SeVeR

Being a scientist I am agnostic, but that doesn't stop me from being vehemently irreligious. Atheists who claim knowledge of the non-existence of God are just as illogical as religionists, but then it all depends on the definition of God. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang so a simple creator God has no evidence against it. A God who's existence depends on his direct interference in our history is a God you can disprove, but then this is irrelevant, because religionists will remove this dependence to preserve their faith, descending further into the unknown and closer to the simple creator God that cannot be disproved. Many Christians regard the Old Testament as a metaphor, or they have completely reinterpreted it in the face of modern science and culture to be more plausible. I had Christians tell me that a day in the creation story is actually millions of years in our time, the days were just much longer then. It just gets more and more desperate, but the faith remains, because it rests on the original creator God claim, the ultimate unknown, the first cause, the reason why I can only be an agnostic, despite how much I despise religion. I have no problem with anything Simulacrum has said, I was only asking questions.

Like NBV said, prison causes pain too, so why is physical pain wrong if prison is right?

An atheist, meaning you know there is no God? Or you just don't believe God? Or you think God could exist because you can't disprove him/her/it/whatever?

What's your opinion Simulacrum?

Why?

If it becomes a law to cut the nuts off all rapists, and as a result of this law one less person is raped because a potential rapist was deterred from committing a rape, then I say do it.

Huge profits? Why do I have to justify them? I think people should make whatever they can legally make. You're the one that thinks it should be taken away from them, because you know better. I don't think any business should have their money taken away from them. I think they should compete to the point where the consumer wins. This is your ideal world is it not? Your whole argument is based on the idea that competition will give low prices for consumers if public services were privatised. The huge profits being made by oil companies shows that they aren't competing, they are taking profit that should go into under-cutting their rivals. Obviously competition has failed. I highlighted the funniest part of this last quote. Whatever image of me you have generated in your head for the purposes of better convincing yourself that I'm wrong, please get rid of it. I'm not ripping people off, therefore I have no problems with any profit I make. It's not obscene either, I almost make enough to live on, but I do it part-time, maybe I'll get better in years to come. I'm obviously talking about profit after expenses like wages... Care to elaborate? Not what I said. How about you contend the argument? That's vague. The average PhD is more intelligent than the average non-PhD, so when you talk about PhDs being divorced from the real world, perhaps what you really mean to say is they disagree with your opinion on the real world. They would know that, would they? So you're saying that your opinion on PhDs is a fact? I'd like to know your real motive for convincing yourself this is a fact. If I gave up my PhD after two years because I was afraid of how people would look at me afterwards, I would expect everyone I know to think I was stupid. So don't criticise me for saying it. I changed the course of my life to get a PhD. It wasn't to change how others look at me, rather how I look at myself, to know I am capable of it. I'm not looking for advanced career prospects, although it's nice to know they are advanced by a PhD; it gives me something to fall back on. Your idea that PhD's damage your impression on employers sounds like a pretty bad excuse for something you're not telling us. My real reason wasn't any of this. I wanted to give myself time to learn things, not just to do with nuclear physics, but also philosophy, trading on the stock market, politics, and generally to have time to grow as an individual. A PhD doesn't have to work 9-5, in fact one can study whenever, as long as objectives are met. Why would anyone pay money to take classes when one earns money to do a PhD? I want to learn more, that should be clear, and a PhD is the best way to do it. Again, the point you made regarding this as an "honorific" motive just seems like an excuse.

I've edited my post for Dr Brain's benefit to put the word "often" in. If Moderators want to delete the flurry of pointless posts that my neglection of this word perpetuated, then go ahead. I feel like I've picked up an angry troll for this topic as a consequence of another topic on this board.

None of what you've said here justifies the huge profits being made. It can cost the bloody world to produce, but if they make a massive profit then they've still sold it for too much haven't they? I don't think competition has succeeded here, otherwise they would be trying to out-compete eachother by reducing their prices closer to their profit-margin. Nevertheless, this argument is pointless because you will just say "It's a monopoly, and in my fantasy world all monopolies will be fixed". You pretty much said this for all my other examples. So why aren't we fixing the monopoly? Maybe politicians are too corrupt, but isn't this an inherent consequence of your system? Grandchildren, adoption, criminals shouldn't get any benefit for their crime. So lets say you come out of university and go into your first job. Your tax form arrives and asks you whether you want to opt out of paying for public schools, and you say "Yes". Since public schools wouldn't exist if everyone said "Yes", you should never have the choice of putting your kids into public school from that point on. You can't change your mind if you have kids in the future because you've done nothing to ensure the existence of those public schools up until the point you need them. As a result, if you can't afford private school, your kids don't get educated. Therefore, my point is that it's like paying into an insurance package for the possibility you may need it. Public schools have to survive during the point you don't need them because otherwise, when you do need them, or your children's children need them, they won't be there. I don't often come across statements that appear both stupid and hypocritical at the same time. Stupid because to change the path of your life for a superficial excuse like how you think you will look afterwards, is pretty dumb. Hypocritical because I'm guessing you think PhDs look down on other people, yet this superiority is something you exhibit in your own statement with "not to be associated with the kind of people". Interesting and funny.

