Return to CreateDebate.comseriousbusiness • Join this debate community

Serious Business

Bradf0rd's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Bradf0rd's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

I just got told, politely.

Now that I understand the question I'll turn in a more relevant argument, but that'll have to wait until tomorrow, if not the day after.

1 point

"Is there a better way to organize scarce resources than the mixed economies we have now? Something that could work in the real world?"

Your question explicitly implies that there could be a problem, you imply that resources are scarce (and those resources I assume are ones like food, water, shelter, and a means of producing revenue), and you also mention organization. Most interestingly though, you point our attention to "mixed economies".

So, as I read your question the situation became "how to solve global scarcity without using mixed economies". So, you take mixed economies away and you have one global economy. Your solution is to find a better way to "organize scarce resources", so a global economy would do this if it were given the authority. A 'New World Order', in this sense, would be the system of governance that would control the global economy.

It was the answer that you asked for.

1 point

New World Order (If not peace)


Peace (If no NWO)

That is the only way that we can successfully escape this situation and it's pretty damned impossible to accomplish.

1 point

Who's doing the experiments for what reason? Isn't that too just a life in slavery, or do you think it's better to watch hamsters running than to be a hamster running?

1 point

If that were the case Meth would be legal... I don't know if tweakers ever stop besides when they crash for a day or two.

1 point

Isn't the ruling class just as enslaved as the "cattle"? What does the ruling class gain by having human cattle!? If you know anything about economics, you should know that money is always accounted for. Businesses know what the total production cost of something is, and tries to keep it as low as possible, so the price the consumer pays isn't too high, and covered in that end price is the business's profit... so who's getting the money? If the ruling class isn't eating people, and it's not profiting from the cattle's currency... what else is there? Power? If you're a farmer of cattle, what power do you have but over your cattle??? Basically, if you have power over nothing, doesn't that mean that you have no power, and if you have power over oppressed people you only have as much power as the oppressed people?

The power of the ruling class is only as good in quality as the power of it's slaves... as a ruler you would need to tend to your slaves, as a slave yourself, for whatever benefit comes by being a slave owner... this would make the difference moot. Slaves would have just as good of lives as the slave owners.

If you're running a farm of people, you would expect something in return, right? And because there are only the bourgeoisie (the farmers) and the proletariats (the cattle) who will be giving you anything for your trouble as a farmer, but the cattle itself? Maybe you're "farming" because you don't want to be cattle... isn't that a freedom?

... I don't know why I'm giving this time, it's just as stupid as saying "The sky is a venomous, soul-eating spirit that works for Scope to give you bad breath... and Scope is the anti-christ!". If you really look at this idea you would see right through it.

1 point

There is a lot more to this question than meets the eye. Mainly, who will be focusing, and how.

In any case though, we need to do both. Until we make up our minds on the two questions that I've stated above, we should all do our own parts, in each field. The economy, because our own personal financial situations are the trees of the economy's forest. The same goes for the environment, if we undo something, as individuals, the most that we can do is to redo it.

Basically, we each have to be responsible for everything. Politics concerning these issues too, because we as individual we have the power through government to do things politically, we have to deal with politics as well... but some people seem to think that too many people in government ruins government... so there's the first hint of "who", that I mentioned earlier.

I tend to think that people aren't being responsible enough, in any way, but that this is caused by a social illness of sorts. Consumerism, capitalism, the fear of socialism, our dependance on the media, etc. It's a huge problem, seemingly all encompassing, universal, and it is becoming more and more native to our society every day. We need to start rejecting this lifestyle, and start living realistically.

There was a time when most of the goods made and sold in America were goods that would increase our GDP... those were things that people wanted to buy! Not HiDef televisions or 20" rims from China, Japan, and Taiwan, they were tractors, or mills, or sewing machines, or property, or whatever else would help them work... built in America, for money... and then used to make more money elsewhere.

Our social decay is our complacency, our unwillingness to buckle down, and our lack of education or, more importantly, our lack of concern. We just don't care as we should. Go into any bar or pub, watch people... they're drunk and over 21, the burden of the nation is on them... watch what they do... listen to what they say. NOTHING OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. It's always about someone else, or about something that happened to them... or what they were told to think about this or that. It's never like "Fuck guys, what are we going to do? What is the problem real problem, because this shit isn't working anymore."

