“Whatever fear was promulgated due to the Bible's authority in your early life speaks more to your teachers than the text. History is ripe with teachers who misinterpret texts, and you've probably met them as I have, which is why I rarely trust anyone who grew up in a church to tell me what the Bible means. Children are too young to begin to understand the Bible--just imagine trying to teach children King Lear or the Iliad (they just wouldn't get it, because literature requires a rich, mature life to begin to understand). Charles Darwin was completely misinterpreted to support "Social Darwinism." Science created atomic bombs, and now we all live in fear of a nuclear threat. Does this mean science is bad?”
“Have you ever actually READ the Bible? One of the reasons the New Testament is so misunderstood by those who purport to abide by its teachings is that its one of the most difficult pieces of literature ever written. There's a reason Ralph Waldo Emerson and William James held that book highly in the literary canon.”
JBond2112 on Sep 16, 2012 at 22:01:29
“Oh I remember the tediously long bible reading sessions every Sunday for ten years of my episcople childhood. What I remember most, though, were the frequent references in the new testament not to ignore the old (mathew 5:17 comes quickly to mind). More broadly, however, I remember the general mood of the new testament: that we are all inherently wicked and must be fearful of god if we do not love him. Promulgating fear is hardly the fruit for an expansion of the mind, and a lack of expansion is hardly the building block of making us smarter. You reference Emerson and James, but I could just as easily reference Jefferson's desire to cherry pick passages for a better interpretation of his own morality and Bertrand Russell's comments of keeping his copy of the book next the the antidote that is Voltaire.”
“It would make the general populace wealthier for all the reasons I explained to you. If everyone is employed, and employers can't place fear inside of us restricting us from making demands at the workplace, then of course wages won't increase.
However, if, theoretically, there was a surplus job pool, then the populace could make all sorts of demands. That's just one way in which restricting outsourcing would increase our wealth. The other way is that we'd simply have more money, since we'd have more jobs.
There's simply no good argument for outsourcing, absolutely none. It doesn't benefit us, and it doesn't benefit them. It steals our purchasing power away from us, and therefore our financial ability to negotiate with the upper classes; and it robs other countries of economic independence.”
“What you say isn't true either. Had those jobs stayed in America, although computers would have been more expensive, the average wealth of Americans would be higher.
Had these low-skilled, low-wage jobs stayed in America, the buying power of the average American would have increased, the rate of things being bought would have increased as well, leading to greater production, and then cheaper production.
Also, with a greater pool of jobs, Americans would have had greater variety to choose from, and wouldn't have to be so afraid of leaving their jobs. With that in mind, workers would have been empowered to demand higher wages and (since in my theoretical timeline where outsourcing were made illegal or so) the rich would have had to defer and allow wages to increase. But this wouldn't have been a bad thing, because then the buying power of the average American would have increased again, and more would be bought, and more production, and cheaper products, etc.
It's a complete and utter lie that outsourcing has made things "cheaper." Cheap on face value, but when you don't have money, even a happy meal is expensive.”
DanInLA on Jul 16, 2012 at 21:04:45
“Nonsense...90% of people are employed today. That being the case, at most 10% of the poplulation could be employed on assembly lines making this junk. The price would be higher for 100% of people so that the 10% who don't have jobs today could be employed making what we outsource. That is not going to make the general population wealthier.”
“And that makes you want to restrict their ability to access decent medical care?
Capitalism and the industrialization of society by necessity in the pursuits of furthering industrial endeavors has pulled the natural state of humanity out of existence and has forced a sort of mechanical being into the human soul. As a result, the will to exist is ripped from the hearts of many people. Why should we further punish people by saying we won't remedy their ailments when it's this society that has been causing these ailments all along?”
“When you are born in America, you are mandated a social security number. When you own property in America, you are mandated property taxes. When you purchase property, your restrict someone else's right to choose to occupy that property.
If you say America is a nation in freedom, and that we are free in America because we are overwhelmed by choices, then you are thinking of an America which occupies the realm of fiction. We are mandated a great many things in America.”
“Corporations have a corrupting influence on government. It was true for Reagan, Bush; true for Obama, and will be true for the next president. Solution: limit the powers of or abolish entirely corporations.”
“It's good to know that you can afford a health care plan. I, however, can not. I'm a hard worker, a college graduate. But I've had the unfortunate luck of being born young in an economy that was being destroyed by the older generations. For that, I am being punished with no medical care and a terrible job market.
So for you, perhaps you don't need help getting medical care. But if I got sick or injured, would you prefer I sit around and die? Also, Obamacare doesn't mean you can't purchase private health insurance.”
