Pages: 1, 2

Quantum_Conundrum
This is also nothing new, and yet, why isn't there a lower speed limit on interstate highway and freeways, and GPS-controlled governors put in new vehicles to make them incapable of speeding on a per-zone basis?

Air resistance is proportional to the square of velocity for the same reason destructive potential of a hurricane squares with velocity.

Double the air moving past the vehicle = double the force per particle hitting the automobile AND double the number of particles you hit...therefore square the velocity.

So the interstate speed limit is ~70mph or 112km/h.

Now if you reduce this to 60mph and 96km/h....

This reduces the wind resistance by a factor of > 26.53%....

AND there is also a factor of 1/7th lower target velocity, which means you use about 14.29% less fuel in acceleration (neglecting the fact engines are less than ideal...)

But in a less than ideal engine, the difference between 60 and 70 is greater than 1/7th...

So it's definitely 26.53% more efficient to drive at 60mph, and I suspect that it is at least 30% more fuel efficient if interstate highways were capped at 60mph as compared to 70mph, by the time you consider all factors....

If you consider 50 mph, then you have a difference of 48.98% in wind resistance...nearly halfing the total wind resistance at 50mph compared to 70mph...

Similarly, 40mph produces 36% less air resistance than 50mph...and costs 25% less fuel in acceleration

So basicly, by reducing most speed limits by 10 to 20 mph whenever possible, and making absolutely no other changes, the fuel consumption nation wide would be significantly less...by ten or more percentage points...

Note that these numbers also disregard headwind, tailwind, and cross winds, which on the whole civilization wide, should roughly cancel out, but probably don't...

enord
i like tailgating big trux at whatever speed. besides the danger, how does this equate?
Quantum_Conundrum
The point is the easiest answer to the "energy crisis" in America is actually so low tech it's a joke....just drive slower...
flyingbuttressman
Don't you think you've created enough useless threads for one day?
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 21 2010, 06:47 PM)
Don't you think you've created enough useless threads for one day?

So what?

Everybody needs to get to work (or play) 5-10 minutes faster, so that's somehow worth spending 10-50% more to do so?

And this doesn't even consider energy burning automotive "sports" like NASCAR and monster truck rallies and etc.

NASCAR is becoming one of the biggest "sports" in America, and yet, just like football, it doesn't actually "produce" anything in terms of real economics. Yes, the drivers and owners make money doing this off idiots who pay their money to get....nothing...in return....but no goods are produced(except team/car logos and t-shirts, which people would buy a plain t-shirt anyway otherwise), and energy is consumed...in massive quantities compared to other forms of entertainment...

So if people want to be "Green" let's be GREEN. If people want to be rational, let's be RATIONAL.

Lower the speed limits and ban stupid stuff like Nascar and football even (even though I actually like football, but from a purely rational perspective, it's a waste of time and money...)

If America could afford over 1 trillion dollars for sports tickets last year, it could have afforded to pay the 1 trillion dollars tax deficit. IN addition, the sports medicine people could have been working in hospitals and emergency rooms saving lives and treating injuries from "real world" instead of fantasy football game, and everyone else could have been working in real jobs that actually produce goods, technologies, etc, instead of getting paid 50-100 times more to play a children's game than the doctors, engineers, and, etc...

By doing these things alone, the U.S. could save at least 1 trillion dollars, and possibly as much as 1.5 trillion....PER YEAR...
light in the tunnel
What's even more impressive is to replace automobile traffic with bicycle traffic for most local commuting. At 20mph and below, wind resistance becomes less of a factor than mechanical resistance. It is possible to power a bicycle at anywhere between 10 and 20 mph with far under 1hp, while most car engines generate at least 70hp.

Plus, if you measure the average speed of many short-distance commutes, traffic and stopping and starting produce a low average speed, probably comparable to bicycling, plus fuel economy suffers most as a result of acceleration.

