On Morality and Spirituality (and Afghanistan)

bits and pieces of nerdom.

All content © NFGworld, unless otherwise noted, except for stuff we stole. Contact the editor-in-chief : baldbutsuave@thissitesdomain, especially if you are an attractive young female willing to do nude photography modelling. All rights reversed. 769

Forum Search Members The Bedroom About

Forum: NFGworld Forums › Science, Tech and Such › Social Studies

On Morality and Spirituality (and Afghanistan)

And other silly things...

(Administrator) 2010-04-25, 22:49 #31

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post ID 2613

Quote by Kinkas:
So pretty much I said if someone ELSE uses war against us we should leave them alone. Thereby because of their state of country they will do poorly. It is also a sensationalised statement for effect. It does not portray a warlike foreign policy or portray that we should invade them because we are superior. You are grasping at straws. Its an aggressive statement, nothing else.

You sensationalized what you said, and I'm at fault for reacting to it?

Quote by Kinkas:
So we defend our country and help them from an internal enemy. And they do not seem to appreciate it. Looks to me that we have tried to help them, and I am bitter over the lack of appreciation.

You admitted you didn't follow the situation, so from where are you getting information to form an opinion? The mainstream media is delivering the skimpiest information, what else do you use? What makes you think they're not grateful?

Quote by Kinkas:
you hurt us we will hurt you back. Once again, not some war slinging attitude. I have actually stated I don't want military action at all.

Oh come on! That's a blatant contradiction! An eye for an eye, but you don't want violence? What happens when the dust settles, he started it?

Quote by Kinkas:
On the economics point, I am just disappointed. That was a low blow. You are completely wrong, you have merely uncovered a snippet of economics. Look up Microeconomics and the scarcity principle.

All related to economics, money, purchases, supply and demand. Expanding the meaning of economics so far that you say "every choice a human makes is under economics" is preposterous based on the facts before us.

I invite you, again, to justify the statement. Two authorities greater than you or I (dictionary.com, wikipedia, while not infallible are a good place to start) disagree with you.

Quote by Kinkas:
Stop attacking me. Actually come up with an argument relevant to the topic. Criticism of the commenter not the argument or rational is not debating.........

Please point out where I attacked you. All I see are instances of questioning your words.

BLEARGH

2010-04-25, 22:58 #32

Member since Nov 2007 · 121 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Denizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post ID 2613

Quote by Kinkas:
And they do not seem to appreciate it.

Sure, but CNN is hardly going to tell you "Actually, a lot of those towel heads are ok and won't murder you on sight" because it's not in their agenda.

"...either stop and think or fuck right off" (TheOutrider)

2010-04-25, 23:21 #33

Member since Apr 2010 · 32 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post #31

By calling me Naive and Jingoistic? Instead of saying I am wrong wrong because of this evidence ect. Instead you Placed insults without anything to discredit the argument, bar insinuating a lack of intelligence brought about by a gun ho attitude.

You admitted you didn't follow the situation, so from where are you getting information to form an opinion? The mainstream media is delivering the skimpiest information, what else do you use? What makes you think they're not grateful?

Way to go completely out of the argument to create a new fallacy in my statement. Point still stands, it is not jingoistic. A generalisation but not jingoistic. Just because I don't follow something doesn't mean I don't know of it, just not up to date details.

You sensationalized what you said, and I'm at fault for reacting to it?

Sensationalising something means to over emphasise the point. Which does not change the point. In this case I am making the point aggressive to show a view and or point.

Oh come on! That's a blatant contradiction! An eye for an eye, but you don't want violence? What happens when the dust settles, he started it?

O wow, see that bit on the end that says I don't want Violence. Its like a disclaimer, pretty much screaming NO VIOLENCE. Hurt can come in other forms i.e the embargo.

As to economics. You think two websites override 8 Economic textbooks I have??? My Lecturers? The Economics conference I am attending next weekend? Well sure you believe that. I can scan the pages and send them to you if you want. I can send you the lecturers notes. You are taking brief summaries written by website authors not economists. So they don't know. And for a quick reference. "The Economist" which is the most prestigious and well known economics magazine has a website. Go on it and read the left menu. It consists of things such as culture, politics, people and world hot topics!!!!! These sources are infallible, so I dis-agree with you. I am serious chuck me your email and I send you everything I bloody have.

This post was edited on 2010-04-25, 23:37 by Kinkas.

2010-04-25, 23:25 #34

Member since Apr 2010 · 32 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Bunny.

You are forgetting the Bali Bombings and Jakarta Australian Embassy bombings. These things happened overseas because those men and women in the service protect us and the fact that we haven't had a major attack is attributed to their hard work.

