even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
OT is not a osu!forumRailey2 wrote:
even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
And I am just having fun, that's all
For autistic people who see problem with their own lack of interest in wide area of things - yes.Milkshake wrote:
33 and MLP seems like a problem.
I don't even care lul.
True
Yes i can be your daddy
hey daddy
oh yeah
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.
Mikrophobiakai99 wrote:
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.
-_-
best 40 secs of my life
ITT2 a.k.a Political Debate Thread should be on top
One shall not simply dump this legendary thread to the oblivion
One shall not simply dump this legendary thread to the oblivion
no
Black people had it great in the 1960s and welfare's existence is the only thing contributing to black households not succeeding? Are you fucking stupid?B1rd wrote:
https://youtu.be/chph_EPNNAs?t=10m53s
Social Democracts BTFO
How are people so willfully ignorant of MASSIVE amounts of history, able to look at 2 data points and say "Yep, see, I'm completely justified in my worldview!"
I have to ask you B1rd: why do you enjoy baiting people?
I'm almost 100% sure he's not baiting but is actually standing behind his posts. I mean it's Birdman, the edgiest man alive. :p
You're creating a strawman and twisting words into something no one has said, and your typical tactic of using correlation vs causation arguments is weak and you can't just explain away all evidence against you that way in stead of actually coming up with a valid counter arguments. If you have to resort to using such weak argumentation methods all the time you really have to question the validity of your position. I guarantee that Sowell has pored over far more statistics than you have, and knows far more about history than you do, so don't try and again make the false claim that people are making wide-sweeping and definite conclusions from a few out of context cherry-picked pieces of statistics.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Black people had it great in the 1960s and welfare's existence is the only thing contributing to black households not succeeding? Are you fucking stupid?B1rd wrote:
https://youtu.be/chph_EPNNAs?t=10m53s
Social Democracts BTFO
How are people so willfully ignorant of MASSIVE amounts of history, able to look at 2 data points and say "Yep, see, I'm completely justified in my worldview!"
If that Blacks are far worse off now after the welfare state than in the 20th century when they had just come out of slavery and the Great Depression was in effect (really doesn't sound like a "great time for blacks" to me), you really have to question of a fundamental level this affirmative-action doctrine of yours, if it not only comes at a large cost to the taxpayer, but evidently is a detriment to the elements of society that it purports to benefit.
Why, then, is this not a problem in other countries that have generous welfare states, but is one in America? You're making the direct implication that black people fuck themselves over because of the "generous welfare state" that exists in the US, while other countries have -better- support and don't have the same "side effects" that you're talking about.
I can understand one single supporting argument against such a thing, though- one supported by evolutionary biology. But since you've never mentioned that particular argument then I'll just assume you're trying to imply the usual:
Black people in the 1960's can't have kids because they get no support.
Support is introduced and they take advantage of the system by having children out of wedlock, pumping out kids for dat welfare $, etc.
Black people are now worse off than they were before, due partly to their own choices, partly due to the system that they're living in.
Am I mischaracterising your argument there, or is that an accurate summary?
I can understand one single supporting argument against such a thing, though- one supported by evolutionary biology. But since you've never mentioned that particular argument then I'll just assume you're trying to imply the usual:
Black people in the 1960's can't have kids because they get no support.
Support is introduced and they take advantage of the system by having children out of wedlock, pumping out kids for dat welfare $, etc.
Black people are now worse off than they were before, due partly to their own choices, partly due to the system that they're living in.
Am I mischaracterising your argument there, or is that an accurate summary?
Sigh, to think that I actually have to watch whatever Bird posted in order to understand what kind of bullshit you're spouting now. :V
Aurani wrote:
Sigh, to think that I actually have to watch whatever Bird posted in order to understand what kind of bullshit you're spouting now. :V
I mean, after having watched that video I have to say that I have absolutely no idea why the black people in murrica are abusing the welfare whilst they aren't doing so in other countries (according to what you said). That might stem from me not having a single clue about the murrican welfare system in the first place, so the only thing I could really say about that is that they differ in some way(?).
Aurani wrote:
I mean, after having watched that video I have to say that I have absolutely no idea why the black people in murrica are abusing the welfare whilst they aren't doing so in other countries (according to what you said). That might stem from me not having a single clue about the murrican welfare system in the first place, so the only thing I could really say about that is that they differ in some way(?).
It's an awfully complicated situation in America, as it is for just about anything. To point at a single factor (the welfare state existing) and then to extrapolate massive conclusions from that one factor is dishonest at the very least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-A ... e#Theories
Here's a wikipedia article with a bunch of different possible reasons for how African-American families have ended up the way they are today.
I just really, really dislike the kind of disingenuous arguments that get jerked about in any political discourse. People who buy into that kind of thing without even questioning it are letting themselves turn into idiots.
Something worth noting: Putting more money (gasp) into helping black families, encouraging two-parent households, may be a great help. For example, guaranteed paid parental leave when a baby is born.
" The chance that black males will be arrested and jailed at least once in their lifetime in many areas around the country is extremely high. For Washington, D.C., this probability is between 80 and 90%."
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
Yes, exactly. I can't actually say what's wrong with the welfare system in America, but it definitely isn't the best in the world. Perhaps resources are being spent where they shouldn't be, perhaps in other areas there isn't enough. I'm certainly no expert and can't be the one to say "I know how to fix this, just do X and Y". The problem is that people will often be very happy to do the exact same thing, just in a different way- "Welfare in America is a problem, we need to remove it all together, because I know that would fix things." They're not qualified to say that, so why are they even proposing anything?Aurani wrote:
" The chance that black males will be arrested and jailed at least once in their lifetime in many areas around the country is extremely high. For Washington, D.C., this probability is between 80 and 90%."
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
I generally have these complaints relating to right-wing claims because they're the ones who are being the most ridiculous right now, as well as being the people who have the most influence (since Trump won the election, etc).
Not many other welfare states have large black populations. I don't know what you're talking about when you say evolutionary biology, we have already established blacks have a biological disadvantage in industrial societies, but from what I remember of the last argument, the statement was that affirmative action via welfare was needed to overcome these intrinsic disadvantages. What I'm calling into question now is the Leftist idea of radical egalitarianism, that we need to try and force equality with the redistribution resources from the worthy to the unworthy.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run. It seems that the hardest thing for the government to do is nothing, and we get used to the idea of the government being the universal solution for all problems, and so the role of the government continually expands without any good results.