Cultural fuel-waste, like NASCAR and SUVs, probably serve as fuel reserves for moments of relative scarcity and price-spikes. One way to lower gas prices in such times of scarcity is to tap into reserve supplies, but another way is to tap into surplus consumption. Keep a 40mpg compact in your garage and drive your 15-20mpg SUV when gas prices are cheap, then switch to the compact when prices go up, effectively stabilizes your monthly fuel budget. Of course, why would you switch back to the SUV when prices go down? Perhaps because you want to conserve wear and tear on your compact for times of scarcity and high-prices.

I recently read that there are many cars in China but relatively low fuel consumption. If people begin driving those cars regularly, it will greatly affect the global demand curve for oil, driving up the price significantly. It seems wise to seek alternatives to oil-dependent technologies and supply-chains, since the global oil market seems to be getting more competitive and volatile rather than less.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 21 2010, 08:48 PM)
What's even more impressive is to replace automobile traffic with bicycle traffic for most local commuting. At 20mph and below, wind resistance becomes less of a factor than mechanical resistance. It is possible to power a bicycle at anywhere between 10 and 20 mph with far under 1hp, while most car engines generate at least 70hp.

Plus, if you measure the average speed of many short-distance commutes, traffic and stopping and starting produce a low average speed, probably comparable to bicycling, plus fuel economy suffers most as a result of acceleration.

Cultural fuel-waste, like NASCAR and SUVs, probably serve as fuel reserves for moments of relative scarcity and price-spikes. One way to lower gas prices in such times of scarcity is to tap into reserve supplies, but another way is to tap into surplus consumption. Keep a 40mpg compact in your garage and drive your 15-20mpg SUV when gas prices are cheap, then switch to the compact when prices go up, effectively stabilizes your monthly fuel budget. Of course, why would you switch back to the SUV when prices go down? Perhaps because you want to conserve wear and tear on your compact for times of scarcity and high-prices.

I recently read that there are many cars in China but relatively low fuel consumption. If people begin driving those cars regularly, it will greatly affect the global demand curve for oil, driving up the price significantly. It seems wise to seek alternatives to oil-dependent technologies and supply-chains, since the global oil market seems to be getting more competitive and volatile rather than less.

I don't remember the numbers exactly, but as I recall, the commute distance numbers in America are significantly larger than most other major countries in the world.

I found something on google which said the average was 16 miles one way in 2005...

and of course, "commuting" doesn't count on-job driving or going for lunch, it counts only leaving from house to work and back.

This number is most likely because one spouse works in the city they are in, while the other perhaps drives to a completely different city to work for a company they have since been hired on to, or whatever....

Then you have many contractors and laborers in construction and engineering which just have to commute to where ever the new job site is, and that could be anywhere from needing to fly, to needing to drive as much as 75-100 miles each way every day (else they'd have to rent a hotel for a week or two, etc.)
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 02:28 AM)
I don't remember the numbers exactly, but as I recall, the commute distance numbers in America are significantly larger than most other major countries in the world.

I found something on google which said the average was 16 miles one way in 2005...

and of course, "commuting" doesn't count on-job driving or going for lunch, it counts only leaving from house to work and back.

This number is most likely because one spouse works in the city they are in, while the other perhaps drives to a completely different city to work for a company they have since been hired on to, or whatever....

Then you have many contractors and laborers in construction and engineering which just have to commute to where ever the new job site is, and that could be anywhere from needing to fly, to needing to drive as much as 75-100 miles each way every day (else they'd have to rent a hotel for a week or two, etc.)

I would call it logistical waste, but some would say it's inevitable.

The issue is where businesses are located relative to where employees live. The question is why it is so difficult for people to live close to work or work close to their residence.

Another question is how much of the physical commuting that takes place couldn't be replaced with virtual commuting via internet.

The big problem is how structurally institutionalized economy has become. There is a great deal of specialization and relative inflexibility in retraining or re-tasking people to do different jobs than the ones their resumes emphasize.

If people could simply retrain for a new job that was closer to their house, they could shorten their commute. If they could simply move to a house close to their work, they could also shorten their commute. Unfortunately, people are often inflexible in wanting to choose exactly the house they like AND exactly the job they like.

This is probably because so much of their life is devoted to work, so they want it to get the best job they possibly can. Plus, since they work so hard for their money, they want to live in the best house they can get for it. If the two are 15+ miles apart, the commuting time, expense, and environmental costs like traffic, pollution, and fuel waste, make up the difference.

