kokigami

Member
  • Posts

    4,896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kokigami

  1. On 4/9/2016 at 11:24 PM, Dan56 said:

    No, I'm never happy about giving half my money to the government.. Stupid or not, I'd fully support another tax revolt, but that won't happen because most people don't pay a cent, they already have zero taxation with representation. Yes, that war could have been avoided, but only if those patriots were content to stay on their knees to England and surrender their independence & freedom.  Defiance is brave when its corrects the unfair and immoral rule of law.

    Principal may be over rated. 

     

  2. On 4/5/2016 at 0:05 AM, mererdog said:

    Our brains don't like us to focus on any one thing for very long. It makes it easy for predators to sneak up on us. You say you give your whole attention, but do you?

    You don't listen to the radio? You don't talk to your passengers? You don't read billboards? You never think about what you want to have for lunch or what you need to pick up at the store? You don't get annoyed by an itch? Because I can guarantee that everyone else on the road with you does almost all those things on a regular basis.

     

    An interesting bit of legal weirdness- in most states, someone who is drunk will be considered too mentally  incapacitated to consent to sex, but not too mentally incapacitated to be held responsible for the decision to drive...

    That is an interesting legal observation. Still, for legal purposes the drunk having sex is seen as a victim of someone taking advantage of their state. The Drunk in the car is seen as the actor putting others at risk. The real problem comes when two drunks have sex. (Ain't that the truth). 

    On 4/6/2016 at 0:14 AM, Dan56 said:

    Your professor was an idiot.... Nearly everything in life involves a degree of risk, but when a person puts lives in jeopardy by taking reckless risk, the probability of negative consequences makes them morally culpable. Drunk driving = high risk (immoral), letting your kid play on the monkey bars = low risk (morally acceptable). 

    reckless risks is such a subjective concept. The settlers crossing America with kids in tow were taking pretty reckless risks. We punish the drunk driver because society has decided that the risk they pose is greater than the benefit that society gets from them driving. Taken to the extreme, all actions have some potential to cause harm to others. Breathing can spread disease. But, as a society we recognize that breathing offers more societal benefit than societal risk, in most cases.The Prof is right, this isn't a question of morality. 

  3. On 3/29/2016 at 3:09 AM, Dan56 said:

    It also says: "The Pope denounced Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels  as a “gesture of war”. So I doubt his comment was all-inclusive, it seems clear that Islamic terrorist aren't 'brothers' who want to live in peace.. I think the Pope was making a universal appeal for peace, but its also clear that the biblical God and Allah aren't the same God.. One God yes, but all brothers of the same God, no.

    it would seem to me that terrorists in general are not brothers who wish to live in peace. That does not mean that we are not brothers of the same God. Siblings fight, after all. Often over how they interpret the instructions of parents who are away. 

    When I think about it, I am also convinced that even terrorists want to live in peace. They just don't have that as their highest priority. It falls below the goal of everyone conforming to their ideals. (If everyone conformed, they would be happy to live in peace.. )

     

  4. On 3/30/2016 at 0:05 PM, mererdog said:

    How can you tell that what you are doing is right?

    I can't. At the very basic, Newtonian application, if we get the result we expected, we chose the right actions, (for that particular goal). That is, if we throw a stone to break a window, and the window breaks, then we did it right.  Beyond that, pretty much a crap shoot. Ultimately, this question is more about what goal one is trying to achieve. And isolating that goal from unintended consequences. Your goal seems to be adhering to an unspecified objective morality that may or may not exist. Personally, I think it is unlikely. But, I can probably agree that some of the things you might attribute to that objective morality are, in most cases, likely good. But accepting that I can't "know" that they are universal goods, keeps me introspective. Once we establish for ourselves that something is objectively good/bad, we are no longer going to examine our moral choices on that issue. For example, if the color puce is inherently evil, by objective morality (or my assumption about said objective morality), I will no longer consider the color for interior decorating.  

  5. If "you didn't make that" is true, does that also mean that for the liberal religious there is no hell or judgement?

    huh?

