lots of gold). You push them out because you’re righteous.

Right, but show me who is coddling muslims. Everyone talks about it, but I can’t tell who is to blame. I don’t have any particular affinity for muslims or natives or anyone and I just think people are people. Who are putting muslims on a pedestal?

Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders
We spend more on our military than the next 10 nations combined. American troops have been in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years, Iraq since 2003 and in Syria since 2015.
We’re going to invest in housing, public education and infrastructure, not never-ending wars.
twitter.com/BernieSanders

Chomsky said military spending is corporate welfare.

Libertarians = ultra-conservatives.

And how far did he get with that?

Phyllo is arguing that the germans were the most educated people on the planet and yet Hitler could convince them that Jesus wasn’t a jew? If all the village idiots left their villages and formed their own village of idiots, the village idiot of that village would still know Jesus was a jew.

Hitler was christian when he wrote his book. He was not at some later date.
I was christian, now i’m not.
Matt Dillahunty was on his way to being a preacher, now runs an atheist call-in show and conducts debates with christians.
Everyone on Matt’s team was a christian, but are now atheists.
Seth Andrews ran a christian call-in show, now gives atheist lectures.
It’s par for the course. I can’t think of any atheist who was born that way. The vast majority started as christian.
Why do you find such a regular occurrence so hard to believe? The answer to that is obvious to me and any fair-minded reader of this.

No, there is a good reason: the reason I stated above. Statistically, it’s exceedingly unlikely for any atheist to not have been christian at one point. So on the basis of statistics alone, there is good reason. Plus, Hitler said in his own book that he was christian. Then he said in countless speeches that he was christian. So, giant reason + giant reason + giant reason = you focusing on remotely small chance that makes no sense except in the context of grasping for anything at all to defend your religion (that of your family anyway).

Well for one, Mein Kampf appeals to christianity, so you can’t have a new bible that appeals to the previous bible for a foundation. Second, the notion is completely idiotic. Even the most backwoods hillbilly would not substitute another book for the bible and neither would professors or anyone in between. I think you’d sooner convince me the earth is flat.

I don’t blame it on a single religion, but religion itself because religion = absolutism. The good/evil, right/wrong, us/them, white/brown type thinking that causes atrocities.

Your family is christian and whites are typically christian, so you have HUGE incentive to lie.

Why did Hitchens have incentive to lie? I’m pretty sure his brother is still a christian and his family were christians.

All guns kill, but not all kill with the same effectiveness, so what’s your point?

How could you pass anyone’s class? How could you get a degree in anything without accepting the authority of the professor?

Only when they make utterly ridiculous claims like Mein Kampf replacing the bible. Chomsky’s claims are sensible and backed by his notoriety. Your claims statistical flukes backed by incentive to lie. Where would a betting man put his money?

He’s highly regarded because no one, that I’ve ever seen, has beat him in debate. He makes fools of everyone. He even made that pompous prick Buckley blush. youtube.com/watch?v=-gsFb0uSG5w

Everyone except the rich because the goal is to transfer money from everyone to the rich.

That and they’re dimwitted morons who genuinely deify the rich or perceive them as victims.

Oh yes, I think too much about facts and not the feels of your noble cause of enslavement. Start a new thread about it so I can get some public exposure and I’ll explain it to you for the 20th time because, although you will certainly ignore everything I say, at least I’ll have an audience to address. I’m not going to argue with a brick wall, buried in this thread, where no one can benefit by it.

Never gonna happen. UBI is coming so you’ll have to think of another way to hurt people who won’t prostitute themselves. Maybe you can throw eggs or something.

Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders
The ages 0-4 are the most important years of human development. The kids and parents of this country deserve quality, affordable child care. We will establish a high quality, universal pre-K program. twitter.com/BernieSanders

The US is ranked 25th and is considered a “flawed demoncracy” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy … untry_2018

Did you miss this? Brunei is ranked fifth in the world by gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity.

When free money flows from the ground, sometimes they spread it around. I started a thread on this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194766

Dy1w4l2UUAAtcug.jpg

Some are more useful than others. Some are more willing to play ball than others. Thugs are useful so long as they don’t go rogue.

The bigger brains came from the better soil. It’s luck. Stick you head back in the sand and ignore me once again. This is getting old man.

That’s incredibly hard to believe.

They didn’t have the right set of animals that the eurpeans had.

Sure but the breed of dog came into existence as a result of the environment. You can never escape that fact, except burying your head in the ground in ignore-ance.

All I can figure is you think breeds came into existence by magic or that someone orchestrated it… or maybe the breed of dog existed before it existed and orchestrated its own existence. I don’t know what you’re dreaming.

White men existed before white men existed so that they could orchestrate the evolution of white men so that white men could get the credit for the creation of white men. That’s insane.

White men came into existence because of the environment. Period. It’s luck. No one gets a trophy for being white. “Good job making yourself white, man!”

I might take time to watch that if I thought you took time to watch mine, but I’m just not that interested in this topic.

I was racist before. I’ve heard the arguments of Stefan Molynuex. IQ differences exist, but how those difference came to be is a result of the environment.

I don’t have a problem with it either, but the cause for the racial difference is environmental. Anyone denying that is expressing inferiority of cognitive ability.

The ten happiest countries are small, not superpowers, and to some degree isolated.

The ten unhappiest countries are small too en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hap … l_rankings

And two of the top ten are pretty big: canada and australia.