Isn't that the stereotyping you always accuse the right of doing? I thought about putting in the word "often", or "usually", or "generally", but I decided there was no need, and that people would know what I was saying. I guess I under-estimated your capacity for nit-picking.

Well that's not far off what I'm saying. I have the added experience of having seen (and objected to) many attempts to make Iran appear racist, therefore given that the KKK's racism is the principle factor in why they are "bad and corrupt" I went a bit further in my interpretation. I stand by what I've said, but given that you haven't read all of the things I have about Iran, I understand your viewpoint too. Note also that the article was written by a right-wing Jew, so this person is very likely a Zionist (avid supporter of Israel), which ticks another box for why my interpretation would be the correct one. Zionists often want to make anti-Zionists appear racist.

LOL.

Lets try a different an example, something you might object to more Dr Brain: "Forgive me if I lose track of the exact titles now used by the higher-ups of the CIA, just as I used to have trouble keeping track of the Inspectors and Commissioners of the Gestapo." The implication is obvious. "Forgive me if I lose track of the exact titles now used by the higher-ups of the Islamic Republic, just as I used to have trouble keeping track of the Grand Dragons and Imperial Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc." The statement establishes the Iranian leadership and the KKK as being comparable. As the KKK's primary notoriety is racism, I find the statement to be clearly insinuating the Iranian leadership as being racist. Why not pick some other hierarchical organisation?

Well it's the prime example of how private services have failed. I bring it up because the problem isn't solved just by getting rid of monopolies. We all know that there are places with many insurance companies all charging too much, where is the monopoly here? You contend that this isn't price-fixing, and whether it is or is not, people still can't afford it, so something is wrong with the system. This translates to all other possible private services that I mentioned before, you don't need a monopoly to be over-charged. Companies who screwed me over. Just recently a web-hosting company screwed me over by putting something in the small print of their contract that means I have to pay for a whole year of web-hosting I don't need. In fact this company is a prime example because they got an influx of customers due to getting transferred customers from another company that was closing down. What did they do after this influx? They downgraded their service in almost every way. I have been screwed over by clothing companies selling crap at high prices, the kind of stuff that lasts one or two washes before deforming. I recently ordered a small stove that broke after the first time I used it, I still haven't been refunded even though I returned it before Christmas. God... this has all been recent, there are lots more and my Dad has even more horror stories. These are all examples of people producing crap to make profit. This is all beside the point though, being screwed over isn't always the same as being over-charged. Lets see, we pay too much for books, trainers (sneakers), legal drugs (drugs that are a fraction of the cost if bought in other countries, so why do Americans and Europeans get charged more?), cell-phone service, music CDs, gasoline (billion dollar profits are the result of stiff competition?), bottled water, all kinds of insurance: health, auto, home, travel. All are price-fixed in my opinion. I don't see how you get that first question from what I said. On the other question, are you trying to say that a free education makes a person stupid now? I went to a free school and came from a poor background. I could give you a list of my qualifications and how much money I make on the stock market in my free time (oh look, economics knowledge...), but that would be bragging a bit. Are you really a doctor, Dr Brain? Maybe we have something in common afterall. It sounds quite reasonable to get a tax reduction during the time you are paying for private school. It doesn't sound reasonable to opt out of paying tax for public schools if you haven't got children. The same is true for all the other public services, you pay for them because if you don't use them everyday, you rely on them being there, and if you object to this, how can you not object to insurance? People without children contribute to public schools because if they have children then they'll know they can get them an education if private education costs too much.

Uh, no and no. Giving the impression that Iran are comparable with the KKK makes one a crack-pot. Having done a sh!tload of research into Iran, I can be pretty confident of three facts now: 1. Iran and it's government are not anti-semitic. Other than Israel they have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East, Jews are guaranteed a seat in the Iranian parliament, and the revolutionary Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, guaranteed the safety of Jews. 2. Iran is anti-Zionist, meaning they object the actions of Israel. 3. As a result of this, America and Israel do all they can to perpetuate the idea that Iran is anti-semitic. Based on my confidence in the above, I read comments like the one I quoted as being just another symptom of anti-Iranian propaganda coming out of right-wing America to make the Iranian government appear racist. The only crack-pot news organisation I had heard of until today was Fox News.