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run. It seems that the hardest thing for the government to do is nothing, and we get used to the idea of the government being the universal solution for all problems, and so the role of the government continually expands without any good results.
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
That's the very thing I hate seeing in discussions, both real-life ones and the ones on public forums. Having ideas about something is something we should encourage and nurture, but blatantly saying that "X thing must be done in order to improve Y thing!" when you have no actual qualification to make such a claim and are just looking at one point/variable due to it is something called ignorance.
As with everything, we must question things. I'm going to neither protect nor blame the right-wing for their way of thinking, but we have to begin from somewhere. Things have not gotten to this point out of blue. We have to analytically resolve every issue at hand.
As with everything, we must question things. I'm going to neither protect nor blame the right-wing for their way of thinking, but we have to begin from somewhere. Things have not gotten to this point out of blue. We have to analytically resolve every issue at hand.
Jesus Christ no, I'd never agree to black people have a "biological disadvantage in industrial societies". But whatever, I'm not going to go into that.B1rd wrote:
Not many other welfare states have large black populations. I don't know what you're talking about when you say evolutionary biology, we have already established blacks have a biological disadvantage in industrial societies
I think redistribution of wealth can have great benefits, yes. I don't think it's immoral if the people within society are OK with it (i.e. most people are perfectly okay with paying taxes. The ones who aren't can leave, or at the very least stop using public resources that are paid for by taxation, for example.)B1rd wrote:
but from what I remember of the last argument, the statement was that affirmative action via welfare was needed to overcome these intrinsic disadvantages. What I'm calling into question now is the Leftist idea of radical egalitarianism, that we need to try and force equality with the redistribution resources from the worthy to the unworthy.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Also the "worthy" vs "unworthy" claim is pretty.. weird. Who's deciding who is unworthy to benefit from redistribution of wealth/socialistic systems? How is that decided?
Works plenty well elsewhere. Scandinavian countries are pretty fucking top-notch as far as society goes, and many have generous welfare systems, for example. Look at Norway's wonderful rehabilitation prisons as a similar example. Also, I'd say your video quite ignorantly implies that America's welfare system is the cause of the African-American family structure to be failing, but whatever. You saying that "letting society do its thing" would be better is a quite extravagant claim that I really don't think you are qualified to make.B1rd wrote:
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run.
That's Communism, not Socialism. I also don't particularly advocate for either of them, I'm just capable of recognising the potential benefits of a Socialist society without simply discarding the idea entirely, as well as advocating for many socialistic policies existing in coexistence with economy that is Capitalist overall.B1rd wrote:
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Jesus Christ no, I'd never agree to black people have a "biological disadvantage in industrial societies".
Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.
Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.
By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.
Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.
Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.
By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.
Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.
Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
안녕하세요 나는 카이.
Bird mate, what is your definition of IQ? You seem to be the ignorant one here if you use that term when the term itself is of quite a debatable status when it comes to its definition.B1rd wrote:
Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.
I'd also like to see actual evidence of what you claimed about them there (that is: evidence which is not from some random extremist or heavy right-wing source) since I could actually both agree with you or completely disagree with you based on the evidence that you provide and your answer on the question above.
I have my own opinion on that and it either aligns with yours or is completely different, based on what you say.
There is only one definition of IQ
I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.
I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.
Now, it's completely alright if you don't provide any links if you can't be bothered, since I mostly wanted to hear the IQ part, but for us to even begin discussing it we would need to be on the same page about generalization, which we're not. I can't for the life of me accept "racial variations in IQ" as IQ itself varies not based on race, but on culture, surroundings and genes.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.
Of course all those things that you mention influence IQ, but if all those factors are the same and race is the only variable, then there will be somewhat significant differences.
Well that's the thing. For all those factors to be the same, we would need to look at a much narrower picture. For example, you COULD compare blacks vs whites in, say, France, as they for the most part have an identical culture and surroundings. However, if we broaden it onto Europe and Africa we lose the core of what defines IQ - a black guy from Paris can't be mixed together with a black guy from Kongo.
To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.
To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.
Of course you can never get 100% the same set of circumstances, that's impossible, but you can get them close enough to sensibly draw conclusions.
I'm looking around and so far my suspicions are confirmed - there is no black-white test that spans the entire Globe. The only RELIABLE tests ever done were in United States and there it's obvious why blacks scored so low compared to whites - surroundings and culture. That is far from being a fair study, since the circumstances black and white children grow up in are vastly different.
I'd very much like to see a study done on all countries in the world, which we both know is something impossible, as you cannot reliably test children brought up in severe poverty or wartime (and MANY of the countries populated mainly by blacks are currently either poverty-stricken or unstable and behind the times) - something that falls under the surroundings variable.
I'd very much like to see a study done on all countries in the world, which we both know is something impossible, as you cannot reliably test children brought up in severe poverty or wartime (and MANY of the countries populated mainly by blacks are currently either poverty-stricken or unstable and behind the times) - something that falls under the surroundings variable.
Iceland 
feels good that I got these right
i like that test.
it's testing reading comprehension on a very high level, something most students nowaday severely lack, as proven by the results: 90 percent got the second question wrong - even though it had a very clear answer.
it's testing reading comprehension on a very high level, something most students nowaday severely lack, as proven by the results: 90 percent got the second question wrong - even though it had a very clear answer.
But pretty rough when you're just learning English and you only have 1-2 minutes to complete each question.
they are trying to select capable people, raising the bar very high is just the right thing to do if you're gonna go for that.
Looking at the youtube comments..
''An English editor would have a great time with these passages. The language is obviously designed for failed comprehension and is completely pointless as no one speaks, writes, or communicates that way. What's the point of this? Poor kids.'' (878 upvotes)
i'm commenting on this because i feel many people who come across the video might share this sentiment:
Few write like this in ''normal'' literature, but try reading philosophic essays or anything post-graduate and you'll have to face this level of convolution on a regular basis.
its not designed for miscomprehension, its just hard to comprehend.
what do you think about the test, B1rd?
