Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Or you could not discriminate, maybe? Why are you posing only two options in regards to homosexuality, i.e. that it doesn't exist or where it's a problem that it does exist? Why not another option where it's not a 'problem' that it exists?

Only because that scenario is incompatible with the ideal world being one 'without homosexuality' - by definition that makes it a problem. It isn't about homosexuality - that was just an example (which I believe I explicitly said). The exact same pattern goes with any other matter that doesn't directly affect others, but they still consider it 'wrong'.

Personally I don't mind people doing anything that doesn't affect me. I however am very interested about things that do affect me and USA being a democracy the way people vote matters a great deal. And way too many people here vote based on 'values' (as opposed for example on 'self-interest') which means that why people prioritize in particular way is interesting to me. It doesn't change things in any way, but I like understanding things.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

probably would end up evolving into a discussion about creating ways to keep people moral, and how to ensure that everything that needed to be done was done, or religion and politics if you like

What is 'moral'? I do love Plato's take on all this. Euthyphro is all about what 'pious' is. It's very funny. I find Plato to be extremely humorous, I think he was a great comedian. I love the end of Euthyphro when he (Euthyphro) says "Another time, Socrates; for I am in a hurry, and must go now".

So, so I don't get in to trouble "Another time, guys; for I am in a hurry, and must go now"...

Great discussion here indeed.. I'm staying out of this one however.. I'm far too opinionated on these sorts of topics!

Keep it going, its a fantastic night time read!

Parker

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

...Keep it going, its a fantastic night time read!

Parker

That made me chuckle!

Originally Posted by gugi

Only because that scenario is incompatible with the ideal world being one 'without homosexuality' - by definition that makes it a problem. It isn't about homosexuality - that was just an example (which I believe I explicitly said). The exact same pattern goes with any other matter that doesn't directly affect others, but they still consider it 'wrong'.

Personally I don't mind people doing anything that doesn't affect me. I however am very interested about things that do affect me and USA being a democracy the way people vote matters a great deal. And way too many people here vote based on 'values' (as opposed for example on 'self-interest') which means that why people prioritize in particular way is interesting to me. It doesn't change things in any way, but I like understanding things.

Yes, you're right, you did say it was an example. See? One post and you've made me feel silly, I don't know WHY I wade in to these things, I should be like Parker (who is also wise, way beyond his years) and just watch... and take bets on how many pages this goes for and how many people end up getting themselves banned...

I can't remember the last time anybody was banned for these conversation threads. In fact I checked the ban logs and there are only a dozen of bans over the past year almost all of them spammers, a few trolls (one on their 8th SRP account) and a couple of bad actors, one temporary ban to ensure they've got the message loud and clear. Also two lifted bans after we've thought some years in the wilderness have helped reform the members in question.
You know, late night is not a bad time to check such things.

8 is a lot of fake accts. how do you find out it's the same person? Their IP address?

Obviously, I can't say such details, but where there is a will there are ways

Wouldn't call the account fake though - he wasn't claiming he is somebody else, just not claiming anything. Few years ago we did have a fake account of a big name knife maker who supposedly abandoned SRP, but it turned out he had created another account pretending to be somebody unrelated and posting positive comments about his real persona from that account. Now that's fake

Lol nothing like smoking your own brand of cigarette.

Originally Posted by gugi

The math is pretty simple:
547/(3.1*12)=14.7 years in retirement before you get back what you put in. I don't know if you include both the social security and the medical costs, but the medical contribution is a quarter the social that gives you about 130k for any medical expenses.
65+14.7~80 so a little before your 80th birthday you'd be turning a 'moocher'.
If you put in the maximum that means you've been earning fair amount above the median so 'regular folk' is putting much less.

Remember the rates that you put in the 60s and the 70s have been significantly lower than today's (roughly half of the current ones in the 60s).

Currently the numbers are 15.3%, so over 45 years you've put in just short of 7 years of your annual incomes. With that you could get back 14 years at half your working life's income, or 21 yeas at a third of your working life's income.

I do fairly complex math for a living (solving partial differential equations in very large number of dimensional spaces) , but please do not put in my mouth words that you only think I've said.

I think you just made me have a brain hemorrage with that math stuff....