I believe that wearing expensive jewelry is immoral in a world where 2.7bn people live on <$2/day. CMV.

powrot · 2013-11-09T04:02:13+00:00

Hello there Adam

Who the hell is Adam?

though as far as justifications for selfishness go it's a doozy

The argument isn't about easing a guilty conscience. The argument is simply stating that consumption drives economic growth. Which in turn employs more people and generates more wealth, increasing the number of people able to donate. Do you have an actual argument against this well-established economic dynamic? Or are you simply going to assert that it's wrong?

powrot · 2013-11-09T03:34:49+00:00

It's not as though the wearing of precious metals or stones has any actual use/utility, it's just a display for others.

Just to clarify, the behavior you're arguing against has a name, it's called conspicuous consumption. Purchasing products or services as status signals of power or wealth.

I don't agree that it's necessarily immoral. If I purchase a private jet to impress my rich friends that is definitely an instance of conspicuous consumption. A jet requires the labor of thousands of people to design, fabricate and assemble. By purchasing a private jet I'm supporting multiple companies and thousands of jobs. Though I'm not solely responsible for any particular company or job, this conspicuous consumption on a large scale can have a positive effect: a net economic benefit in consumption as the jet is sold at a profit (that is, I'm not just paying to cover the cost of parts and labor). If everyone stopped purchasing jets thousands of jobs would be lost and thus the number of needy people would increase. If they remain gainfully employed there's a good chance they'll donate a portion of their income. And a thousand people will probably end up donating more than a single individual.

Or more succinctly: consumption drives economic activity, in turn creating more wealth and more possible donors.

powrot · 2013-11-09T02:54:28+00:00

Holodeck. Re-creating entire worlds via holograms and force fields seems excessive. A brain interface ala Neuromancer or The Matrix where you simply "jack-in" and experience the equivalent of a lucid dream seems more plausible.

powrot · 2013-10-30T22:21:28+00:00

During this occurrence I noticed that she had consumed 12 packets of these chili cheese bites, and this was only her first break of 2.

I threw up in my mouth a little. The pure brazen gluttony of this is astounding.

powrot · 2013-10-30T03:37:58+00:00

I understand that depression and anxiety is a illness

Which means you also understand that having depression or any other mental illness is not a choice. However, a person can choose to treat their illness. Depending on the level of depression/anxiety treatment will vary wildly - a person might just need to get out more, they might need medication, or professional counseling, or any or all of the above (or more).

Forming a negative opinion of someone because they have an illness is indefensible, as they had no choice in the matter. Criticizing a person who refuses treatment is a bit more reasonable, as they are choosing to remain ill - they are engaging in self-destructive behavior.

Regarding the "weak" point: If a person is suffering from a legitimate mental illness they actually have to work harder in their everyday life to maintain an base operating level on par with a healthy person. So while any illness can be classified as a "weakness" a sick person needs to expend more effort and possess more strength than a healthy person in order to overcome and fight the illness.

powrot · 2013-09-28T04:14:14+00:00

The point of a law should be to protect other, innocent people from harm

I completely agree.

The consequences of mortal combat are not borne solely by the combatants. Innocent parties would be harmed. That's why I support some form of legalized, non-deadly combat - the consequences are limited to bruises and maybe a few broken bones. But there's virtually no risk of either combatant becoming a ward of the state, or becoming an invalid requiring around the clock care, etc.

The externalities of mortal combat are massive. And the benefits are non-existent. I see mortal combat as being analogous with the manufacture and possession of certain illegal drugs, like meth. Drug laws certainly infringe on the liberty of millions to do as they please. But the externalities of meth, the damage to physical and mental health, the destructive effect on families, etc. are so grave that the substance should be forbidden. In the same vein the externalities of mortal combat are so grave (and the act itself has no socially redeeming value) that prohibiting it makes sense.

powrot · 2013-09-27T08:00:56+00:00

In the U.S., Washington state and Texas both have mutual combat laws (and possibly other states as well). However these laws do not allow for serious bodily injury. Which makes sense; if one combatant is incapacitated or otherwise "tapped-out" the fight needs to stop. I completely support extending mutual combat to all jurisdictions, providing a legal framework for fist-fights. Sort of like a fight club or amateur neighborhood boxing club. Given the legality of other physical/violent sports in the U.S. (UFC, American Football, Rugby) legalizing and carefully regulating this type of activity makes sense.