Anyhow, I'm rambling now. Point is, be responsible.

1 point

Open Source? My point has nothing to do with it being open or closed. I'm talking about control of the utility, who will ensure it's proper use, or protect it from misuse?

1 point

Sure, use a message board but there will still be moderators. There is no way to escape the people who are supposedly assuring you a fair say, they will always be in control.

1 point

A year ago or so I went through what seemed like a week long process to set up a perfect government, it was just a thought experiment. With the tools that we have available today, something new... and at the center of the government (which was socialistic in nature) was the internet... well, to be more accurate, an intranet.

I don't think people are really looking at it as a viable tool, maybe because the way the government works today would be threatened by it... maybe because we don't have a system that is fool-proof. I don't know really, but I think that it should be taken more seriously, this may be the tool that brings about true democracy, or socialism, depending on it's use.

1 point

Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?

Well, intelligent beings, I think, would be concerned about the future. We cannot have meat as we do today, forever, and it is much more efficient to grow plants than to grow plants to feed cattle. If you'd think about it a little harder there would be no need to "cut the shit". A huge quantity of grain produced in the world is dedicated to cattle. In fact, if you count calories from grain that it takes to feed cattle, and then count the end result of feeding the cattle and butchering it, etc, you'd find that meat is far far more expensive to produce and store than meat.

Efficiency will be important sometime in the future, when the world is overcrowded with people and labor is handed over to machines. It sounds like science fiction, and it is for now, but that's the most logical solution to many problems. People won't have jobs as they do now, so maintaining a personal garden won't be difficult, but I see community farming becoming popular before personal farming.

Even if you ignore the entire side of the debate that deals with the treatment of animals, or the suffering of animals, there are still very important questions about human nature and morals that need to be worked through... Where do we want to be in 50 years? Still slaughtering animals (more than we do now), in an even more careless fashion for so many more people who just want something to snack on for a minute... or do we want a self sustaining civilization that doesn't feel like it requires meat, that has an overabundance of food that is actually healthy?

It's not a personal problem so much as it is a societal one... but that doesn't mean it's not a moral issue.

The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?

Not all people use their intelligence to do anything truly good... they, like animals, only seek to keep themselves happy... which is why this topic is an issue at all.

2 points

Meh, we're higher order animals. It's what we do. All predators do it: cause undesired pain to their prey, which are usually other sentient beings.

What exactly is a "higher order"? If you're saying as predators, let's see how well you fare in a pin with a leopard (or even in the wild, with a leopard). If you're talking about intelligence, why if we are so "high" in the order, are we still eating meat? There are plenty of healthy alternatives that cost much less in the way of work required, resources needed, associated pain, environmental impact, etc.

Is a cheetah immoral for choking their prey to death or sometimes eating them alive? Do you yell at the discovery channel animals for doing what they do?

Animals, like cheetahs, don't have a sense of morals... Humans do, and yet it seems to make little difference. Also, there isn't a cheetah grocery store to go to, and they are strictly carnivores, we are not. We have moral choice, many morally acceptable options that are just as good if not batter tasting, and we have the ability, physically, to choose... and you say that meat is perfectly acceptable?

How do you feel about cannibalism?

3 points

I think so, yes. The meaning of murder though, at least as it is in the Oxford American Dictionary, involves premeditated killing of another human, but why differentiate between an animal that isn't human and humans? It's a superficial (purposeful) misunderstanding that keeps a lot of "unimportant" cases out of court.

Murder is the premeditated killing of any animal. The thought of killing a process, (consciousness in any form at all) is murder. This is even true for plants, though the severity differs greatly because plants aren't (as far as we understand the idea), conscious.

The problem is in the industry though, not the act of eating animals. It's human, to eat meat, but it's not human to treat meat as nothing more than a Big Mac. What I mean by that is, people used to respect animals and feel pain for each animal's death. Native Americans would purposely use every part of an animal that they killed to make it's death as meaningful to people as possible. There were spiritual aspects involved, but I feel the principle is most important.