    If society creates the circumstance for those who are rich do not those same circumstances create the poor as well?

    society doesn't necessarily work to create equal circumstances. But, that said, often the circumstances that make some wealthy do so by making others poor.

    If the only tools for obtaining wealth are dispensed to all by society, then why are only some rich and others poor?

    Again, society isn't a perfect engine of equality. Those with wealth tend to manipulate to make it easier for those with wealth. For example, housing assistance will happily pay rent for a poor person (enriching a rich person) but will not pay a poor persons mortgage, enriching the poor person. These rules can be changed, of course, but power and wealth tend to oppose that kind of change.

    Can society claim responsibility for the good things in mans life but avoid the same responsibility for the bad?

    No, not really, to the extent that society is, in fact, responsible.

    if you can not claim ownership for the good in your life are you free from guilt for the bad in others lives as well?

    to the extent that one has free will - and I consider that to be limited to none - one can claim a share of credit or guilt for ones own circumstance. But the circumstance of others is more complicated algebra, because I, as an individual, have less direct influence on most others. WE, as society, bear a good deal of guilt and/or credit, however.

    It seems someone or something is shirking their responsibility, or claiming to be responsible when they are not.

    Probably. We really misunderstand the concepts, I think.

    tough to respond point by point, because, honestly, I don't follow all the statements.

  6. Hmm...wouldn't be many of our current religions as the androids original creators were mortal. So, perhaps with the belief in a soul, maybe, their deity would deal more in the spirit realm.

    Truth is universal, therefore their religion may seem quite similar to ours. Just thinking. Who would know?

    hehe.. current religions.. hehe.

  7. What about the people who build, program, install, and maintain self-checkout machines? Don't they deserve work, too? It's a strange state of affairs. As technology advances, there is less and less need for people to work in order to provide for everyone's needs. But we insist that everyone should work to earn what they need....

    well, that is a conundrum. capitalists and rope, as they say.

  8. that depends on whether souls exist. which depends on the definition of a soul. As it is much easier to argue that an androids non physical essense (if we use that as our loose definition) can carry on outside its body, it is seems more likely they would have souls than we would, based upon evidence.

  9. there are a lot of holes still left in the claim.. I wouldn't get too excited yet. There are questions of provenance, dating techniques, etc. But it has also generated a bit of controversy about the process, and the relative values of the original artifact vs the subsequent discoveries in terms of culture and science. If this is just a bit of paper with the same words as other copies of Mark, and no "new information", it may prove that the other bits of papyrii, containing financial records, and such, are more important, and it is all less important than the damaged mask..

  10. Hi being a Roman Catholic, I had wondered whether I was gong to be excommunicated for being a minister in the ULC. After hearing both sides of the coin, one from a very conservative Catholic Magazine with all of their exports who told me that I was in grave mortal sin for becoming a ULC Minister. I even talked to Amy at ULC.NET, and she told me she didn't have too much information, so today I asked a good Priest friend of the family at a parade.

    What he told me is that "SO Long as I'm not representing the Catholic Church I should do fine. He didn't think me wearing a bright blue Clergy shirt to Sunday Mass would be appreciated by our Pastor Fr. Paul, but he said go ahead and do it.... So today I found a message from the Conservative Catholic Magazine who told me in so many words, that I was going to burn in Hell, and I had committed a grave sin against the Roman Catholic Church....

    So my answer, I really don't care what they think. I have a calling in God's own mysterious ways, and I don't fear about being excommunicated from the church. Since I'm a Baptized Catholic and went through Confirmation, its hard to throw me out of the church since I have been blessed with the "Holy Spirit" (Third person of the Trinity).... But I won't be able to receive the body and blood of Christ... to which I"m not afraid of not getting....

    Hi being a Roman Catholic, I had wondered whether I was gong to be excommunicated for being a minister in the ULC. After hearing both sides of the coin, one from a very conservative Catholic Magazine with all of their exports who told me that I was in grave mortal sin for becoming a ULC Minister. I even talked to Amy at ULC.NET, and she told me she didn't have too much information, so today I asked a good Priest friend of the family at a parade.