Ideally I would like to see economic culture change so that paid work would become a much less significant part of people's lives. If it would, more might become more flexible with what they are willing to do (part time), which would give them more job options within a closer proximity to their house.

That would allow for more commuting by foot and bicycle, which would reduce the amount of industrial production needed to maintain a steady supply of car parts, fuel, tires, etc. not to mention the amount of road-resurfacing and widening, etc.

A lighter economy is a more fuel efficient and greener economy.
keith*
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 22 2010, 02:43 AM)
...I would call it logistical waste, but some would say it's inevitable...

That was a good observation response.

I would add that seemingly, "profit efficiency" and the thin edge of "competitive survival", has driven business away from a course in-line with future human "cultural and societal directives"...

Factories sprung up in areas of cheap property and low business taxes. Workers flocked to those areas, sometimes leaving their distant homes still unsold (sometimes mortgaged to the hilt, to purchase another home at new work area, where real estate prices soon rocket). Businesses would flounder in their growth strategy, or simply move on to cheaper pastures, leaving duel home owners to repeat the nightmare, or sink into foreclosure on both homes.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 21 2010, 09:43 PM)
I would call it logistical waste, but some would say it's inevitable.

The issue is where businesses are located relative to where employees live. The question is why it is so difficult for people to live close to work or work close to their residence.

Another question is how much of the physical commuting that takes place couldn't be replaced with virtual commuting via internet.

The big problem is how structurally institutionalized economy has become. There is a great deal of specialization and relative inflexibility in retraining or re-tasking people to do different jobs than the ones their resumes emphasize.

If people could simply retrain for a new job that was closer to their house, they could shorten their commute. If they could simply move to a house close to their work, they could also shorten their commute. Unfortunately, people are often inflexible in wanting to choose exactly the house they like AND exactly the job they like.

This is probably because so much of their life is devoted to work, so they want it to get the best job they possibly can. Plus, since they work so hard for their money, they want to live in the best house they can get for it. If the two are 15+ miles apart, the commuting time, expense, and environmental costs like traffic, pollution, and fuel waste, make up the difference.

Ideally I would like to see economic culture change so that paid work would become a much less significant part of people's lives. If it would, more might become more flexible with what they are willing to do (part time), which would give them more job options within a closer proximity to their house.

That would allow for more commuting by foot and bicycle, which would reduce the amount of industrial production needed to maintain a steady supply of car parts, fuel, tires, etc. not to mention the amount of road-resurfacing and widening, etc.

A lighter economy is a more fuel efficient and greener economy.

That has to be true on some level.

Even though world population quadrupled in the past 100-150 years or so, I don't necessarily think that population increase is in any way related to automobiles, with the exception of the fact that in emergencies sick can be transported faster to hospital. (unfortunately, the number of people killed or maimed by automobiles may be almost as large as the number saved by them...)

I think the most important inventions or discoveries that actually facilitated world population increase are...

refrigeration
vaccination
anti-biotics
combine (harvester)
certain improvements to corn and wheat variety and per/acre yield

Super-Transports are also important, but without these improvements, you wouldn't have need for more transports because there wouldn't be as much food or people. IN other words, these became necessary only because of how awesome the other mentioned inventions were...

almost all of the other un-related inventions of the past 100-150 years seem to be largely "cosmetic" only contributing a minor factor...

Other than these things, the vast majority of our modern economics, with few exceptions, seems ridiculous and often completely irrational....

We claim to want world peace, yet we continue to watch action movies or play video games filled with violence and gore.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 03:58 AM)
I think the most important inventions or discoveries that actually facilitated world population increase are...

refrigeration
vaccination
anti-biotics
combine (harvester)
certain improvements to corn and wheat variety and per/acre yield

Super-Transports are also important, but without these improvements, you wouldn't have need for more transports because there wouldn't be as much food or people. IN other words, these became necessary only because of how awesome the other mentioned inventions were...