Looking at the youtube comments..
''An English editor would have a great time with these passages. The language is obviously designed for failed comprehension and is completely pointless as no one speaks, writes, or communicates that way. What's the point of this? Poor kids.'' (878 upvotes)
i'm commenting on this because i feel many people who come across the video might share this sentiment:
Few write like this in ''normal'' literature, but try reading philosophic essays or anything post-graduate and you'll have to face this level of convolution on a regular basis.
its not designed for miscomprehension, its just hard to comprehend.
what do you think about the test, B1rd?
Wait, what was so hard about the second question? The first one was at least 5 times harder for me...
I'm guessing that last sentence in the second one screwed people over just for shits and giggles.
I'm guessing that last sentence in the second one screwed people over just for shits and giggles.
its amazing that 90 percent got the last question wrong.. thats worse than if everyone had picked at random!
And yet the people from buzzfeed could answer it, and B1rd and us two would probably have picked the correct answer too.
This is brilliant design: Everyone who tried to answer it without being entirely sure must have gotten the question wrong.
And yet the people from buzzfeed could answer it, and B1rd and us two would probably have picked the correct answer too.
This is brilliant design: Everyone who tried to answer it without being entirely sure must have gotten the question wrong.
Well as far as I understood, those questions were in English and were given to normal Korean students, correct? Even if English is their second language, most of them won't have better than average knowledge of the language, and even those who do, probably still struggle since these questions test the span of your vocabulary and core understanding of the language.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.
its not just a random test though, its an SAT-equivalent, a filter to select the people that can go to the best universities of the country.
i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.
i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.
These weren't too difficult, right? Also, buzzfeed, I'm not sure about the accuracy of it all. I highly doubt 90% would have that second one wrong.B1rd wrote:
feels good that I got these right
I actually thought they were pretty good questions. You have to dissect through the vocabulary, in essence. The questions themselves, after doing that, are surprisingly easy. It's really about how well you can understand what is written down.Aurani wrote:
Well as far as I understood, those questions were in English and were given to normal Korean students, correct? Even if English is their second language, most of them won't have better than average knowledge of the language, and even those who do, probably still struggle since these questions test the span of your vocabulary and core understanding of the language.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.
keep in mind that its a test for highschoolers, the overwhelming majority not being english natives.
90 percent is insane, but not unbelievable. Many students probably followed the logic of the woman in the video:
''oh there's numbers, but that breaks the patter of the text! Can't be that one!'' *picks any of the other 4 options*
And i agree with you, i think its an excellent test (considering what it is for).
90 percent is insane, but not unbelievable. Many students probably followed the logic of the woman in the video:
''oh there's numbers, but that breaks the patter of the text! Can't be that one!'' *picks any of the other 4 options*
And i agree with you, i think its an excellent test (considering what it is for).
Oh, I missed the SAT part..... well that makes much more sense now. I take back what I said - those questions are fairly well structured and thought out if they're meant to test people who are supposed to attend the best unis in the country.Railey2 wrote:
its not just a random test though, its an SAT-equivalent, a filter to select the people that can go to the best universities of the country.
i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.
I do agree with you now.GladiOol wrote:
I actually thought they were pretty good questions. You have to dissect through the vocabulary, in essence. The questions themselves, after doing that, are surprisingly easy. It's really about how well you can understand what is written down.
to be more precise, they are supposed to pick people who are fit for uni in general, lower ranked universities included.
But a really high score will obviously send you to a top-university, so they kinda do both..
i do agree with what you said before: if this was just a random test, it would completely fail its purpose.
But a really high score will obviously send you to a top-university, so they kinda do both..
i do agree with what you said before: if this was just a random test, it would completely fail its purpose.
Interestingly enough, the tests here are in my opinion all incredibly easy even if you did not study at all for them, as it only really requires you to have paid SOME kind of attention in high school.
There is nothing remotely similar to these questions here....... and by that I mean not even in the same universe. If those questions were compared to the ones we have here, these ones would be elementary school admission questions. :V
There is nothing remotely similar to these questions here....... and by that I mean not even in the same universe. If those questions were compared to the ones we have here, these ones would be elementary school admission questions. :V
i don't like easy tests.
Most of the time the most important thing is your result, relative to others.
When you have an easy test, less capable people can still get very close to your performance, or even out-perform you when the right questions are asked.
When the test is hard, you are guaranteed to score way higher if you play out your strengths.
Hard tests are better even if you score lower in them, because your relative performance will always be way better if you even try only a little bit.
Tests that put you under heavy time pressure are my favourite, because i can easily outperform people that know more about the subject than me, simply because i am processing the questions faster :v
Most of the time the most important thing is your result, relative to others.
When you have an easy test, less capable people can still get very close to your performance, or even out-perform you when the right questions are asked.
When the test is hard, you are guaranteed to score way higher if you play out your strengths.
Hard tests are better even if you score lower in them, because your relative performance will always be way better if you even try only a little bit.
Tests that put you under heavy time pressure are my favourite, because i can easily outperform people that know more about the subject than me, simply because i am processing the questions faster :v
That's the thing, you just said that you don't like it when someone can outperform you based on a very specific circumstance, yet you like it when you can outperform others based on the sole factor of your ability to process things faster than average. :p
I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p
I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p
It's a good test.
I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools. The schools are free to implement innovations like having classes based on students' ability rather than age, and teachers' incomes are based on their ability to teach rather that their seniority or whatever. Stuff that's pretty much impossible to implement in the public sector due to the mess of bureaucracy and interest groups like teacher's unions not wanting competition. I heard that some of the best teachers in South Korea can be payed in the realm of $4 million a year.
I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools. The schools are free to implement innovations like having classes based on students' ability rather than age, and teachers' incomes are based on their ability to teach rather that their seniority or whatever. Stuff that's pretty much impossible to implement in the public sector due to the mess of bureaucracy and interest groups like teacher's unions not wanting competition. I heard that some of the best teachers in South Korea can be payed in the realm of $4 million a year.
(*´∇｀*) are we talking about the korean shit system now??