    What he told me is that "SO Long as I'm not representing the Catholic Church I should do fine. He didn't think me wearing a bright blue Clergy shirt to Sunday Mass would be appreciated by our Pastor Fr. Paul, but he said go ahead and do it.... So today I found a message from the Conservative Catholic Magazine who told me in so many words, that I was going to burn in Hell, and I had committed a grave sin against the Roman Catholic Church....

    So my answer, I really don't care what they think. I have a calling in God's own mysterious ways, and I don't fear about being excommunicated from the church. Since I'm a Baptized Catholic and went through Confirmation, its hard to throw me out of the church since I have been blessed with the "Holy Spirit" (Third person of the Trinity).... But I won't be able to receive the body and blood of Christ... to which I"m not afraid of not getting....

    Well, my best friend became Catholic while ordained, so I don't think they will excommunicate you simply for that. It takes a lot to be excommunicated. But, it also appears it is a local decision, so, depending on the nature of the local cardinals and Bishops, your mileage may vary.

  11. Blessings and thank you for the responses everyone, I had my own views and these obviously shared with some initially by the sounds of it

    Oh, Jonathan, in answer to your question, I wasn't saying an actual 'spiritual' path would be excluded, it would only be those with no spiritual leanings at all (or getting ordained for mockery purposes, if you will}

    However it was answered, so onward down the corridor. :)

    Rowan

    It is possible their God likes a joke as much as the next deity.. :)
  12. Fine, if IP is not to be equitably redistributed outright, then it can be seized by eminent domain for a price set by the community and placed in the public domain for all to use, in the same way other property is seized for the greater public good. The IP itself is more valuable to the public than currency. The public can print its own currency. Besides the IP is already in the possession of the public in most cases, The claimed IP owner relies on the public to grant a monopoly to maintain their ownership privileges, even though there claimed property is already in the possession of many others. All that really needs to be done is the rescission of this monopoly The claimed IP owner will still possess their IP without loss.

    I used to have a dozen or so VIC20's, 64's and 128's. I imagine it is fairly difficult now a days to find 5 1/4" media.

    :)

    That is how all property works. IP has the advantage that, if one never reveals it, it cannot be taken. Once revealed, of course, it is fairly easy to reproduce. But, in theory, eminent domain could be used to seize IP, just as it can be used to seize land. I would call for less drastic IP reform.. but..

    I think I have a bunch of old 5 1/4s too. I think. I know my mom was getting rid of a byte ton of them not long ago..

  13. Property is one of those things that existed before law or society. Many animals recognize property. They fight for food. They fight for territory. They fight for mates. Property is a requirement for survival in the animal kingdom. Law only recognizes the obvious, that property is necessary for survival.

    possession isn't property. Some animals do have property concepts, of course, but not most. The concept of property only exists if the social group recognizes the concept. That is, if, on the whole, you can leave your stuff unattended, and others will still view it as yours. In many places, property rights only exist for those with might (in both the human and animal worlds). Government, at its most basic, is a social contract to acknowledge property as a more universal concept, and a social pledge to use the collective might to enforce the contract. Property isn't necessary for survival. This is evident as many creatures have no concept of property. I doubt worms do, for a simple example.

    IP should be taxed as other riches are taxed. A portion of ones IP should be distributed to the public on a periodic basis, Just as ones money is confiscated and distributed. Only IP can be distributed to the entire population, not just a select few.

    I am not sure why you think IP should be taken rather than the value of IP. We don't confiscate peoples land to redistribute. We tax a value, not a thing.IP has value.. (it is hard to establish that value, of course..)

    The trap of entitlements may not be intentionally designed, but it is certainly an ignored byproduct. The benefits to government have so far outweighed any negative feedback that would move it to change. Its like they are handing out free drugs. There is benefit to the user but it perpetuates the problem and invites the creation of more users.

    There have been attempts to address it. The haven't been successful for various reasons. The largest is probably mis information about the nature of poverty in America, but followed closely by the meme that those on welfare are the "takers", and the class warfare that has been promoted by the wealthy between the middle class and the poor..