Not sure exactly what you mean by "super transports" but short and long distance migration comes to mind as facilitating the ability of cities and economies to expand to sustain more people.

I think ocean shipping has also fostered the ability to transport large amounts of food and other products to highly urbanized regions.

I don't know why you brought up the issue of population growth, but population can certainly grow more sustainably and comfortably when each additional adult living in an area doesn't add an additional car or truck to the infrastructure.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 21 2010, 05:54 PM)
This is also nothing new, and yet, why isn't there a lower speed limit on interstate highway and freeways, and GPS-controlled governors put in new vehicles to make them incapable of speeding on a per-zone basis?

Air resistance is proportional to the square of velocity for the same reason destructive potential of a hurricane squares with velocity.

Double the air moving past the vehicle = double the force per particle hitting the automobile AND double the number of particles you hit...therefore square the velocity.

So the interstate speed limit is ~70mph or 112km/h.

Now if you reduce this to 60mph and 96km/h....

This reduces the wind resistance by a factor of > 26.53%....

AND there is also a factor of 1/7th lower target velocity, which means you use about 14.29% less fuel in acceleration (neglecting the fact engines are less than ideal...)

But in a less than ideal engine, the difference between 60 and 70 is greater than 1/7th...

So it's definitely 26.53% more efficient to drive at 60mph, and I suspect that it is at least 30% more fuel efficient if interstate highways were capped at 60mph as compared to 70mph, by the time you consider all factors....

I guess you don't remember the days of 55 mph driving?

Talk about a WASTE of time sitting behind the wheel.

And NO, the loss is not as bad as you compute.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009...el-economy.html

4 of these cars lost only 11% going from 55 mph to 65 mph,

and as low as 10% going from 65 mph to 75 mph.

Which is reasonably comparable to your dropping from 70 to 60 suggestion.

But at a loss of only 1/3 as much.

BUT

Most of our driving isn't high speed driving.

Most of our driving is at low to mediums speeds.

When people are on highways they want to cover distance in a reasonable period of time.

Slowing down our interstates just adds cost to everything as it makes delivery times and travel time take just that much longer, and people time, is more expensive than the small fuel savings.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 22 2010, 03:09 PM)
Slowing down our interstates just adds cost to everything as it makes delivery times and travel time take just that much longer, and people time, is more expensive than the small fuel savings.

Speed and time-compression have the subjective effect of normalizing and becoming prone to transcendent dissatisfaction. Put simply, when Model Ts cruised at 40, people wanted to go 50. When they went 50, they wanted interstate highways to drive longer distances without dealing with traffic. When they could go 50 on highways, they wanted to go 60, 60 came to seem slow compared to 70, and now there are many people who drive 80/90 as a habit and get irritated when their radar detector beeps and they have to "crawl along" at 75 until the police are out of range.

A similar effect has taken place in local traffic. The average speed I can drive through town is little faster than if I take my bike, yet most people I know would still rather drive because they have the feeling like the bicycle is too slow. If they would walk to various destinations, they would realize how much faster it is to bike.

Urban and suburban sprawl is the materialization of the subjective norm of driving longer distances at higher speeds. What is the purpose of wasting so much land area by building every shopping center and neighborhood miles away from the next? Why not create a tight pedestrian-friendly downtown and then build residential neighborhoods in close range so residents can walk or bike to do shopping?

Obviously it would be wasteful to rebuild existing sprawl to new specifications, but sprawling cities can be re-organized into multiple local sectors, where people can work and shop close enough to home to be able to walk or bike. This would save loads of gas and other waste, mainly road materials and the land-waste of expanding roads and building new ones. It would also mean that people could arrive at another community by driving to another city-sector, instead of having to drive 70mph on an interstate highway for hours.
Quantum_Conundrum
If the average commute is 16 miles, it makes only a 2 minute difference even if the entire commute is on the interstate....

If they are in traffic anyway at the other end of the interstate, it actually won't even add to the travel time...