Of course i like it when the circumstances work to my advantage, who doesn't?Aurani wrote:
That's the thing, you just said that you don't like it when someone can outperform you based on a very specific circumstance, yet you like it when you can outperform others based on the sole factor of your ability to process things faster than average. :p
I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p
:V
You know, one day I will come over there and rape you when you least expect it. :V
"Se-Woong Koo wrote that "the system's dark side casts a long shadow. Dominated by tiger moms, cram schools and highly authoritarian teachers, South Korean education produces ranks of overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness. The entire program amounts to child abuse. It should be reformed and restructured without delay."B1rd wrote:
I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools.
In a response to the article, educator Diane Ravitch warned against modeling an educational system in which children "exist either to glorify the family or to build the national economy". She argued furthermore that the happiness of South Korean children has been sacrificed, and likened the country's students to "cogs in a national economic machine"
A 2014 poll found that over half of South Korean teenagers have suicidal thoughts, with over 40% of respondents reporting that school pressure and future uncertainty dismayed them the most. Furthermore, suicide is currently the leading cause of death among South Korean youth."
How does the market prevent these issues? It seems like people's welfare and independence are being disregarded in order to put them at "maximum efficiency", a problem seen in many Asian cultures regarding education and work.
they just need more free market. That would give an incentive to teachers to teach more efficiently, and the school book publishers would write and publish better studying materials, actually taking stress away from students.
imagine every teacher could get paid more if they were better at teaching. Everything would just spiral itself into utopia.
Everyone would be happy and nobody had to die.
imagine every teacher could get paid more if they were better at teaching. Everything would just spiral itself into utopia.
Everyone would be happy and nobody had to die.
I don't know, it seems more of a problem with these Asian cultures rather than a problem rooted in the schools. And I wouldn't make definite conclusions about the system just from one quote, it puts pressure on the students but I wouldn't say I know for sure that it's too much, a certain amount of pressure is needed. And some Western countries are probably too lax in their standards.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
"Se-Woong Koo wrote that "the system's dark side casts a long shadow. Dominated by tiger moms, cram schools and highly authoritarian teachers, South Korean education produces ranks of overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness. The entire program amounts to child abuse. It should be reformed and restructured without delay."
In a response to the article, educator Diane Ravitch warned against modeling an educational system in which children "exist either to glorify the family or to build the national economy". She argued furthermore that the happiness of South Korean children has been sacrificed, and likened the country's students to "cogs in a national economic machine"
A 2014 poll found that over half of South Korean teenagers have suicidal thoughts, with over 40% of respondents reporting that school pressure and future uncertainty dismayed them the most. Furthermore, suicide is currently the leading cause of death among South Korean youth."
How does the market prevent these issues? It seems like people's welfare and independence are being disregarded in order to put them at "maximum efficiency", a problem seen in many Asian cultures regarding education and work.
My point was though that virtually any system can be improved by the free market. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the market works fine with products like breakfast cereals or cars, but when it comes to schooling or health reality and human nature somehow change. They say that these thing "shouldn't be about money", however "being about money" in the most basic sense is simply wanting adequate compensation for the services you have provided. You can't divorce this facet from human nature just the same as you can't divorce money from any system, you will only change the market from the students, i.e. consumers, to the bureaucrats who decide how much money is granted, which is never a good thing. Essentially, the argument for liberalisation of the market is that individuals can make better choices about their own lives than some politicians, notwithstanding hysteria about creationism or whatever thing people think will be taught without the tight overview and regulation of the state.
Regardless of your political affiliation, you can't deny that free market principles should be applied to some degree.
Yeah, I think anyone can agree that if teachers would get rewarded more for working better, then that's a good thing.
The problem with it, though, is that "better" is a lot more subjective when it comes to human interaction than something as straightforward as a regular manufactured product like cereals or cars, that's why people see a difference. For example, if a teacher in a wealthy area can teach students more effectively than a teacher in a poor area, simply because of class culture and things like that- should the teacher in the poor area be screwed by the system even more and paid less for "not succeeding enough", despite not being in a fair environment to succeed in the first place? That's obviously just one small example, but there are plenty of hypothetical situations where the ultra-free market might not actually mean anything good.
The argument for state-funded services instead of free-market private ones comes from the idea that when profit is the only motivator, businesses can become exploitative of the system. Businesses can unethically increase profit by exploiting workers, polluting the environment, as well as other practices like unfair monopolization of the market due to the power that a large business has (see Amazon in the book market, Nestlé with water, probably any huge business has some examples of this). You also have a problem of some state-funded services being required despite being unprofitable, like cheap public transport in areas that wouldn't be able to afford tickets at "competitive market prices". Welfare is also of course necessary for anyone who is unable to earn enough money to survive on their own, like the elderly, or people who are incredibly ill, etc. Letting those people fall into poverty isn't a good thing in most people's eyes.
I think the benefits of the free market can exist, but they should never be looked at in isolation, but rather as part of a larger argument- it's dangerous to look at any ideology seriously without considering any downsides and simply concluding that it would lead to a utopia.
The problem with it, though, is that "better" is a lot more subjective when it comes to human interaction than something as straightforward as a regular manufactured product like cereals or cars, that's why people see a difference. For example, if a teacher in a wealthy area can teach students more effectively than a teacher in a poor area, simply because of class culture and things like that- should the teacher in the poor area be screwed by the system even more and paid less for "not succeeding enough", despite not being in a fair environment to succeed in the first place? That's obviously just one small example, but there are plenty of hypothetical situations where the ultra-free market might not actually mean anything good.
The argument for state-funded services instead of free-market private ones comes from the idea that when profit is the only motivator, businesses can become exploitative of the system. Businesses can unethically increase profit by exploiting workers, polluting the environment, as well as other practices like unfair monopolization of the market due to the power that a large business has (see Amazon in the book market, Nestlé with water, probably any huge business has some examples of this). You also have a problem of some state-funded services being required despite being unprofitable, like cheap public transport in areas that wouldn't be able to afford tickets at "competitive market prices". Welfare is also of course necessary for anyone who is unable to earn enough money to survive on their own, like the elderly, or people who are incredibly ill, etc. Letting those people fall into poverty isn't a good thing in most people's eyes.