    Something like a 22 trillion dollars has been spent on the war on poverty when adjusted for inflation. This is enough money to make each person in poverty independently wealthy, and yet poverty has stopped its downward trend when the war on poverty started in 1964 and has actually grown 4 percent since its low in 1974 while the amount spent has more than doubled.

    well, more or less true, over 50 years of programs. A large part of that problem has been that, as I said before, the money is never used to improve the net worth of the recipient. It is simply channeled through them to the wealthier portion of America. A welfare program will pay your rent to a landlord, and improve their net worth, but won't pay your mortgage. And as much as any part of the system was designed to not help the poor, this is somewhat intentional. It comes from the belief that we can end economic inequality by keeping the poor just barely afloat. It isn't about spending more money. It is about spending it correctly.

    That said, because our economic system is fluid, there will always be poverty. It is very easy to go down the economic ladder.

    By the way I loved Commodore computers. :)

    Wanna buy some?

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/kathryn-edin-poverty-research-fatherhood

  14. Property is something that can be lost or destroyed. Theft of property deprives one of property. Property is also scarce. There is a limited amount for people to share.

    Ideas are not property since the have none of the attributes of property. Ideas can be share without loss to the owner. They are not scare, they are instead infinitely dispersable.

    Which means the public is impoverished by the artificial creation of government supported monopolies on ideas and their use and dissemination. IP rights are the supposed rights to have government supported monopolies to the detriment of the public. The argument for these monopolies is the same as for all other monopolies. If monopolies were not granted then the public would be denied the product or service. IP can support this notion no stronger than the oil industry could when they became the target of antitrust litigation.

    That is a definition of property. But, it is really just a definition of objects. Property is really more of a legal concept, and comes from the word, roughly, to possess which we use frequently to describe non object concepts. He possesses great charm, or great intellect.. As far as property law, it is really about communal agreement on the term. Legally, IP is real, because most people agree it is real. Just as legally personal property is real because most people agree it is real. If we all agreed tomorrow to eliminate personal property, there would be no personal property. Just things we possessed. Possession is different, in that it has no lasting social standing.

    The government creates large corporations by eliminating their competition with IP enforcement and eliminating risk of loss to the rich by the fiction of incorporation. Large corporations exist with the coercive force of big government turned on the public. The larger the government the greater the power of corporations.

    There is some of this, certainly. When Amiga computers went under, the IP rights to the OS and technology all went up for sale to pay off creditors. Most of the patents are now dormant in the legal hold of companies that have no interest in using them, but only keep them to a) keep others from using them, and b) to bolster the number of patents they can claim to own. In this way, IP law is definitely damaging to trade commerce and competition. I have been wondering if IP is taxed. I think it should be..

    Welfare is not meant to make your life better. It is meant to keep you where you are.

    The way to a better life is simple to understand, learn to do what people value more. But, it is difficult to accomplish. In physics, work is the force or energy it takes to get from point A to point B. There is no short cut.

    Well, kind of, yes. Welfare is not envisioned as a way to improve ones net worth, for example. This is, in my opinion a mistake, but it is socially supported. Welfare will help to pay for housing rental, but not for housing purchase, ostensibly because the welfare recipient would then be gaining net worth from the system. Instead, of course, the landlord is increasing his net worth from the system. No one seems too upset about this, though, conceptually it isn't different. It is just a matter of who is gaining from the system.

    The restaurant worker mentioned by cuchulain is caught in a different part of the system, of course. I have seen a lot of people in that particular trap. It wasn't intentionally designed as such, I think. But it has become such. There are unintended consequences of the structure. Like the way that Walmart uses the system to maintain low wage employees. I can say that eliminating the welfare system won't actually improve the users situation, however. It is a difficult problem to solve.

  15. All legal questions are answered with "it depends". In this case, a lot depends on the state issuing. search for marriage statute State (where state is the one in question...) and read the statutes. If it isn't clear, ask a lawyer in that state.

    But, probably not..

    I once did two weddings for the same couple, one on each side of the local state line, because they had an out of state license, but an in state venue. That wedding was for show. The legal wedding took place in a goodwill parking lot.. in the state issuing the license.