Example:

You drive 16 miles @ 70mph, only to spend 2 minutes waiting in traffic jams, or at the first stoplight you hit off the interstate.

vs

Drive 60 mph, and the light is green when you get there, or else you arrive seconds before it changes.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 22 2010, 10:54 AM)
Speed and time-compression have the subjective effect of normalizing and becoming prone to transcendent dissatisfaction. Put simply, when Model Ts cruised at 40, people wanted to go 50. When they went 50, they wanted interstate highways to drive longer distances without dealing with traffic. When they could go 50 on highways, they wanted to go 60, 60 came to seem slow compared to 70, and now there are many people who drive 80/90 as a habit and get irritated when their radar detector beeps and they have to "crawl along" at 75 until the police are out of range.

A similar effect has taken place in local traffic. The average speed I can drive through town is little faster than if I take my bike, yet most people I know would still rather drive because they have the feeling like the bicycle is too slow. If they would walk to various destinations, they would realize how much faster it is to bike.

Urban and suburban sprawl is the materialization of the subjective norm of driving longer distances at higher speeds. What is the purpose of wasting so much land area by building every shopping center and neighborhood miles away from the next? Why not create a tight pedestrian-friendly downtown and then build residential neighborhoods in close range so residents can walk or bike to do shopping?

Obviously it would be wasteful to rebuild existing sprawl to new specifications, but sprawling cities can be re-organized into multiple local sectors, where people can work and shop close enough to home to be able to walk or bike. This would save loads of gas and other waste, mainly road materials and the land-waste of expanding roads and building new ones. It would also mean that people could arrive at another community by driving to another city-sector, instead of having to drive 70mph on an interstate highway for hours.

This is called "Archology" or "archology-like" urban planning.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well in capitalism, particularly in America, because everyone is pretty well indoctrinated into a system where individual "ownership" is their own primary goal. This leads to sub-urban lifestyles where people then commute 5-50 miles to work.

In the general area where I live, there are no "high rise" buildings at all, nothing that even remotely qualifies as a sky scraper, and actually, with like literally a handful of exceptions, only the "antique" buildings are above 2 stories tall. Yet the population around here is growing out of control, and nobody seems eager to make anything remotely resembling tall buildings for apartments or business. So everything in the "city" is spread out in ridiculous ways for 5-10 miles radius, and then surrounded by sub-divisions and apartments in the "boonies". Most places other than the hospital don't even have parking garages, and the hospital is only just now finishing up it's parking garage. I was out at wal-mart earlier, and the whole place has so many people and traffic that even with a many acres of parking space, pretty soon they are going to need to make a parking garage to handle their customers.

It's basicly like this everywhere on the northshore in SE Louisiana....It was already one of the fastest growing areas before Katrina, and then since then a large number of people from the greater NOLA area and other parts of southeast of the state move north in droves. Then, since almost everybody from 16yr old up has a car, the traffic has multiplied greatly in about the past 10 years. Maybe as much as quadruple, not sure, but it sure seems that way. However, most of the roads are the same or even smaller. In one part of town, they actually blocked off all the roads crossing the railroad track except 2, because idiots kept crossing the railroad and getting hit by the train (in locations where there aren't lights or automatic electronic road blockers.) So if anything, the infrastructure is less than ever, but the driving population is 2-4 times greater than the way it was BEFORE the road closures...

It would be nice to live in, and "rent to own" a piece of an Archology right in the heart of town, perhaps, rather than live in a "house" 5-10 miles away from everything... I mean a real Archology, not just an apartment or condo...
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 03:39 PM)
Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well in capitalism, particularly in America, because everyone is pretty well indoctrinated into a system where individual "ownership" is their own primary goal. This leads to sub-urban lifestyles where people then commute 5-50 miles to work.

Whining about capitalism again? Suburbia is a byproduct of urbanization. People can live in the city and still want a front and back yard, so they move to the suburbs. Those who don't need that can buy a condo or rent an apartment. Ownership has nothing to do with it.
QUOTE
In the general area where I live, there are no "high rise" buildings at all, nothing that even remotely qualifies as a sky scraper, and actually, with like literally a handful of exceptions, only the "antique" buildings are above 2 stories tall. Yet the population around here is growing out of control, and nobody seems eager to make anything remotely resembling tall buildings for apartments or business. So everything in the "city" is spread out in ridiculous ways for 5-10 miles radius, and then surrounded by sub-divisions and apartments in the "boonies". Most places other than the hospital don't even have parking garages, and the hospital is only just now finishing up it's parking garage. I was out at wal-mart earlier, and the whole place has so many people and traffic that even with a many acres of parking space, pretty soon they are going to need to make a parking garage to handle their customers.