Ah, I haven't heard of townhall.com. Dr Brain, I was referring to this from the article: "Forgive me if I lose track of the exact titles now used by the higher-ups of the Islamic Republic, just as I used to have trouble keeping track of the Grand Dragons and Imperial Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc."

No, that's the ideal relationship. The real relationship is companies charge the worst service they can for the highest price affordable because that is what maximises profit. Most customers don't know what their health insurance really includes, and most just respond to whatever special offer is being pumped on the advertisements. You may tell me that they will lose their customers, but the truth is, the customers don't know what they're getting when they sign up, and none of the other companies are any better since they all want to make profit. As long as the customers are merely satisfied 90% of the time, then it doesn't matter if 10% of the time they find that they aren't covered for something they actually need, just like it doesn't matter if 10% of the population can't even afford it in the first place. It's more profitable to charge 90% of the population more money, and give them crap service. I'm saying there shouldn't be a CEO sitting at his desk deciding how much he can squeeze Joe Bloggs' wallet for Joe to get his knee fixed and his children educated. In England there are public schools paid for by the state, and private schools that you can choose to pay for. Ya know, it doesn't have to be just one of the other. I support the English way because you have the right to a free education, and the choice to pay for something more. Health is the same. Hah, "I saved your life, now hand over your life savings." Charming.

Basically the author has two facts as his disposal: 1. The Iranian government deems students who are anti-government as criminals. 2. The Iranian government uses a star-system to decide just how criminal these students are. From this claim he has insinuated that the most promising students are being persecuted. He has used the clever language of saying "star pupil" to pass this insinuation off as fact. This is where it becomes anti-Iranian propaganda, as the easy mistake is in thinking the Iranian star-system relates to intelligence as well as criminality. That's why he said star pupil. That's why his whole article is aimed at getting us to think Iran's "most promising" students are being persecuted. The term "most promising" can mean absolutely anything. In the writer's eyes it probably refers to the level of their anti-government activity. Nowhere though is there any proof that the students given stars are actually cleverer than the non-starred pupils, they are merely students, that is all. Iran is not sacrificing it's future, they are dealing with students who are trying to overthrow the government, and since our government hates Iran's government, our propaganda supports the students and makes up crap like this article. Seriously, Goebbels would be proud of this. I just spotted another thing about why this web-page shouldn't really be taken seriously, the advert in the middle is for Sarah Palin's book. Add that to the continual KKK references and you must see why this article is written by a crack-pot, for other crack-pots to lap up.

How do you know that? Read it again. For example: "If you rate three stars, which means you've been spotted attending a protest rally or daring to openly support an opposition candidate" Where is the relationship between the three stars and whether this person is intelligent?

It only says what one star or two stars next to a name will result in, it doesn't say whether these symbols also relate to intelligence. I think that's because the relationship doesn't exist. Why would it exist? There have to be plenty of stupid kids who are also anti-government. The things people come out with in America about Iran never ceases to amaze me. This statement should also tell you why this article is anti-Iranian propaganda: "Forgive me if I lose track of the exact titles now used by the higher-ups of the Islamic Republic, just as I used to have trouble keeping track of the Grand Dragons and Imperial Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc."

Inconsequential, you haven't said how a public militia would work. You haven't answered any of my questions or refuted any of my points. The only line you picked on was the argument I neglected to develop in favour of my principle argument against privatising police: an argument you have completely ignored. Untrue? OK........... Price fixing is extremely hard to prove. If all companies claim similar production costs then they'll all find similar prices for their products. That doesn't stop them all making profit beyond what it costs to get their product to market though. So clearly they can reduce the profit they take by reducing the cost of their product. But they're a business!, so they don't want to do this. If competition was allowed to reach maximum competitiveness there would simply be no profit beyond product cost, that is almost a definition of the term. Thus, there is a price the companies will not go below. Look, 99% of the time people start a business to make money, not to give people good deals or to do public service. It's about money. Some things just shouldn't come down to money. You shouldn't be able to profit from people falling ill or wanting to be educated. They get billed then if they can't pay? What happens?

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't. And today: Yea, you said it has the opposite effect.

