And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Skipjack]

The purpose of course in that case was not long term profit maximization. It was burn out the slaves as quickly as possible and then discard them. It was the discarding that was the purpose - not he slavery.

I am not completely sure how that contributes to the original discussion about the alleged defeat of slavery by steam power.
In Austria slavery was defeated before steam power became available. Yes there was a time when something that could be regarded as a twisted for of slavery had a brief comeback, but as you point out it had a very different purpose and was thus completely unrelated to the availability of steampower. So again, steampower had nothing to do with the ban of slavery in Austria (neither in Germany and AFAIK in the UK).

williatw wrote:
Was Austria a part of the Eastern bloc or was it part of the west?

Sorry buddy, must have missed your question. The answer is: Not really. It was occupied by both Russians and western Allies after WW2 until 1955.
That was before the iron curtain though. So I guess it really depends on how you define "Eastern Block".

On a sidenote, I sometimes like to joke about "Austria being the most backwards oriented country of the former eastern block" due to the fact that the socialists and christian conservative socialists having ruled the country ever since then (usually in a coalition government) and with some ideas that would have made Stalin proud

[ladajo]

Not to mention one of the highest income tax rates in the world...

[ladajo]

Mostly in places with limited access to machinery. And for "personal" services.

I disagree here. There are plenty of indentured factory workers in "cheap labor" states. You are probably wearing sneakers made in one right now...

Yes. Just like the indentured workers in Japan in the 50s.

China is no longer the lowest price place to make stuff. Countries grow out of it. Especially countries that are industrializing.

Tell that to folks like Martha Stuart, Apple, and most clothing manufacturers. Any movement of high volume product from underdeveloped countries inevitiable leads to finding some sort of slavery/indentured "workers". Child Labor, servitude, mandatory dorms that must be "paid for" with the bulk of wages earned, etc, etc.

[MSimon]

Tell that to folks like Martha Stuart, Apple, and most clothing manufacturers. Any movement of high volume product from underdeveloped countries inevitiable leads to finding some sort of slavery/indentured "workers". Child Labor, servitude, mandatory dorms that must be "paid for" with the bulk of wages earned, etc, etc.

True that. But eventually we will run out of low priced countries if we allow for a natural evolution of the trade. Might not be in my lifetime though.

[ladajo]

I think my biggest peave with the global financial system is the idea of compounding. I believe this remains a tool to permanently drive costs up as well as maintain a equity divide from the average man to those that can compound in a larger and faster manner.

Think for a moment about even the simple function of "annual raises". Why are they percentage based? Certainly the 2.5% for the low end employee has no relation to the 2.5% for the high end employee. But, say the arbiters, "we all got 2.5%, isn't that fair???" year after year...

The separation grows.

[Diogenes]

What I would like to see is law based on objectivity. A reasonable person should not be opposed to this.

A reasonable person should be able to see that law based purely on objectivity is a pipe dream.

If we all insist on being monkeys, then yes. If we wish to be a civilization, then no. It is the luxury of prosperity that has been allowing us to revert back to our monkey roots.

Nope, I'm arguing that tolerating abortion is not the same as performing abortions, and that an action being legal doesn't make it a common occurrence. There are cultural factors which decide the latter.

Tolerating slavery is not the same as engaging in it either. Same thing with murder. Your comment misses the point. One does not have to engage in an activity to regard it as something which no one should be permitted to engage in.

Ah, but my point is the opposite: One does not have to engage in an activity to regard it as something which should be permitted.

One has to tacitly accept it to regard it as something that should be permitted. It is the duty of decent people to oppose evil. As Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Slavery and abortion are two examples of tolerance for evil.

None of these factors is hereditary, and apart from 1) they existed throughout human history. So what makes you think that genetic effects will ever "correct" them in such a way that the human mind is no longer susceptible to the pro-choice idea?

Everything is genetic. The characteristic of protecting your offspring or killing them is certainly connected to the maternal instinct.

Dodging the question.

Only if you are simple minded. The connection seems to me to be so obvious that it ought not require explicit enumeration. I suspect you only level the accusation because it chafes you when I point out that you resemble that remark.

(it is a variation of "I know you are but what am I?)

I don't. I explained my position already.

You didn't explain, you dodged. That is all that any of you seem to do.

Either you are very forgetful or lacking in reading comprehension. Either way, I'm not going to state my position a third time. It's still there for anyone to read, in this thread and the other one I linked.

Your position is that you don't need to define a boundary even though you agree with a law which defines a boundary for you. I point out that you cannot (with intellectual honesty) have it both ways. Either defend your position or abandon it. You can admit that it is entirely a matter of personal preference and you don't have to have any logical reasons for believing as you do. That would actually be the truth, I think.

The same methods work for the billionth time as well as they do for the first.

Except for the 0.3% to 32% in which they fail..

So 0.3% of the time you might have a valid point. Yet for some reason, you want to use the very rare 0.3% of the occurrences to justify the 99.7% of the abuses?