Wow, whining about city growth. High-density housing is only built when there is enough demand for it. Building high-rises for the sake of having high-rises is stupid.

Stop making up false cause and effect scenarios.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 08:39 PM)
Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well in capitalism, particularly in America, because everyone is pretty well indoctrinated into a system where individual "ownership" is their own primary goal. This leads to sub-urban lifestyles where people then commute 5-50 miles to work.

I don't think it has to do with capitalism since there are plenty of dense urban areas with capitalist economies.

Also, don't automatically associate super Walmart with sprawl. If dense urban neighborhoods would be centered around superWalmart, one-stop shopping would prevent a lot of unnecessary running around between stores.

The primary culprit is not capitalism but rather a particular social-culture in which individuals conform to behavioral habits instead of rationally choosing the best and healthiest method of transportation. It's also just plain laziness.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 22 2010, 03:49 PM)
Whining about capitalism again? Suburbia is a byproduct of urbanization. People can live in the city and still want a front and back yard, so they move to the suburbs. Those who don't need that can buy a condo or rent an apartment. Ownership has nothing to do with it.

Wow, whining about city growth. High-density housing is only built when there is enough demand for it. Building high-rises for the sake of having high-rises is stupid.

Stop making up false cause and effect scenarios.

There is a demand for it, but people don't even particularly realize they WOULD have other options, but nobody is making anything to give them a choice.

In some cases, there are actually laws that prevent any development.

Example:

If you "own" certain antique buildings in town, you CANNOT demolish them to replace them with modern, taller buildings. The law forbids it...

The only apartments in town are on campus grounds, or in slums, with few exceptions.

....even the apartments are idiotic space-wasting 4 unit, one storied buildings, for the most part. there are some exceptions that come to mind, but most of those are on campus grounds...It usually works out to 4, 6, or 8 units because of building codes (becuase of course you need fire walls and other things that add to price beyond certain limits), which is ok, but nobody builds UP...its just retarded waste of space.

I've got college students and families living in apartments 10 miles away from campus directly across from my house, because there are not enough apartments in town that meet their needs.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 04:11 PM)
There is a demand for it, but people don't even particularly realize they WOULD have other options, but nobody is making anything to give them a choice.

Yet not enough to be economically viable.
QUOTE
In some cases, there are actually laws that prevent any development.

If you "own" certain antique buildings in town, you CANNOT demolish them to replace them with modern, taller buildings. The law forbids it...

That is what is called "a good thing." If tearing down historic buildings was ok, there would be no more historic buildings.

You again dodged the real question. Why do you think that ownership is a bad thing?
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 09:11 PM)
There is a demand for it, but people don't even particularly realize they WOULD have other options, but nobody is making anything to give them a choice.

In some cases, there are actually laws that prevent any development.

Example:

If you "own" certain antique buildings in town, you CANNOT demolish them to replace them with modern, taller buildings. The law forbids it...

The only apartments in town are on campus grounds, or in slums, with few exceptions.

....even the apartments are idiotic space-wasting 4 unit, one storied buildings, for the most part. there are some exceptions that come to mind, but most of those are on campus grounds...It usually works out to 4, 6, or 8 units because of building codes (becuase of course you need fire walls and other things that add to price beyond certain limits), which is ok, but nobody builds UP...its just retarded waste of space.

I've got college students and families living in apartments 10 miles away from campus directly across from my house, because there are not enough apartments in town that meet their needs.

You don't really need to build up. All you need is more local grocery stores or vegetable stands and telecommuting. If people avoid shopping for non-food items except a few times a year, they can socialize on foot or by bike. Consumerism has people programmed to leisure-shop, though, which amounts to them being bored if they aren't driving around to a workplace and stores all the time.