I think the benefits of the free market can exist, but they should never be looked at in isolation, but rather as part of a larger argument- it's dangerous to look at any ideology seriously without considering any downsides and simply concluding that it would lead to a utopia.
I've never heard anyone describe the free market as a utopia, that's just a strawman; just a better system. The common argument against economic liberalism is about exploitation and such things like that, but no one claimed that it would never happen to a degree; the fallacy is however to think that corruption and exploitation is somehow less common under an economy under strong centralised controls. I would argue that exploitation is much worse under a system in which those who are corruptible have much more control and influence over the economy than would otherwise be the case - and indeed the system is designed for lobbyists and special interest groups to take advantage of the system for their own selfish gain, which is something quite demonstrable in our current system.
So what is difficult about judging the standards of a teacher or school? It's very easy, just look at the results of students from that school, the reputation it has, and look at some of the lectures online of a teacher to see what they're like. Little fundamental difference from judging the quality of an automobile or breakfast cereal and I don't understand your criticism. Concerning how much teachers are paid, you seem to be under the impression that there is some arbitrating body deciding the salary of teachers like it's a public system. This isn't the case and the salary of a teacher would be more dependent on the consumer's perception of how much the teacher's services are worth like it is with anything in the market. And opening up schooling to competition doesn't just have an effect on teacher's salaries, it also drives down prices and increases the effectiveness of teaching country-wide as more effective teaching methods are created and emulated - because parents have a choice and send their kids to the best schools possible - way more than reforming the curriculum for the 1000th time or common core ever would or does. In effect it creates an better environment for every student, even poorer communities which the Left claim to be so concerned about.
I have heard pretty much every Left-wing hypothesis in the book about why strong government interference in the economy is necessary, however I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see a an actual example. These hypothesises often fall flat on their faces when you look at historical and contemporary examples.
For example looking into your claim about this Nestle CEO, you actually realise that what he is talking about is regulating all sources of water "for the environment". This would necessitate a strong monopoly of power, in other words the government, to pull off. Because if you think about it for two seconds you realise that monopolising every or nearly every source of water without coercive action is a ridiculous and impossible concept. And that is what he is talking about, he is talking about using the vehicle of the government to regulate water even from people who have their own private wells or rainwater tanks.
And I really don't see what the point is about Amazon, I have heard a lot of people complain about them having a high market share, but what exactly is the problem with this? I like buying books of Amazon because they are very cheap; this goes against the central idea against monopolies which is that they can artificially inflate prices and are bad for the consumer. What is really happening is simply economy of scale; these big companies can offer a cheaper service and thus out compete smaller competitors. There is nothing wrong with this and it's good for the consumer. And one thing to note is that an economy of scale can quickly turn into a diseconomy of scale, in which upsizing creates more inefficiencies because of administrative costs and problems. I can buy books of amazon, and I can also go to my local bookstore, which is more expensive but it's very popular nonetheless because people enjoy that experience of shopping at a bookstore. I fail to see any problems with these oft demonised corporations simply because they can outcompete other businesses because they can offer cheaper prices.
And what are these public services that are apparently so important yet apparently no one would pay for them unless they are forced to by the government? I can think of Aus Post, something that barely anyone uses for mail and taxpayers have to pay the 4.6 million dollar salary of the CEO. It's nothing more than a form of corporate welfare which sustains inefficient companies that would fail or at least have to be optimised without this funding. Buses are expensive? Says who? How much do you think the fare has to be to cover the cost of fuel, maintenance, and the salary of a relatively unskilled worker in a bus carrying two dozen people? Literally anyone with some driving skill could take out a loan and start doing their own bus route, in the absence of bus driver unions, public transport services, or having to jump through 1000 arbitrary hoops of red tape forcing would-be entrepreneurs out of the market. It makes no logical sense that it would be expensive.
The thing with these public companies like public bus services is they are inefficient, they don't have to worry about making a profit, or putting it another way, not running a deficit, so there is no incentive for them to optimise their service anywhere near the level of a private company. Well you might argue, "if they were for profit, they wouldn't run through poor areas that don't generate much revenue!". Well, besides the fact that that argument is dangerously similar to that in the dystopian universe of Atlas Shrugged in which trains of Taggart Transcontinental had to go through poor, desolate areas instead of the industrious oil fields for "public good", you can't even really justify this in terms of "helping the poor". If a bus has to run an inefficient route then that cost is passed directly to the taxpayer: the taxpayers, the businesses have to pay higher taxes and subsequently that cost is passed off in increased cost of products, lower wages and less employees et cetera, stuff that will directly hurt poor people and it makes it harder for people trying to get into the middle class. So the typical context that these scenarios are put in in which it is stated that we will just "tax the rich" to pay for these things is no valid excuse.
And welfare? None of those things you mentioned cannot be done be private charity rather than welfare. And as I've explained before, charity is much more efficient: 70% of welfare money goes on administrative costs, while this is less than 30% for private charity. And charity is actually much better at helping people get out of poverty, while welfare creates a trap where in some cases people would need to earn much more than the minimum wage working a full time job just to break even with the benefits they could get on welfare. In effect, it penalises people for getting out of welfare. And it is said that the biggest cost of welfare isn't even the financial cost, but the human cost.
So, you come from a somewhat centrist angle, but I don't automatically consider the mainstream as correct and neither do I take accusations of being a radical as an insult. The mainstream political climate 50 years ago would be considered radical today and so it will be in 50 years from now. So I don't see our current political climate as the zenith of political or philosophical theory, and I don't feel any need to accept this recent trend of socialism as a necessary element in our society when it doesn't hold up under sceptical scrutiny.
So what is difficult about judging the standards of a teacher or school? It's very easy, just look at the results of students from that school, the reputation it has, and look at some of the lectures online of a teacher to see what they're like. Little fundamental difference from judging the quality of an automobile or breakfast cereal and I don't understand your criticism. Concerning how much teachers are paid, you seem to be under the impression that there is some arbitrating body deciding the salary of teachers like it's a public system. This isn't the case and the salary of a teacher would be more dependent on the consumer's perception of how much the teacher's services are worth like it is with anything in the market. And opening up schooling to competition doesn't just have an effect on teacher's salaries, it also drives down prices and increases the effectiveness of teaching country-wide as more effective teaching methods are created and emulated - because parents have a choice and send their kids to the best schools possible - way more than reforming the curriculum for the 1000th time or common core ever would or does. In effect it creates an better environment for every student, even poorer communities which the Left claim to be so concerned about.