We treat animals like shit now, if not worse. We raise them with the idea that they will all one day be shat out by someone a number of hours after being tasted. They are slaughtered without regard, which is understandable because of the emotional damage you would put yourself through if you had to slaughter so many a day... you would go insane, if you cared about each of them as your own pets...

Eugh, well my cat just died yesterday and I've been drinking to compensate for his loss... even though he was just a cat. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about the treatment of animals right now...

1 point

Well, I did point out that some get spiritual with it on a level that isn't reasonable... Anyhow, most people don't take Star Wars seriously... Some though actually think they have the force. What does that mean? That it should be taken more seriously and be pulled from the Science Fiction shelf to be placed on the Educational one? No.

2 points

Funny, I dated a Catholic who at that time was in Philadelphia, and is now in San Antonio (but was from Katy). She seemed happy, yes, but she wasn't. I wouldn't say it was because of her faith, but instead consider it a quality of human beings in general. I seem happy when I'm usually not and I'm not religious, I'm social.

4 points

Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. People often call it a religion, and some aspects of Buddhism deal a lot with the idea of "spirits", and beings that live forever as stars, etc. But Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism deals with pragmatic ideas, like these, specifically.

Even though those beliefs are held by some Buddhists, they don't force it upon other people like religion does, it's just a theory to them. Not TRUTH, like spirits and demons and God is to the typical American Christian. You can't be saved by following parts of the Bible that don't have anything to do with God or Jesus. If you don't accept them as real and your father, etc. you won't even be considered.

One of the main ideas in Buddhism is that there are many paths to the summit, meaning that there are different ways to reach enlightenment. This is why "making an effort to improve" is so important. So long as you working your way to the summit, you're doing good.

I think you're right though, Religion is unhealthy and if you need structure in your life turn to Buddhism for your help.

3 points

Late-term abortion is something that should be avoided at all costs, and I've been hearing a lot about it lately, mainly from people who were told that they should have one by doctors because their children may have down's syndrome (everyone that was told this didn't have further testing done because of the risk of killing the child (50% chance), and all were born and found to be healthy).

It's something that should be taken care of before the child develops, but if it comes down to deciding later, it should still be up to the parents who created the child... It's sad, yes, but it's not our responsibility to decide who has to have children and who doesn't. Not everyone is happily married and ready, mentally, physically, or finically, to have children when they become pregnant, and we don't have the resources and in most respects, the right, to decide for people.

I believe that this is the true conservative stance on this issue. Limited government, more freedom and leave the moral decision to be made by the moral beings who are responsible for the child, not the government.

1 point

2. Atoms weren't proven to exist until this last century, but people believed that they did and have for over 2000, maybe even around 3000 years. Socrates spoke about philosophers that were long dead that believed that the universe was made of irreducibly small particles (of water) and Buddhists thought the same thing even before him. Santa and the Easter bunny do exist, even if it's just as a thought. Existence as a thought is still existence. If you disagree, fight with yourself about that because the idea of a self is a trick of the mind. In actuality your self doesn't exist just as santa doesn't exist.

3. It's more than sociological, it's psychological. I know, I see tons of people who claim to have lived horrible, drug ridden, lives before being "saved"... I know better than to argue with these people, because even though they're religious they seem to be more stable than they used to be, or at least happier with their lives. It's a deeply personal issue that does help a lot of people, and this I think is it's most important utility, something that should be considered in sciences. I know a lot of people who have went through rehab 1 or more times who are still on meth and heroin or something as harmless as weed, but I know more people who have found religion and changed for good, for just a little faith.

I don't know about you, but I think that should be worth sciences time, at least to find out why faith helps more than rehab. I tend to think, very quickly, that religion plays on parts of humanity that aren't as reasonable as maybe, we'd like them to be, but if it works it works. Faith does do good (not saying it doesn't do bad, or even that it doesn't do more bad than good), and that's something that I think science should be interested in.

1 point

First off, I would like to make it clear to you, that I am not religious, I do not believe in a personal god, I do not believe the universe was designed by anyone for any reason, I do not believe that people are only moral because of religious beliefs... I am not religious in any sense of the term. So, you're already wrong about my core beliefs starting with faith and then transcending from there, because I have no faith in religious doctrine.