You are missing the point of Allies and freedom. We stand as global community. To strive for a better world. That is why we do it. We helped in the world wars, (before Japan attacked that is), because what w as happening was wrong. That is what it is all about.

2010-04-25, 23:34 #35

Member since Apr 2010 · 32 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

www.marginalrevolution.com
blogs.ft.com/undercover/
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com
johnquiggin.com/
economics.com.au/

As well as these sites, Freakanomics and Superfreakanomics are good things to read. All of them are on social Issues and how choice is affected by incentive and disincentive.

(Administrator) 2010-04-25, 23:50 #36

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post #33

Quote by Kinkas:
By calling me Naive and Jingoistic?

Learn to tell the difference between insult and comment, OK?

I said "you sound a little jingoistic", and that the certitude you presented "seems naive", I didn't say you were jingoistic or naive. It means the things you're saying sound odd, it's a conversational tactic that normally invites the other party to clarify their ideas a little, and try to make themselves better understood.

No one's insulting you, but if you don't start explaining the daft things you're saying, they might.

Quote by Kinkas:
Way to go completely out of the argument to create a new fallacy in my statement. Point still stands, it is not jingoistic. A generalisation but not jingoistic.

It might not have been, but it sure did sound like it. Oh, the conversation's looping a little now.

Quote by Kinkas:
Sensationalising something means to over emphasise the point.

Now who's being insulting, geez. I know what it means. Do you know what happens when you make extreme-sounding statements about your actually more moderate beliefs? I'm sure you do.

Quote by Kinkas:
You think to websites override 8 Economic textbooks I have??? My Lecturers? The Economics conference I am attending next weekend?

Stop talking about how awesome you are and start typing in some quotes, you lazy git (that was an insult). This is how it works:

Person A says something that sounds ridiculous

Person B responds, asking for clarification

Person A does so

The problem is you're skipping the last part, and jumping to the part where person A hisses like a scalded cat and demands an end to insults.

Quote by Kinkas:
And for a quick reference. "The Economist" which is the most prestigious and well known economics magazine has a website.

Yeah, I buy it every week, you want my stack of dead tree copies?

Have you ever done more than read the left menu? The Economist is half owned by the Financial Times, it believes in free trade and free markets, it was founded by a man who believed in minimum interference by government, especially in the affairs of the market. You're right, it covers things not always related to economics, but that doesn't prove a fucking thing.

Economics is the study of financial decision making, not ALL decision making. Every single blog you linked, every example and everything I've read says exactly the same thing: it's about money, and the reasons behind the things people do with it.

BLEARGH

2010-04-25, 23:52 #37

Member since Jun 2009 · 25 posts
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post #33

Quote by Kinkas:
As to economics. You think two websites override 8 Economic textbooks I have??? My Lecturers? The Economics conference I am attending next weekend?...These sources are infallible, so I dis-agree with you. I am serious chuck me your email and I send you everything I bloody have.

Kieran I think you'll find that believing solely what textbooks and lecturers tell you will not be considerably helpful in the future, in some ways it reminds me of the point of the entire "on morality and spirituality" topic in the first place i.e. christians believe their book (textbook) is the only truth and that their god (lecturer) is also utterly right. Much of what is said in lecturers dont work as well in the real world as they do in the text, it is just a generalisation of what is found to commonly work in controlled situations or from broad analysis. my lecturers comtinually say that a majority of the theoretical issues we have to learn are never used within a business/worldy sense and are only taught because some of the knowledge (negotiations, how the share market and accounting systems work, cultural effects on business) can come in handy in some situations.

being only in uni myself ive come to understand that what we are being taught will generally not be used and that the learning from our future jobs will come from when we start those jobs.

money cake..ayumyumyumyumyumyum

2010-04-25, 23:56 #38

User title: I can haz cheezburgrz?
Member since Aug 2009 · 23 posts · Location: Samford, QLD, Australia
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post #35

The bombings happened because of Australia's support of the United States' war on terror and Australia's role in the liberation of East Timor (UN-sponsored agreement between Indonesia, Portugal and the United States...oh look the US again...).

If we didn't support the US's bombings and take-overs..or "liberations" of other countries we wouldn't have to have that fear of bombings thrust upon us, so no, i am not forgetting the Bali bombings at all, just that if we didn't support the US in everything they do because we're there little lap dog, we'd be fine.

And allies and freedom? what a farce, we're only allied with them because it benefits us in the long run because if we went against the US they wouldn't have any qualms against bombing us themselves, I mean if china became the world power we would saunter over to them asap, like Rudd is trying to do with varying success at the moment.

(Administrator) 2010-04-26, 00:05 #39

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Sounds like The_Bunny is advocating an anti-American movement in Australia!

I'm so in.