I have heard pretty much every Left-wing hypothesis in the book about why strong government interference in the economy is necessary, however I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see a an actual example. These hypothesises often fall flat on their faces when you look at historical and contemporary examples.
For example looking into your claim about this Nestle CEO, you actually realise that what he is talking about is regulating all sources of water "for the environment". This would necessitate a strong monopoly of power, in other words the government, to pull off. Because if you think about it for two seconds you realise that monopolising every or nearly every source of water without coercive action is a ridiculous and impossible concept. And that is what he is talking about, he is talking about using the vehicle of the government to regulate water even from people who have their own private wells or rainwater tanks.
And I really don't see what the point is about Amazon, I have heard a lot of people complain about them having a high market share, but what exactly is the problem with this? I like buying books of Amazon because they are very cheap; this goes against the central idea against monopolies which is that they can artificially inflate prices and are bad for the consumer. What is really happening is simply economy of scale; these big companies can offer a cheaper service and thus out compete smaller competitors. There is nothing wrong with this and it's good for the consumer. And one thing to note is that an economy of scale can quickly turn into a diseconomy of scale, in which upsizing creates more inefficiencies because of administrative costs and problems. I can buy books of amazon, and I can also go to my local bookstore, which is more expensive but it's very popular nonetheless because people enjoy that experience of shopping at a bookstore. I fail to see any problems with these oft demonised corporations simply because they can outcompete other businesses because they can offer cheaper prices.
And what are these public services that are apparently so important yet apparently no one would pay for them unless they are forced to by the government? I can think of Aus Post, something that barely anyone uses for mail and taxpayers have to pay the 4.6 million dollar salary of the CEO. It's nothing more than a form of corporate welfare which sustains inefficient companies that would fail or at least have to be optimised without this funding. Buses are expensive? Says who? How much do you think the fare has to be to cover the cost of fuel, maintenance, and the salary of a relatively unskilled worker in a bus carrying two dozen people? Literally anyone with some driving skill could take out a loan and start doing their own bus route, in the absence of bus driver unions, public transport services, or having to jump through 1000 arbitrary hoops of red tape forcing would-be entrepreneurs out of the market. It makes no logical sense that it would be expensive.
The thing with these public companies like public bus services is they are inefficient, they don't have to worry about making a profit, or putting it another way, not running a deficit, so there is no incentive for them to optimise their service anywhere near the level of a private company. Well you might argue, "if they were for profit, they wouldn't run through poor areas that don't generate much revenue!". Well, besides the fact that that argument is dangerously similar to that in the dystopian universe of Atlas Shrugged in which trains of Taggart Transcontinental had to go through poor, desolate areas instead of the industrious oil fields for "public good", you can't even really justify this in terms of "helping the poor". If a bus has to run an inefficient route then that cost is passed directly to the taxpayer: the taxpayers, the businesses have to pay higher taxes and subsequently that cost is passed off in increased cost of products, lower wages and less employees et cetera, stuff that will directly hurt poor people and it makes it harder for people trying to get into the middle class. So the typical context that these scenarios are put in in which it is stated that we will just "tax the rich" to pay for these things is no valid excuse.
And welfare? None of those things you mentioned cannot be done be private charity rather than welfare. And as I've explained before, charity is much more efficient: 70% of welfare money goes on administrative costs, while this is less than 30% for private charity. And charity is actually much better at helping people get out of poverty, while welfare creates a trap where in some cases people would need to earn much more than the minimum wage working a full time job just to break even with the benefits they could get on welfare. In effect, it penalises people for getting out of welfare. And it is said that the biggest cost of welfare isn't even the financial cost, but the human cost.
So, you come from a somewhat centrist angle, but I don't automatically consider the mainstream as correct and neither do I take accusations of being a radical as an insult. The mainstream political climate 50 years ago would be considered radical today and so it will be in 50 years from now. So I don't see our current political climate as the zenith of political or philosophical theory, and I don't feel any need to accept this recent trend of socialism as a necessary element in our society when it doesn't hold up under sceptical scrutiny.
Tiny response since I just got back from work- I mentioned the word "utopia" since railey just made the suggestion that under a totally free market, things naturally spiral towards that state, which is true if only the most positive outcomes happen.
My reference to Nestlé and Amazon were two specific ones that I think you misunderstood. Nestlé buys up water sources wherever it can, which deprives areas of clean water piped to them. You should be able to find examples of this fairly easily. Another point I wasn't mentioning was their use of child labour in developing countries though, which without regulation is something that is pretty much encouraged in a totally free market, since it maximises profits when the company has a monopoly on the area (they can pay inhumanely low wages in third-world countries since there's no competition for wages). As for Amazon, they're known for making rather unfair deals with publishers due to their monopoly on the market, but I don't know enough of the specifics to go deeper into that.
Public transport in rural areas, like trains and buses, can indeed be a net loss- but they're necessary for society, so those services are still offered despite being unprofitable. I imagine taxpayers are okay with paying for this, since they can empathise with people who aren't as well off and don't want them to get fucked over more just for being poor, y'know?
My reference to Nestlé and Amazon were two specific ones that I think you misunderstood. Nestlé buys up water sources wherever it can, which deprives areas of clean water piped to them. You should be able to find examples of this fairly easily. Another point I wasn't mentioning was their use of child labour in developing countries though, which without regulation is something that is pretty much encouraged in a totally free market, since it maximises profits when the company has a monopoly on the area (they can pay inhumanely low wages in third-world countries since there's no competition for wages). As for Amazon, they're known for making rather unfair deals with publishers due to their monopoly on the market, but I don't know enough of the specifics to go deeper into that.
Public transport in rural areas, like trains and buses, can indeed be a net loss- but they're necessary for society, so those services are still offered despite being unprofitable. I imagine taxpayers are okay with paying for this, since they can empathise with people who aren't as well off and don't want them to get fucked over more just for being poor, y'know?
holy fuckin shit
having super strict firearm laws in US is mandatory at this point (or even just doing it JAP style and banning it altogether)
"protecting myself" argument cannot be justified in any way shape or form
One guy shot someone? BAN ALL GUNS! Think of the Children!