Most of the driving and consumer culture is distraction from the boring fact that most people aren't doing anything interesting most of the time.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 22 2010, 04:48 PM)
You don't really need to build up. All you need is more local grocery stores or vegetable stands and telecommuting. If people avoid shopping for non-food items except a few times a year, they can socialize on foot or by bike. Consumerism has people programmed to leisure-shop, though, which amounts to them being bored if they aren't driving around to a workplace and stores all the time.

Most of the driving and consumer culture is distraction from the boring fact that most people aren't doing anything interesting most of the time.

I would like to see you buy toilet paper once a year.

Again, you are back to advocating unrealistic solutions to non-existent problems.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 22 2010, 04:50 PM)
I would like to see you buy toilet paper once a year.

Again, you are back to advocating unrealistic solutions to non-existent problems.

We are not discussing "non-existent problems".

You simply aren't LISTENING to the damn problem we are talking about, which is REAL.

And toilet paper actually would make sense to buy once per year if you can, because like anything else, it's price basicly goes up, so may as well buy it up front....

And we have a piggly wiggly and at least 5 gas stations and convenience stores, and 2 Dollar Stores within 1 or 2 miles of this house, but the piggly wiggly SUCKS. About the only thing they seem to care about selling is alcohol and tobacco which take up as much as 1/8th to 1/4th of their floor and cooler space (as do the convenience stores and gas stations,) which is ironic because people aren't supposed to be drinking while driving(or boating)..., and their produce is always terrible....and the "country market" is in the city...
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 05:02 PM)
We are not discussing "non-existent problems".

You simply aren't LISTENING to the damn problem we are talking about, which is REAL.

QUOTE
And toilet paper actually would make sense to buy once per year if you can, because like anything else, it's price basicly goes up, so may as well buy it up front....

Do have a storage shed where you can store a year's worth of TP? Maybe you should invest in a cache of toothpaste and shampoo.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE And toilet paper actually would make sense to buy once per year if you can, because like anything else, it's price basicly goes up, so may as well buy it up front....

Do have a storage shed where you can store a year's worth of TP? Maybe you should invest in a cache of toothpaste and shampoo.
And we have a piggly wiggly and at least 5 gas stations and convenience stores, and 2 Dollar Stores within 1 or 2 miles of this house, but the piggly wiggly SUCKS. About the only thing they seem to care about selling is alcohol and tobacco which take up as much as 1/8th to 1/4th of their floor and cooler space (as do the convenience stores and gas stations,) which is ironic because people aren't supposed to be drinking while driving(or boating)..., and their produce is always terrible....and the "country market" is in the city...

Boo f*cking hoo.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 22 2010, 04:47 PM)
Yet not enough to be economically viable.

That is what is called "a good thing." If tearing down historic buildings was ok, there would be no more historic buildings.

You again dodged the real question. Why do you think that ownership is a bad thing?

What is "good" about a line of nearly 200 year old buildings that in no way live up to modern codes, but continue to be allowed in use? It's a wonder somebody hasn't died from some sort of collapse.

I didn't say ownership was necessarily a "bad" thing, but it isn't always a good thing either...
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 22 2010, 05:14 PM)

Do have a storage shed where you can store a year's worth of TP? Maybe you should invest in a cache of toothpaste and shampoo.

Boo f*cking hoo.

Yeah, forgot, mister "rational atheist computer scientists" loves his "right" to get drunk and give himself cancer w/ cigarettes and alcohol, and act like a fool on nights or weekends, and possibly kill himself or others...

....and why do I care what you have to say again? Oh yeah....don't...

Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't use more TP than would fit in my BR closet in a year....

...maybe you haven't learned how to wipe yet, so you need much more?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 05:26 PM)
What is "good" about a line of nearly 200 year old buildings that in no way live up to modern codes, but continue to be allowed in use? It's a wonder somebody hasn't died from some sort of collapse.

Ever been to Europe????

Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 22 2010, 05:51 PM)
Ever been to Europe????

No, I haven't been to europe and it's unlikely I'm going there any time soon.

I do know what you are referring to as many buildings and infrastructure there are many hundreds of years old, and some are in excess of thousand years old.