Secondly, the idea of there being a god has never been disproved and likely will never be, using the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed by the scientific community. If it hasn't been proven, or disproved, it should remain a topic until it can be. It may turn out, eventually, that though god doesn't seem to exist, it does in the minds of millions, maybe billions of people, and it more helpful to them than any scientific finding could be... Religious belief may be an important part of society (and then to social science) that is nearly irreplaceable.

Lastly, I think it's important to see how everything works independently and together. I am not the force binding religion and science together, they are both aspects of human life and by that fact are already bound. Which is not to say that they can't ever be separated, but for now whether you like it or not, each deals with the other and must be accepted until something right can be done about it. You can't just say that because they are different, they shouldn't conceder each other.

1 point

The only problem with your argument (that I want to pick on) is that you assume that religion doesn't already answer every question man needs to know the answer to. Science may very well be off course, or lead humanity off course (in accordance with scripture).

The only reason you disagree is because you disagree with religion? According to scripture, empirical things were created by God, so studying only empirical things is just studying God's creations, and does have an ultimate goal, does it not? If Science is out to explain the unexplained, and religion is supposedly there to spread the word of God, the being that is Himself the explanation... What do you think would happen if Science successfully explained everything (impossible, I know)???

Anyhow, I agree with you, but I don't agree with your argument, per say. Almost every social science (including political science and psychology) deals with religion, so if you dismiss religion because it's not verifiable, you still have to deal with it as a scientist.

I don't think Einstein meant if you're a scientist you should be religious, and if you're religious you should be a scientist too... He just meant that they are inherently intertwined and one without the other it's true to it's nature... to explain.

3 points

Science without X is lame science. Science seeks to answer questions through rigorous testing, trial and error if you will. This means, if you purposely deny any idea or leave anything out of the test you're not doing it right. Science without art is too, lame science.

Anyhow, Albert wasn't talking about christianity when he said this, or any typical religion of the time, he was speaking on more general terms. He was a scientific pantheist, which is to say, that he didn't believe in a personal god. "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

You say that religion answers the why's, but Einstein also believed that there is no purpose in nature. Purpose (Intent) == Reason == Why. Pantheism revolves around existence and nature, so if a pantheist says that there is no purpose in nature, that means that God (equivalent to nature in pantheism) has no purpose in anything. God just is, as scientists typically believe the universe just is without a purpose or intention.

So what you get from this quote is actually incorrect. I'm not picking on your views, just differentiating between what he probably meant and what you're getting from it.

This is just funny:

"Why do you write to me 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."

-Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915 Contributed by Robert Schulmann; also see CPAE Vol. 8 (forthcoming).

Einstein was a real badass.

2 points

This is a basic economics question. Socialist or not, if you follow each to their end.

Realistically, and to be accurate to the question, an individual's effort is never futile. If anyone studies up enough and is truly dedicated to conserving the environment it'll spread beyond their personal reach.

Take for instance the man who built a home in Boston for ~$170k that will by next year be paying for itself via selling excess electricity to their power grid. This means less pollution from the power plants too. If everyone was as dedicated to conservation, they would all be doing the same thing. Scraping older houses and replacing them with completely self sustainable homes and selling power. He doesn't even need a job anymore, after spending $170,000. All he has to do is keep up the house and it'll supply him with everything he needs.

Also, my father used to work for Frito-Lay, as a technician. On his spare time he'd go through the facility and make it more efficient. He's still doing it today as a maintenance technician for Saputo. Just by changing the architecture, a little at a time, of the factory he can save the business millions of dollars a year in energy savings. He's always been one to conserve energy too, that's just his thing, even at home.

While I agree, a great part of it is the businesses responsibility, that doesn't mean that you as an individual can't change it. The more people you have caring, the more the business sector will tune in and do their part, that's obvious.

Even if you believe that it doesn't make a difference where it counts, it's like religion in that it gives people something to do that is more worth while than sitting around the television and complaining about everything. It's a healthy alternative to people's daily bullshit.

2 points

And we are supporting Israel because they are affiliated with the Bible??? Even if you're supporting palestine though, why do you hold so firmly that they should be allowed to keep their land when it has cost so many lives to defend? What land is worth that many lives, really?


Anyone supporting EITHER SIDE should be held accountable for crimes against humanity by association, especially America.

-2 points

1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]