“So you agree that it is miserable to be impoverished? Then why don't you want to help alleviate the poverty for those that are miserably impoverished?”
Group 8807 on Jun 25, 2012 at 16:35:58
“Anyone who has spent any time mentoring or working with poor families is familiar with the maddening sensation of watching someone you care about make a devastating decision that no middle class person in their right mind would ever assent to.”
“Excuse me? I do think freedom means choises. Mandating (forcing) one to do something sure isn't freedom to me. (or were you being snide?)”
Group 8807 on Jun 25, 2012 at 16:26:32
““Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose.”
C. Wright Mills”
lowcountry on Jun 25, 2012 at 16:26:31
Group 8807 on Jun 25, 2012 at 16:25:58
““What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice.”
Group 8807 on Jun 25, 2012 at 16:25:13
““Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom is the result of the right choice.””
Group 8807 on Jun 25, 2012 at 16:23:07
“Is Freedom scary? I don’t think so. Either each person has individual¬, inalienabl¬e rights or he doesn’t. Freedom or tyranny? Choose, there is no middle ground. Agree or fight; your choice, but the immoral act is to agree and do nothing.”
“This is largely advice that pertains to getting married in this very competitive, capitalist world. The author fails to point out that college is a a four-year "lull" period, in which we are allowed to subvert the development of our maturity so that we can party, party, party.
In my experience, people I've met who are 21 who haven't been to college vs. those that have been to college are more mature. I was in no way blown away by the wisdom of my peer group throughout college, who I found to be largely reckless and unconcerned with their growth as mature people. They merely wanted to have fun, and college was the "thing to do" and allowed them to have plenty of time for fun.
There perhaps is something wrong with marriage at such a young age, but I think the problem lies more closely in our education system, first high school and then college, which subverts our true aspirations so that we can learn "what we are supposed to know" rather than what is important for our happiness.”
“Are you serious? You understand that we are more well-armed as citizens than people in other 1st-world countries? Right? Yet we manage to have more gun-based homicides per-capita than other 1st-world countries. Don't you understand that this bites the face off of everything the gun-nuts believe in? Don't arm anybody. Military or otherwise. Stop gun production entirely and we'll see the end of gun-based homicides. Guns are the stupidest things humans ever created.”
“Just stop watching television if you're upset by a lack of diversity.This type of stuff isn't worth arguing about when you can just pick up a book or watch a good movie like "Killer of Sheep" or "Shadows," which certainly do not have a lack of diverse characters.
We should be arguing about the overabundance of shows which carry a bourgeois message in their shows. Lena Dunham is a MIDDLE CLASS girl. Why can't we watch shows about the downtrodden--how about a sitcom set inside a factory? Or a drama in a supermarket? Why can't we have a show with women that's more concerned about their struggle against a morally bankrupt society rather than who they're sleeping with? We see lots of shows about police, but what about the man who's forced to steal because he can't provide for his family?”
“Actually, I've read statistics that suggest conservatives report having better sex. I'm not a conservative, and I don't doubt that the findings could be wrong; but maybe conservatives DO have better sex.”
enhancedvibes on Mar 19, 2012 at 11:26:07
“They are reported to be happier in their lives, but that is because they view morality differently and care less about fairness in the world. Ive never read anywhere that they report having better sex.”
“I'm not sure what you're doing wrong, but my sweetheart and I just keep getting better at it. I've never once been bored in bed with her, even though I've been with her for three years. In fact, I love that we've been together for so long: we know each other's signals very well--we know what turns each other on or off. If this is what being monogamous means, then I'm not sure there's a problem with it. I don't think constantly looking for a new sexual partner in any way would make sex better--and on a genetic level there's no concern because we live in a world of over six billion people.
Of course, humans don't naturally have computers, cars, agriculture, iPhones, etc. But I bet you wouldn't give that up to be more like an animal, would you? Just admit that some inventions (like monogamy) actually have a greater benefit than our natural state.”
forestlady on Mar 17, 2012 at 17:16:36
“Get back to me in 10 years, the average honeymoon period lasts about 4 years.”
“If everyone majored in "something useful" like Mechanical Engineering, we'd have too many mechanical engineers and not enough jobs to accommodate. We'd still have the same exact problem we have now. Education only contributes to the problem because the investment of education, viz. student loans, concentrates capital to the wealthy without necessarily creating more jobs in the process.
Education is only a cure for the individual. For a society, it can be a woe as we've seen. Especially if the only majors that matter are those that are "useful," which to the human spirit are the most useless.”