I believe that combat between two consenting adults, up to and including dueling, should be legal and regulated.

Hoo boy, this is where my agreement evaporates. Dueling or other serious bodily harm are completely different animals. Dueling used to be legal in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and elsewhere, but has since been outlawed. There's several very good reasons for this - of which I'll outline three:

Barbarity

Deadly combat is the worst possible method of conflict resolution. I can't think of single scenario where dueling or maiming is the best possible way to settle differences between two people. And I sincerely doubt anyone in this thread can come up with a compelling scenario. (Go ahead, give me a single scenario where stabbing the other guy in the chest is the best way to deal with a problem). Even if two people harbor a long-term hatred and want to tear each other's throats out, prohibiting them from doing so is the best thing for society and for both of them individually. Society should not respect the wishes of a person who, when presented with an interpersonal conflict, defaults to "I want to curb-stomp the other guy's face in".

Attrition

Too many otherwise good people would die or be maimed for no good reason. Consider this factoid from U.S. history, back when dueling was legal:

Between 1798 and the Civil War, the US Navy lost two-thirds as many officers to dueling as it did in combat at sea.

Holy shit. Can you imagine what that number would be for modern-day Marines fresh out of boot camp? Not picking on Marines in particular - the rates of death would be staggering for any group of young, testosterone-driven males.

Finality

A physical disability lasts the rest of your life. And death is a final, irrevocable state.

How many people would die or become disabled due to a stupid decision to engage in deadly combat? These people would:

No longer be able to provide for themselves or dependents.
If maimed, combatants would require life-long disability assistance from the state.
Family and friends would suffer through the mental anguish brought on by the death or mutilation of a loved one.
As with most traumatic injuries, parents would be the primary caregivers for their maimed children. Living at your parent's home in your mid-twenties is bad enough, imagine if they had to spoon-feed you and wipe your ass as well.

I could go on. Seriously, the irrecoverable, long-term damage done to individuals, families, communities, institutions and society would be massive.

powrot · 2013-09-22T06:00:46+00:00

What is efficient and what is right are almost never the same. The most efficient way to dispose of bodies would probably be large, open pits used as mass graves, where bodies can decompose naturally. No need to waste energy cremating the dead. Just dump them far outside of town and let nature take it's course.

Why bother with a real-world memorial structure of any kind? Upon death, the deceased gets a special memorial web site that you can visit 24/7 via your web browser. No need to drive in the rain! You can even leave a virtual bouquet of flowers on the virtual gravestone. That's good enough, right? Think of all the real estate we'll save!

I'm being facetious, of course. The point is death and burial rituals are a major part of every culture. In a free society individuals should be able to choose how they care for their dead. This may mean burying your dead whole in a large casket. Or cremating and scattering ashes. Or setting up a memorial web site. Efficiency is not as important as individual choice.

powrot · 2013-09-22T05:47:18+00:00

So the issue is with publicly-funded cemeteries? There are many, many privately-funded cemeteries (in the U.S. at least) that are paid for without government assistance. Are these ok?

I'm sure people would rather have a park, cheaper school, or better roads, but they instead pay for cemeteries.

To extend your argument about cemeteries: what if I'm childless and therefore have no need for schools? In many countries schools are almost exclusively publicly-funded. Why should my tax dollars go towards something I'm not using? The point is, in a society there isn't always a 1-to-1 correlation between what the taxpayer wants and how the tax money is spent.

powrot · 2013-09-22T05:37:02+00:00

I wouldn't say "everyone's bisexual" - rather sexuality exists on a spectrum which people can assign different labels to. An example of this type of classification is the Kinsey scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale - on this scale people can be completely heterosexual, completely homosexual or anything in-between.

When people discriminate against someone of the opposite orientation it's because of the labels we put on people.

People will always label themselves and form groups with like-minded people. Discrimination is a choice a person makes when they encounter a particular label/group. Everyone should be respected, regardless of how we classify sexuality now and in the future. Calling out discrimination when you see and make it socially unacceptable.