Yeah, one anecdotal example and emotional appeal really isn't convincing anyone.
Yeah, one anecdotal example and emotional appeal really isn't convincing anyone.
You get stuff like this all the time + the average number of incidents caused by guns is way too high. We don't need rocket science to come to conclusion that USA has way too many psychos who own dangerous weapon. The country has an estimated 283 mil. guns in civilian hands and an average of 30k people dying due to this. No need to do the math, it's way too much. inb4 i am aware that it can't magically drop down crime rate to 1-2%, but it would definitely be helpful imo.
Things like this are starting to get shared on social medias, and all around. What's next? Twitch livestream of school shooting? Every other day we get to witness sick shit like this and it's getting worse and worse.
its a relatively outdated graph, but you get the point
Things like this are starting to get shared on social medias, and all around. What's next? Twitch livestream of school shooting? Every other day we get to witness sick shit like this and it's getting worse and worse.
its a relatively outdated graph, but you get the point
I saw the video and it made me shudder.
I mean, I'm usually not affected by events like that as much as other people, but watching the video for myself and seeing the reaction of the old man, a man who had nothing to do with the killer and was minding his own business collecting cans on Easter Sunday of all dates, have to be the victim of something as senseless as this. RIP, really.
I mean, I'm usually not affected by events like that as much as other people, but watching the video for myself and seeing the reaction of the old man, a man who had nothing to do with the killer and was minding his own business collecting cans on Easter Sunday of all dates, have to be the victim of something as senseless as this. RIP, really.
"Gun violence have been increasing". This is also after the number of guns on the market has increased drastically.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -edges-up/
In a country with around 500,000,000 guns, there are approximately 30 gun homicides a day. That includes justified homicides used in self defence. So lets compare that to smoking deaths every day which is 1,315, and you're telling me it's a problem?
Lets compare other countries, murder rate to guns per 100 people:
Murder rate | guns per 100 people
USA: 5.22 | 112.6
Venezuela: 47.21 | 10.7
Switzerland: 0.72 | 45.7
Sweden: 0.89 | 31.6
United Kingdom: 1.57 | 6.6
Brazil: 21.97 | 8
China: 1.21 | 4.9
See the correlation? Because I don't. If anything it's inverse. Do you see how silly the claim is that introducing gun laws that will take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens and keep it in the hands of criminals will actually help anything? So stop jumping on the bandwagon and trying to reduce people's liberties every time you see a highly publicized public shooting. Go on liveleak and you can see 1000x more of that stuff in countries that have strict gun control.
Also worth noting that as shown in the first link, black people commit the vast majority of gun homicides, usually against other black people. That's why comparing the USA to white homogenous European countries does nothing to prove that lack of gun control in the causation of gun homicide.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -edges-up/
In a country with around 500,000,000 guns, there are approximately 30 gun homicides a day. That includes justified homicides used in self defence. So lets compare that to smoking deaths every day which is 1,315, and you're telling me it's a problem?
Lets compare other countries, murder rate to guns per 100 people:
Murder rate | guns per 100 people
USA: 5.22 | 112.6
Venezuela: 47.21 | 10.7
Switzerland: 0.72 | 45.7
Sweden: 0.89 | 31.6
United Kingdom: 1.57 | 6.6
Brazil: 21.97 | 8
China: 1.21 | 4.9
See the correlation? Because I don't. If anything it's inverse. Do you see how silly the claim is that introducing gun laws that will take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens and keep it in the hands of criminals will actually help anything? So stop jumping on the bandwagon and trying to reduce people's liberties every time you see a highly publicized public shooting. Go on liveleak and you can see 1000x more of that stuff in countries that have strict gun control.
Also worth noting that as shown in the first link, black people commit the vast majority of gun homicides, usually against other black people. That's why comparing the USA to white homogenous European countries does nothing to prove that lack of gun control in the causation of gun homicide.
guys, my comment was satirizing B1rd's unrealistic faith in the positive forces of the free market.
Also lol at your murder rate and guns per 100 people argument:
You're once again seeing this as a one-dimensional problem.
You wouldn't even think for a second that there could be multiple factors, and that removing guns could possibly be benefitial if used in combination with other things, but maybe not on its own?
we're talking about reality here, not some closed off heavily controlled lab-experiment. Do you honestly think that there are no confounding factors that completely nullify this poor attempt of an argument?
stupid
Also lol at your murder rate and guns per 100 people argument:
You're once again seeing this as a one-dimensional problem.
You wouldn't even think for a second that there could be multiple factors, and that removing guns could possibly be benefitial if used in combination with other things, but maybe not on its own?
we're talking about reality here, not some closed off heavily controlled lab-experiment. Do you honestly think that there are no confounding factors that completely nullify this poor attempt of an argument?
stupid
I don't know a lot about Nestle and Amazon, it'd take a lot of knowledge of the context to make accurate assessments of the situations and theorise about the possible free-market solutions and mechanism, right now I'm more just pointing out the superiority of a more liberal economy compared to a socialist one.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Tiny response since I just got back from work- I mentioned the word "utopia" since railey just made the suggestion that under a totally free market, things naturally spiral towards that state, which is true if only the most positive outcomes happen.
My reference to Nestlé and Amazon were two specific ones that I think you misunderstood. Nestlé buys up water sources wherever it can, which deprives areas of clean water piped to them. You should be able to find examples of this fairly easily. Another point I wasn't mentioning was their use of child labour in developing countries though, which without regulation is something that is pretty much encouraged in a totally free market, since it maximises profits when the company has a monopoly on the area (they can pay inhumanely low wages in third-world countries since there's no competition for wages). As for Amazon, they're known for making rather unfair deals with publishers due to their monopoly on the market, but I don't know enough of the specifics to go deeper into that.
Public transport in rural areas, like trains and buses, can indeed be a net loss- but they're necessary for society, so those services are still offered despite being unprofitable. I imagine taxpayers are okay with paying for this, since they can empathise with people who aren't as well off and don't want them to get fucked over more just for being poor, y'know?