@Serendipper

Sometimes trying to make something more efficient isn’t worth the effort, because it can’t be done, or it can’t be done without making something else less efficient, or miserable.

I meant our major problem isn’t the absence of efficient technology, it’s that the lower classes aren’t really benefitting from the presence of efficient technology.

Some prefer it.

Firstly, I want to take a more bottom-up (socialist) and philosophical approach more than a more top-down (communist or corporatist) and scientific or religious approach.
Secondly, there’s no reason why consumers and small businesses can’t take a scientific approach to society, especially after being emancipated and empowered by my plan.

Some urban progressives prefer small local to big global too, so I guess you’ll just have to shoot them.

And while their numbers appear to be gradually, relatively (and absolutely) declining, there’ll always be countryfolk, at least, for the foreseeable future.

That’s just scientists’ educated guess.

We’ve been over this, shorten the workweek…or maybe we won’t have to, since the employed won’t have to work as much (for they’ll be richer, because of BSI), there’ll be more jobs for the unemployed to do.

I thought it was, but I wasn’t sure.

Good points.
every race has talents and things to admire.
Whites are pretty well rounded.
Often we can be nearly as spirited as Africans on the one hand, and nearly as disciplined as east Asians (when it pays to be) on the other.
Overall I think we used to be more like east Asians, but centuries of intimate contact with Africans, Latinos and Native Americans have mellowed us out, made us less uptight, as well as relatively good times, decadence.
This is especially true of Anglo-Americans, and Southern Europeans, who’re always a little more, joie de vivre, laisse faire than Northerners.

And I understand what you mean that being more alive, more connected, less domesticated, robotlike, means you feel more intensely, both positively and negatively.
It also means you may be more of a threat to the establishment in all sorts of ways.

Or at least they would be a threat if they had greater numbers and could match their passion with intellect.

And sometimes people make up excuses for not wanting to change.

Doubling efficiency is halving the cost. Benefit to the lower class; upper class won’t notice.

Yeah but the inconvenience trumps the preference. Sometimes I’ll get vidalia onions, but the ones from peru are just as good, maybe better. It’s the same onion in different soil that by law cannot be called vidalia. Peru has better climate for growing just about all our food except grains n such. Tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, and who knows what all originated in south-central america. Tomatoes grown around here will be deficient because the soil sucks. They taste better because the variety is different and they’re ripened naturally. Better soil exists in the midwest, but it’s more suited for grains. California might be ok.

Right.

There is a good reason: the total of lots of small companies making profit is orders of magnitude higher than the profit required to run one massive operation. The loss of efficiency is through the roof with small companies.

No, just need the boomers out of the way.

They will be a new breed… one with an education and the internet.

No it’s logical deduction. If there is any chance of extinction, then in infinite time it’s a certainty. So either you concede there is no chance of extinction or you concede it’s inevitable :wink: Either way, what are you worried about?

Alright, let’s paint this picture so the ridiculousness of it is more readily apparent.

You’re roping me into pitching-in at star bucks to serve coffee so that someone else can have a shorter week. I’d don’t want to serve coffee. If you want coffee, make your own damn coffee. You can’t conscript me into serving you coffee in order to make some opulent jerk richer.

Should I do time at the IRS too? Gotta pitch in with the audits, ya know.

Where else is this chain gang heading?

You’re authoritatively conscripting people into making the rich richer so that the other people who are making the rich richer can work shorter weeks, the length of which you’ll decree by law, of course.

If you want to make the rich richer, then go make the rich richer, but leave me out of your fetishes. Keep your manacles away from me.

We should pay people not to work, and if the wage isn’t enough, then people can go find supplemental work. The lack of supply of workers will drive wages up, which will entice people to work. People will have the freedom to decide what they want to do and mothers can be mothers instead of wage slaves. We wouldn’t need a min wage law, no new laws, just money in the mail. What’s to complain about? Oh yeah, punishing people who don’t conform to your standards, which includes prostitution for survival. Snap out of it man! Even in Monopoly you get $200 every time you pass go.

@Serendipper

And other times people make up excuses to enslave themselves and others to the ruling class.

You’ll be taking wealth and power from small business (us) to give to big (them), so unless you want to nationalize or unionize big businesses, that makes you an elitist.

Well that’s your opinion, some people only buy small local because that’s all that’s available in their neighborhood, and they wish there were more big global, other people only buy big global because that’s all that’s available in their neighborhood, and they wish there were more small local.
Big business isn’t inherently cheaper, more convenient, ecofriendly, efficient, healthy or aesthetic than small.

Unless you want to nationalize and/or syndicate big business, it will still be making a profit, even with UBI or USI, and I’d rather have many small businesses making small profits, than one big business making big profits.
Small businesses are already proportionally less exploitive than big, and under my plan, almost everyone will be able to save, become self employed, start their own small business or co-op, and invest loads of money.
My plan will encourage more people to become independent, whereas yours will encourage more to become either dependent on meagre provisions from an authoritarian government, or big business, which’s what the elite want.

For the last millennium, every generation has been more educated than the last, yet capitalist still win 50% of the time, and the other 50% pseudo-socialists.

Maybe there’s a 50/50% chance we’ll make it for the first million years of progress, but if we make it over that hurdle, further progress will be inevitable.

Or maybe me and others worrying about our survival is part of what makes it inevitable.