BLEARGH

2010-04-26, 01:25 #40

Member since Apr 2010 · 32 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post #36

I know see where you are failing to see my point. Economics includes putting a universal pricing system on a decision so you can compare them, just so happens the world revolves around money.

Whenever a decision must be made a context of scarcity it involves trade-offs and we can think of it as an economic decision. That is a decision where securing something of value to us means we must go without some other thing that we value. Economics is the study of how people make choices under conditions of scarcity. - Principles of Economics 2nd Editions,2009; R.Frank (Cornell University), S. Jennings (University of Tasmania), B. Bernanke (Princeton University).

Money may be the terms it is explained in, though this is not the theory. The theory is more to do with choice. Give me a decision that you think would not be related to finance and is something you consider outside economics and I will show you how it relates to Economics and how the use as money is used. On this point look at Gary Becker he is a economist who deconstructed divorce economically, he won a noble prize for his work. The proof he submitted was about why the divorce rate went up in recent times. Our entire argument it seems was over minor points, which in particular, is whether choice comes first and money is the facilitator or vise versa. Go back to bartering for instance its a choice of trade goods, its just there was no universal currency to trade, so no money. Hope that was clear.

I can email my lecturers, and get them to answer your question. Come to UQ one day and we can ask them in person. Ask Ugsey he personally knows me, I am doing a economics degree. All my sources are relevant to my argument where its not just about money, its about opportunity costs and the scarcity principle, where money is a common denominator for choice. But I will admit these examples are to deep in the situation to give the basics of how they reach those conclusions. Though Freakanomics is clear as day. Its a book about the decision making of people based on incentives. Next time you are in a book store read the first chapter.

That is not an insult btw, I say this as constructive criticism. To your point of insults and the such. I am wrong there was no direct insult. But the way in which you reply is very aggressive, you don't give a reason why or an alternate, you instead point out how naive or how wrong something seems, which is not constructive or relevant. What it is though, is a comment seemly given by someone who thinks they are above it all. Thus the implication it is an insult. See it from my view, I place a argument (Which I have not justified properly it seems), and all i get is a comment that I come across as naive and jingoistic. I think a better response would be "that seems naive as.....". What we are both guilty of is the argument for the sake of wining. We have seemably locked in a deconstruction of comments and the entire English dictionary. Where as we should have cleared up the intended message in the words not the flaws in each others argument. I really hope you can see where I am coming from on this as bickering is not getting us anywhere. As to my "awesomeness" that I do keep referring to, its kind of natural for me as I am doing this professionally (Paid Intern atm), (I work as a Parraplanner, which means I research financial and insurance plans. It also means I analysis consumer confidence based on financial changes (ie. interest rate changes), and also changes due to changes in the community to base target selling on). So I am vain in this regard, and I will start putting the effort in to justify a point.

P.s What you are referring to Ugsey is Political Economics. Whereby human irrationality is the only non constant factor. Therefore you can only have theories (And there are a lot), which you would have to test. The other bits that you learn ie. the foundations are actually fact and are proven and 100% accepted just like any other scientific fact. So it has been proven to me, so I have no reason not to believe at this point in time. A textbook is different to a book that has no proof. On relevance Ben, where do you think I work. I apply this everyday, this is why I am so insulted and hurt, you are basically telling me my education and job are void. But nice try on defusing the situation =P.

P.s The man who propergated the free market was Adam Smith. He also introduced the idea that the wealth of nations was due to private ownership and introduced the theory of the invisible hand =D.

2010-04-26, 01:40 #41

Member since Apr 2010 · 32 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Bunny, the Alliances where originally made for security. So it was for benefit. But the world has evolved and the UN was formed to make a better place. Its not a farce, good things are coming out of it. Take the current natural disasters the amount of aid is due to the formation of the UN. I really hope that you understand this is a good things that the world united does.

Granted America does things to piss people off, but they also try and help. Nothing is perfect, the UN does a good job though. A lot of these countries need help man, they really do, Africa needs its a lot. And there will be someone who is always disadvantaged, who will hate the people who changed things ie. America or Australia. Its just something we have to live with unless you have a better alternate?

2010-04-26, 07:11 #42

User title: I can haz cheezburgrz?
Member since Aug 2009 · 23 posts · Location: Samford, QLD, Australia
Group memberships: Citizens, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

The Red Cross and charity organisations get mobilised quicker then the UN and help the countries quicker and they're non-for-profit organisations!!!

The UN sits in Geneva all smug and self righteous doing what they think is all good and fair, meanwhile the countries it tries to stop doing things continue to do their own thing because the UN doesn't actually hold much sway in the world. It says "this is what you should do.....please do it?"