Though I actually just watched a video of talk of the Nestle CEO, he didn't say anything unreasonable at all, unlike what the hysterical Left-wing news sources seem to make out when I search the topic. He just said that water is a resource that should be privatised and have a have a market value like any foodstuff, and that way people wouldn't waste in among other things. He also made some other good points, the only thing I disagree with is about GMOs. Of course all the comments are like THIS IS THE FACE OF PURE EVIL CAPITALIZM. Lol, this generation.
So, what exactly is stopping private transport from running to rural areas? Let's assume kids from a rural community are taking a bus to a town 100 miles away, assuming the cost per mile is around $1, a rough estimate from here, and the bus is running close to capacity at around 40 kids the average fare then would be around $3 per commute. There's not really any situation that truly necessity these expensive and inefficient public services, unless you do what some people do which is to start coming up with even more absurd and unlikely "what if" scenarios".
The public sector actually creates a lot more problems than people realise. this video does a good job of showing how much public employees of even basic and unskilled labour jobs like trash collectors are overpayed, and how the extremely generous retirement benefits can bankrupt whole states. However I don't think that the biggest cost is the monetary cost, but like I was saying, the cost to these unfortunate kids who have to go through the public schooling system which suffer from lack of competition and a system which favours the schools and teachers rather than students. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG8w9PcA-ig
I've been to both public and private schools, and I genuinely think my life would have turned out much better if I had stayed at the private school. It was much greater than the public ones.
Now, this child labour thing is a common topic but there isn't much understanding of it. The Left looks at sweatshops and child labour and they think the solution is simply regulation, that these evil corporations are exploiting the poor workers and if only there were regulation everything would be fixed, and that the strongarm of the state is the solution to everything. Obviously this oversimplified way of thinking doesn't actually fix the problem, which is the poverty in that area, along with corrupt governments and things along those lines.
The reason that child labour exists is due to economic reasons; is our rich Western society it makes much more sense to send children to school so they can grow up and become professionals rather than employing them in unskilled labour jobs which they are very poor at. and which adults can do a lot better. It's a net gain for society. However in these poor third world regions they don't have that luxury and children will work as soon as they can just to survive, whether on a farm or in a factory. Leftists don't realise this any when they stop the sweatshops they are preventing these extremely poor people from choosing the best option they have, and I have heard stories where this has happened and the children have been forced into prostitution or they have died. So instead, these are the people that could benefit from capitalism and industrialization more than anything.
BTW, I didn't understand what you said about free markets spiraling towards the state, and positive outcomes or whatever.
Goddamnit Railey, don't ruin the fun. I enjoy watching our edgy Tasmanian boy discuss stuff that makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever in the real world.Railey2 wrote:
guys, my comment was satirizing B1rd's unrealistic faith in the positive forces of the free market.
Also lol at your murder rate and guns per 100 people argument:
You're once again seeing this as a one-dimensional problem.
You wouldn't even think for a second that there could be multiple factors, and that removing guns could possibly be benefitial if used in combination with other things, but maybe not on its own?
we're talking about reality here, not some closed off heavily controlled lab-experiment. Do you honestly think that there are no confounding factors that completely nullify this poor attempt of an argument?
stupid
What part of my argument doesn't make sense in the real world.
If I pointed it out, we'd start yet another branch of this discussion that will lead into nowhere, so I'll avoid pointing it out, but trust me, parts of it are wholly speculative and don't stand up to practices in the real world.
Anyways, I like your choice of books, but I have to add that as someone who is studying the field and has read the book, you don't want to read it if you want to find out something meaningful about the economics. I'm referring to "Economics in one lesson" here.
If your point is to read it only to be able to argue with some poor guy who doesn't know the first thing about the field, yeah, get it, but otherwise don't, as it places emphasis on some incredibly complex things that on the surface look simple and logical, but really need deeper analysis to argue about, so the book won't help you learn anything past the very, VERY basics and in that case you might as well just go on Google and read up on it instead. Not only that, but there are some serious fucking exaggerations in that book with which I cannot agree at all, so take it with a pinch of salt.
I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion once you read it.
Anyways, I like your choice of books, but I have to add that as someone who is studying the field and has read the book, you don't want to read it if you want to find out something meaningful about the economics. I'm referring to "Economics in one lesson" here.
If your point is to read it only to be able to argue with some poor guy who doesn't know the first thing about the field, yeah, get it, but otherwise don't, as it places emphasis on some incredibly complex things that on the surface look simple and logical, but really need deeper analysis to argue about, so the book won't help you learn anything past the very, VERY basics and in that case you might as well just go on Google and read up on it instead. Not only that, but there are some serious fucking exaggerations in that book with which I cannot agree at all, so take it with a pinch of salt.
I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion once you read it.
why not try for both?B1rd wrote:
Now, this child labour thing is a common topic but there isn't much understanding of it. The Left looks at sweatshops and child labour and they think the solution is simply regulation, that these evil corporations are exploiting the poor workers and if only there were regulation everything would be fixed, and that the strongarm of the state is the solution to everything. Obviously this oversimplified way of thinking doesn't actually fix the problem, which is the poverty in that area, along with corrupt governments and things along those lines.
*gasp*
Your text reads like you believe rights for workers aren't doing anything, anywhere.
I don't know much about it but I've had it recommended by quite a few people. It's the first one I'll read so I'll tell you my opinion.
interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass
I seem to have failed in my mission to avoid being noticed by you.Hika wrote:
interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass
Senpai always notices you.
Also I'm waiting for my birthday present pls send
Also I'm waiting for my birthday present pls send
I have 3 birthdays to take care of this month, so it's a bad time for Hika to start noticing me.
insomnia sure is fun. haven't slept in 2 days. guess i have time to watch the lord of the rings trilogy in one go, so that's p cool.
hi hika whats ur adress. i have money and feel like spending, i'll send you a small gift because why not.
hi hika whats ur adress. i have money and feel like spending, i'll send you a small gift because why not.
Send yourself gladi.
Still haven't met you after like fifty years.
Still haven't met you after like fifty years.
yea thats because theres an ocean in the way
dead
peep 👀Hika wrote:
interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass
ummm choof is u good
ei tee tee