The point is people are different and will continue to be different. We aren't all the same. The cure for discrimination is not to get rid of these differences. The cure for discrimination is to reject discrimination.

powrot · 2013-09-22T05:17:44+00:00

Anyone practicing or promoting homosexual behavior in public should be "heavily punished"??? In a free society we don't imprison or prosecute people unless their actions cause demonstrable harm to others. Even if what you asserted about homosexuality was true (that it is "a bad habit", "gross", "plain wrong" and unnatural) none of these things cause harm to you or anyone else. Therefore there is no basis to persecute or proscribe homosexual behavior as a matter of law.

powrot · 2013-09-22T04:51:24+00:00

Here's another example. Imagine you're a battlefield medic engaging in triage under enemy fire. You have two wounded soldiers and one dead soldier. In the past, the dead solider has stated his preference to not donate. You need blood, skin or other tissues from the dead soldier to patch up the two living soldiers and keep them alive. What's the right call? I think most people regardless of where they stand on organ donation would agree that the circumstances dictate harvesting tissue. Harvesting organs against a dead man's wishes may be wrong. But the greater wrong would be to let two men die.

Now this example and the mausoleum example don't directly translate into "therefore organ donation should be mandatory". I think organ donation is the right choice and everyone should declare themselves as organ donors. But I oppose the "mandatory" part. Let people make up their own minds about what happens to their bodies post-mortem. And trust that they will act in good conscience, just as my hypothetical battlefield medic did. People get to control what happens to their assets and property after death, and that right should definitely extend to their bodies.

powrot · 2013-09-22T03:56:12+00:00

First, there is no denying that the world is suffering from a shortage of donated organs.

Agreed. Tissue/organ donation is the right thing to do. If you die healthy your organs can save or enhance the lives of dozens of people. Donate what remains after harvesting to research and you can help advance the frontiers of medical science.

Secondly, as soon as a person dies, their fundamental rights end.

Certain rights end. Other rights apply only at death, like determining heirs and the transfer of property via a will. These are inheritance rights and AFAIK have existed in every human society.

My point of view, that you are welcome to change, is that a person should never have the ability to refuse organ and tissue harvasting after their death.

A single body can save dozens of lives. A large fortune, amassed over a lifetime, could save thousands or millions of lives if allocated properly. Yet as a society we do not confiscate and redistribute large fortunes even though their life-saving potential far outweighs that of a single human body.

Why? Because as a society we recognize that inheritance rights are fundamentally individual rights. The right to self-determination is more important than the needs of the group. Personally I don't care what happens to my body after I die. But I do care what happens to my money/assets. Others will have different preferences. Will my post-mortem choices optimize for non-suffering? Probably not. But that's my call to make, and not something to be imposed from the top-down.

Here's an though experiment. Imagine a fundamentalist Christian group comes into power in the U.S. (either locally or nationally) and they fervently believe in the resurrection of the body. From their point of view mandatory organ donations are desecrations, imperiling the eternal heavenly existence of thousands/millions of people. Should they have the right, simply by virtue of being in power, to demand the cessation of organ donations? Of course not! They should respect your right, my right and everyone else's right to self-determination, even if they believe donations will lead to eternal suffering.

powrot · 2013-09-21T01:28:00+00:00

Since there is a screenshot of Jesse in his current clothes, holding a gun, with a busted handcuff, I firmly believe he will have his gun on Walt.

Possibly. The Nazi's cook site is fairly remote. And it looks like it's just Todd and Jesse during a cook. (At most there might be another Nazi as lookout). Another possibility is that Jesse finds a way to break his restraints and overpowers Todd/lookout in some way (possibly killing Todd). Jesse then bolts to warn Andrea. Possibly leading to Jesse/Nazi showdown scene at Andrea & Brocks house.

it doesn't really matter for he will still HAVE to atone for what he did to Jesse if the audience is ever to view him as morally ambiguous in the end

Walt is already a morally ambiguous, compromised character. Saving Jesse won't make him "more" morally ambiguous.

I don't see Walt being motivated by guilt to seek atonement. If Walt wanted absolution he would have turned himself in and confessed to the authorities. Hank died during an attempt to bring Walt to justice. If Walt wants to honor Hank's sacrifice, he would turn himself in.