I'm glad you think there is a need for taxes. It then becomes a matter of how much tax is needed. I don't see how fire and police could ever be privatised. Would you do "crime insurance" and "fire insurance", where they only put out your fire if you've been paying the insurance company to do it? Firstly, it seems that we can both imagine a world without government, and we both recognise that one is needed. Your first paragraph makes that clear. I think you are just trying to throw my statement back at me here. On the second point, of course companies will gauge people. The whole purpose of a company is to maximise their profit. You are of course right that often this means lowering prices to out-do the competition. However, you need to recognise that if a company can find a way to increase their profit without lowering their price, they will choose that option. Like you say, it happens in a monopoly. When there is insufficient competition, or when companies get together and choose a minimum price for their product, then competition fails. Surely you can see that when ten companies are fighting for customers they will not compete until their prices near-enough match their supply costs. If they did that then they might win the fight, but their profit would be next to nothing. Also, not all customers go for the cheapest product, which was my point about health insurance companies earlier. If health insurance can be charged higher for the majority, then they can afford to out-price the minority of even having access to their product. You didn't answer why this is the right thing. Surely being able to see a doctor if you are injured is something that transcends this debate, it being more of a right than a luxury, causing the private argument to fail on those grounds. This happens when there are lots of companies or few. If you stop this monopoly then good for you, but some people may still not be able to afford it, which takes us back to the point that health is a right, not a luxury. Why? Because it can be a right; morally speaking, if we can choose to make it a right then we should. And illiteracy, poverty, and devastating, lethal fires were rife... I could probably find counter-examples. I mean how do you think mafias got started in the first place. However, lets suppose you get a public militia going in your police-less world. How do they get paid? Do they go round asking people to pay them to catch the burglar? Do they ask for a "little extra" to shoot the burglar in the face? I mean, who would prosecute them? There is no police! The incentive to catch the criminal in order to get paid will arise too, so you'll get the wrong people being captured or killed just because the militia wants to get paid. Then another problem is how would these public militias deal with complicated crime like fraud and smuggling? The effectiveness against these crimes would drop massively, there would be no oversight for the militia that keeps them from breaking the law themselves, bias would increase, wrongful convictions would increase, injustice would creep into every area. Once captured I suppose they deliver them to the government prisons and jails, manned by government guards who take them to government courts? Lots of tax dollars going in there still... It just cannot work. So sure, public militias existed, but is that an argument? Of course not, because when they did exist, all the things I've mentioned existed with them. Our current police forces are better, much better than that. So you accept there is a greenhouse effect now? A few posts ago you claimed it doesn't exist. Then you said Venus doesn't have one, I could quote you. My point being that you abandon logic when it suits your political allegiance.

Yea, that's the best I can come up with. You didn't really come up with a rebuttal, so do you accept that you need to pay taxes now? Do I know how to spend your money better than you do? No. In your imaginary world without taxes how would crime be stopped? Maybe after a while a bunch of guys will get together with their guns to create a kind of crime-stopping militia... like a police force maybe. Since they won't have time for paid jobs they'll probably start asking for donations. Maybe when that fails they'll force people into giving them money, like a mafia. Perhaps a private security company will step in, but what will govern them? Will they act within the law?... for that matter, how will criminals be prosecuted, how will they be imprisoned. Who pays for the prisons and the courts? How will we deal with maintaining things like the sewage system, or the quality of roads, or dealing with extreme weather by gritting roads, or building new roads, or keeping the armed forces in operation without turning them into profiteering pirates... Add to all this the things I've mentioned already like public schools, waste-collection, postal service, fire brigade, police, ambulances. What about customs, immigration, coastguard. The list is endless. You just don't want to pay taxes, and you simply have no idea how different your world would be without all the things they pay for. In other words, you have to be as dumb as a brick to think your country would be better without the things that taxes pay for, but hey, you don't even believe global warming. I'll even tell you why you don't want any taxes or believe in global warming, it's because you've identified so much with the Right in politics that you'll say just about anything to justify the extreme of that position. I mean, a few posts ago you told us the greenhouse effect doesn't exist and Venus is just hotter because it's closer to the Sun, which would have made sense if Mercury isn't colder. And you do all this because it's satisfying isn't it? It's all a matter of pride because to reinforce your view makes you feel good. Right now you are probably only thinking about how you can descend further into absurdity in order to support your warped and quite frankly funny outlook on all things divided in right Vs left politics by other people, people who probably laugh at your response to defy any and all logic to support one side of that debate because you've taken refuge in it by identifying with it and taking pride in it. If a liberal told you a cliff was too steep to jump off then you would jump off it to prove him wrong. Seriously, just come back from the edge mate.

When your house is on fire Dr. Brain I hope your tax dollars pay for some firemen to put it out... and an ambulance to take you all to hospital, and maybe some police officers to catch the guy who set it on fire. Simulacrum, what is with the all the time? Are you really that much of a jackass?