We can select between competing instincts. In the case of abortion, women select the instinct of self preservation over that of maternity.
(At least that is how they justify it in their own mind.)

Maybe some do. A lot of them don't. They simply "justify" it by not wanting a child.

A Child is the consequence of the bullet hitting the target. If they don't want a bulls-eye, they should aim elsewhere. Someone that insists on engaging in a behavior while being fully aware of the risks do not deserve any sympathy for the consequences of their actions.

This is an Adult responsibility perspective, and I suspect you might not be familiar with it.

It isn't? Why? It's the same chemical reaction.

It is comments such as this that make me wonder why I bother responding. You should all exist as warehoused organ donors living in a world of drip induced perpetual bliss.

Dodging the question again.

The question is on such a level of stupid that it would make me feel dumber indulging you in an explanation. Yes, or course i'm dodging it. Answering it feels like changing a baby's diaper.

I doubt you've done the maths.

The maths do themselves. We only have to examine the results.

I doubt you've done that, either.

You are obviously full of doubts, and given the intellectual capacity I see in your responses, some of them are completely justified.

If you cannot see the difference between drug induced happiness and normal happiness, and you cannot see the role that survival has in gene expression, then I cannot see the point of trying to explain color to a blind man.

[Diogenes]

Teahive,

A point I also made elsewhere:


I support liberty. It does not mean I partake of every liberty available.

Liberty which results in the death of others is not a "liberty" of which anyone should partake.

[Diogenes]

As for discerning it's will, it has billions of wills, but the entire lot vector sums to survival and well being.

But suppose the vector is not two space or 3 space but n space.

And then there is environment.

Sickle cell anemia is a very good thing.

Sickle cell anemia is a very bad thing.

Tell me which is true?

Both. You need to take that "n space" answer seriously yourself. (It is not a binary answer, of which people are so fond.)


Sickle cell anemia is believed by some to provide protection from malarial sorts of parasites, or other sicknesses. In a like manner, ordinary Anemia was thought to have conveyed protection from the plague during the Black Death in Europe.

Both characteristics are evolved responses to dangerous pathogenic conditions and support my contention that the nature of "life" is survival.

=============================

Endorphins are a very good thing. Taking endorphin analogs is bad. Unless you are at immediate risk for PTSD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y227valJyHw

Or if you already have it.

https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/threads/opi ... one.22740/

Now please explain those vectors described above.

Sorry, I have no interest in going off on another "drugs" tangent. Tampering with your endocrinal systems is like using a cleaver where a scalpel is needed when medical doctors do it with the best information available. It is reckless endangerment when people do it to themselves for thrills.

[MSimon]

Liberty which results in the death of others is not a "liberty" of which anyone should partake.

Well of course. We need to outlaw tree climbing except for the well trained at once.

What ever happened to "at your own risk"?

[Diogenes]

Yeah and oddly enough the already widely avaiable steam, combustion and even electric engines at the time did nothing to prevent that!
Of course it also depends on how you define the term slavery...

Forcing other people to do your bidding against their will. You know, "socialism. "

Then by that definition we would have to include the 10's of millions who were subjugated under the Soviet block from about 1945 to the 1980's.

That's a fair assessment if you ask me.

Was Austria a part of the Eastern bloc or was it part of the west?

It was part of the West.

[Diogenes]

Liberty which results in the death of others is not a "liberty" of which anyone should partake.

Well of course. We need to outlaw tree climbing except for the well trained at once.

What ever happened to "at your own risk"?

I have no problems with people taking risks upon themselves, it is when there is a high probability of collateral damage to others that I object.

[MSimon]

I have no problems with people taking risks upon themselves, it is when there is a high probability of collateral damage to others that I object.

Why are motorcycles still legal?

[MSimon]

Hell,

Why aren't we doing what Japan has done and shutting down all nuke plants.

And speaking of collateral risks why is alcohol still legal?

[Diogenes]

Correct? There's no objective way of saying one way or the other.

Well, yes there is.

There really isn't. /shrug.

For those who wish to believe that killing another human being for their convenience is in the "grey area", you are right.

For those who can see objective reality, you are wrong.

Reasonable? For me (and the moral majority), yes. For you, no.

So was slavery. That is all I need to say about the usefulness of invoking morality by consensus.

I'm not the one claiming that objective evidence can show an act to be morally right or wrong.

No, you are the one claiming that a position you support cannot be defined by objective evidence. Obviously this is a position you MUST take, to justify your other position, because objectivity is not compatible with that which you wish to believe.

The King justifies his control, the thief his stealing. Many of us wish to believe as true, those things which we regard as in our own interest, we therefore often have no interest in comprehending a perspective which is not.

You argue for subjectivity because objectivity is against you.

[Diogenes]

I have no problems with people taking risks upon themselves, it is when there is a high probability of collateral damage to others that I object.

Why are motorcycles still legal?

Why do you come up with such bad examples? Motorcycles are pretty much confined to damaging their operators more so than anyone else. The risk to others is ordinarily minimal.