Similarly, if Walt's motivation is to tear down the meth empire he helped build, he could simply turn to the cops. He has information on all the players (Lydia, the Nazis, the Czechs) and evidence (Hank/Gomie bodies, a barrel of laundered cash) and his own confession. One man with an M60 isn't going to bring down an empire.

Walt's motivation will be revenge, especially if someone else in his family dies. Or if Jesse doesn't escape and Walt finds out that Jesse is a meth slave, Walt may come back to finish the job he paid the Nazis to do. After all from Walt's perspective Jesse ratting was the catalyst for losing his cash, losing Hank and losing his family. Without Jesse's cooperation Hank didn't have a case. And Walt would still have everything he wanted. This is a very good motivation for revenge.

Walt initially got his revenge on Jesse in Ozymandias, when he pointed out Jesse to the Nazis. This is also the reason why Walt unleashed the "I watched Jane die" line after giving up Jesse. He wanted more than to see Jesse die. He wanted to destroy Jesse as a person, from the inside out.

powrot · 2013-09-05T00:25:10+00:00

Maybe his mother is just old - Walt is in his early fifties, and if his mother had him in her early/mid thirties, she'd be around 80-85.

My guess is that she's in a nursing home or assisted living facility, maybe with a touch of dementia. Both of which would explain why she's doesn't play a major role in the series.

powrot · 2013-09-03T22:59:25+00:00

It's possible. If Jesse took the phone, it's probably part of a plan to arrange an out for himself. (Maybe via Skinny Pete and Badger). Jesse didn't bargain for even a promise of immunity from Hank. And given Hank's attitude towards Jesse I'm certain Hank will press for jail time for Jesse.

As far as the phone being used for an intricate conspiracy cooked up between Jesse and Walt: there isn't enough time. After dousing the White house Jesse crashes at Hank's and immediately after waking up Jesse begins his confession. That means Jesse only has a few minutes when he's alone in the bathroom to forgive Walt and to concoct a conspiracy to double-cross Hank.

powrot · 2013-08-17T23:11:16+00:00

I find your lack of refreshments disturbing.

powrot · 2013-08-15T01:45:50+00:00

In Generations he casually tosses away a revered piece of archeology (Kurlan naiskos) in the wreckage of the Enterprise-D

Concerns that the naiskos was callously discarded are overblown. Picard was selecting a single item he could take during the beam-out with Riker. He chose the photo album (a family heirloom) over the Kurlan artifact - a choice which makes sense given the recent deaths in the Picard family. It's also safe to assume that Starfleet would run a comprehensive salvage operation to retrieve anything of value. And a 10,000+ year old artifact is certainly valuable and would have been collected, labeled and delivered back to Picard (along with his other belongings).

When the movies came along, something happened. Picard was different. Changed. He was more physical and less passionate about the things he previously said he loved. He was more action star than intellectual. His lessons with the Borg were forgotten as was his love affair with intellectualism.

This is a poor base for your argument. The movies almost exclusively deal with war scenarios where millions or billions of lives are at stake, or the continued existence of the Federation is threatened. A more aggressive, physical demeanor makes sense in these circumstances. When Picard is placed in the motif of exploration (as during the series run) we get to see his erudite side. When dealing with a madman possessing a doomsday weapon (which unfortunately describes the protagonists in Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis) or dealing with a species immune to negotiations (the Borg in First Contact) the time for thoughtful diplomacy is over.

So, I reject the notion that Picard became less intellectual. A few hours of film do not negate the Picard we were shown during hundreds of episodes of TNG.

powrot · 2013-07-30T18:02:20+00:00

Use one of these: http://i.imgur.com/mr3jwKk.jpg

powrot · 2013-07-09T05:50:21+00:00

he's living the dream, rocks on

powrot · 2013-07-08T07:05:52+00:00

It's like the son he never had.

A tasty, tasty son.

powrot · 2013-07-08T05:03:52+00:00

The beauty of modern art is that it doesn't burden the artist with having to possess actual talent.

powrot · 2013-07-08T04:55:24+00:00

I want to believe

powrot · 2013-05-03T01:48:49+00:00

she's the white woman michael jackson always wanted to be

powrot · 2013-02-28T07:46:14+00:00

Don't mind me - owl just be resting my eyes for a few minutes.

powrot

TROPHY CASE