"The most prominent and dramatic example of this is the Darfur crisis, in which Arab Janjaweed militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population. Thus far, an estimated 300,000 civilians have been killed in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the UN has continuously failed to act against this severe and ongoing human rights issue. Another such case occurred in the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims in the largest case of mass murder on the European continent since World War II. Srebrenica had been declared a UN "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the UN forces did nothing to prevent the massacre." (wiki)

It's a group originally made up of the victors of World War II (actually coined by Roosevelt), it wasn't because the world evolved, it's because the allies wanted a pretty little name for their group of Super Best Friends!

Yes, my alternative is we don't always have some rich, upper society, sherry drinking prat as our leader. It just doesn't work! They sit there puffing their cigars and figure out what the best way to keep their job or get more money, while listening to facts that scientists come up with rather than just listening to the people.

Our government has an attitude of "here's what we think is best for you...no no, don't argue, we're doing it anyway" and i just don't think that is quite what is supposed to happen.

(Administrator) 2010-04-26, 08:38 #43

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

In reply to post #40

Quote by Kinkas:
Whenever a decision must be made a context of scarcity it involves trade-offs and we can think of it as an economic decision.
Money may be the terms it is explained in, though this is not the theory. The theory is more to do with choice.

The choices that have to do with scarcity and stuff and money and so on. It has nothing to do with all choices. You want an example? I'm going for a nice stroll. Should I go left or right out of my driveway? Should I wash the car or clean the house? Which flavour cereal should I have for breakfast? Or should I make toast? Should I go shower now or finish typing this first?

All else being equal, I fail to see how any of these decisions could possibly be considered economic.

the way in which you reply is very aggressive, you don't give a reason why or an alternate, you instead point out how naive or how wrong something seems, which is not constructive or relevant.

[...]

I think a better response would be "that seems naive as.....". What we are both guilty of is the argument for the sake of wining.

Bullshit. It's not my job to ease you into a conversation and hold your hand at every step. There is no shared failure here - you said something I found odd, and I said as much.
1. I did follow up the naive comment with a justification.
2. We're not equally guilty here.

As for your vanity, I would encourage you to investigate the possibility that your successes might not mean much outside your sphere. Try humility as a character attribute. Try to imagine that other people might be as brilliant as you. I may not know as much about economics, but I would be willing to bet I know a shitload more about a shitload of things. In an argument it often helps to have breadth of knowledge, as well as depth. Some of the other people on this forum make me feel like an intellectual lightweight a lot of the time (Hi Kendrick!) and I love 'em for it. Being put in your place means you have a chance to learn something and become a smarter, more powerful and useful person.

To recap: I never insulted you, I said the things you were saying seemed short-sighted, gung-ho, and yes, naive. I am not going to take it any easier on you than I do for anyone else, and you should consider that a sign of respect. Do me the pleasure of proving me right about this, will you?

BLEARGH

2010-04-26, 10:47 #44

Member since Apr 2010 · 32 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

That was my attempt at peace really..... I really could argue this all day, but I am here for discussion not to fight. I would implore you to take my long comment I spent ages writing as an apology and as a submission of agree to disagree.

Ok, should you go left or right? Lets assume that path A is a long scenic route and that B is a short Industrial route. You decisions would know be based on the cost of passing through a ugly area vs the value you put on your time. You see how you as a person must weigh up how you use your resource of 'time'. Its a decision based on your values to your personal gain. As to the car, it would assumable take less water, chemicals and labour to clean than the house, so my other argument of choice to resources comes to play again, its up to the value you put on the finished product and the cost of doing it. But say you could wash both, within your resource pool. What is the opportunity you are missing out on by washing a car and house? You could be sitting inside watching telly or mowing the lawn, or on your computer. Though you value a clean house more so you would decide to allocate you resources there. Its a decision of allocation again. As to the rest its all an allocation of time and other resources. Flavour is interesting though, as its just based on a personal preference, but its still a choice to which cereal or if having both would optimise you personal gain as the costs would be virtually zero.

Its all about choice, using your scarce resources for you insatiable wants. Its not just money, there is time, knowledge and many other factors in a decision.

(Administrator) 2010-04-26, 11:17 #45

Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members

Show profile ·

Link to this post

Stretching the meaning of 'economics' to cover all decisions because you can correlate them to cost somehow is a bit like saying we're all six degrees away from Kevin Bacon. I could use your logic to say that every decision you make involves your car: should you drive or walk? Will eating cereal A require an earlier trip to the grocery store, and will that involve more wear and tear for the car? If you walk through the industrial area, will you fear the gangs there, and be more likely to take your car next time?

I might accept that economics isn't about money, perhaps I can allow that it's about resources. But I can't help but believe that any attempt to cover all decisions with the economics umbrella is overestimating the value of something you are passionate about.

BLEARGH

Page: ‹ previous 1 2 3 4 next ›

RSS Feed for this thread

We love UNB by Yves Goergen!