HOWEVER, the difference is, they have time around here to actually modernize stuff to begin with, if they act now, instead of being another 20 or 30 years and then end up with a situation, "Well gee, we should have done something else with this zone, but we were too stubborn/traditional to think ahead about this situation..."
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM)
HOWEVER, the difference is, they have time around here to actually modernize stuff to begin with, if they act now, instead of being another 20 or 30 years and then end up with a situation, "Well gee, we should have done something else with this zone, but we were too stubborn/traditional to think ahead about this situation..."

But you didn't want to modernize them, you wanted to tear them down.

QUOTE
If you "own" certain antique buildings in town, you CANNOT demolish them to replace them with modern, taller buildings

Arthur
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 22 2010, 06:08 PM)
But you didn't want to modernize them, you wanted to tear them down.

Arthur

The buildings have been renovated in the past, and I think you mistook the meaning of my choice of word "modernize".

I don't think there is much else that can be done with these buildings. If you saw them you'd know what I mean.

It's like a solid block of 2 or 3 floors buildings, and they are built wall to wall with one another in a fashion that doesn't lend itself to things like strengthening by adding bracing and things like that, as there is no exterior space, any such additions would necessarily take up interior space. There are only fronts and backs to most buildings because they don't have alleys. So it's not like they can wrap them in metal frames or carbon fiber or anything like they do for some buildings.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 05:30 PM)
Yeah, forgot, mister "rational atheist computer scientists" loves his "right" to get drunk and give himself cancer w/ cigarettes and alcohol, and act like a fool on nights or weekends, and possibly kill himself or others...

Damn straight.
BTW, alcohol doesn't give you cancer. If you drink too much, you could be looking at liver failure, but cancer isn't a common side-effect.
QUOTE
Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't use more TP than would fit in my BR closet in a year....

I'm guessing that you live alone then?
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't use more TP than would fit in my BR closet in a year....

I'm guessing that you live alone then?
It's like a solid block of 2 or 3 floors buildings, and they are built wall to wall with one another in a fashion that doesn't lend itself to things like strengthening by adding bracing and things like that, as there is no exterior space, any such additions would necessarily take up interior space. There are only fronts and backs to most buildings because they don't have alleys. So it's not like they can wrap them in metal frames or carbon fiber or anything like they do for some buildings.

For one, some people actually prefer living in old buildings over grungy apartment complexes.
Perhaps you would like to live here? Apartment Complex
Secondly, buildings built side-to-side don't need "bracing." Their main weakness is lack of modern amenities like electricity and cable. Most of those houses are very well built, and if you're not living in an earthquake zone, they should last forever.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 22 2010, 10:26 PM)
What is "good" about a line of nearly 200 year old buildings that in no way live up to modern codes, but continue to be allowed in use? It's a wonder somebody hasn't died from some sort of collapse.

Old buildings are often more efficient than newer ones in cooling without a/c, which saves loads of energy.

All you really need for truly green living is a roof, floor, and walls. Insulation is good to keep the heat in during cold months and out during hot ones.

The trick would be to get the local stores to carry more healthy groceries. Local produce would be a plus. Probably they already stock toilet paper for whenever you need it.

I hate driving and especially sitting in traffic. I hate navigating parking lots. I love riding a bike to stores because I can park closer than the closest parking spaces.

I don't understand why more workers and businesses don't cooperate to move work and homes closer together. Life would be so much nicer if you could bike 3-5 miles to work each day.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 22 2010, 08:00 PM)
I hate driving
I love riding a bike

You really need to stop assuming that YOUR specific Likes and Dislikes are the same as the general populations.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/0...omen.bicycling/

Before bicycles came along, the horse was the best means of individual travel.

By the late 1880s, the bicycle's popularity really took off. For instance, in 1880, a group of early cycling advocates called the League of American Wheelmen had a membership of 40; by 1898, its ranks had bloated to nearly 200,000.

Cycling was so popular that in 1896 The New York Journal of Commerce estimated bicycling was costing theaters, restaurants and other businesses over 100 million dollars per year.

And it was the first form of transportation that women could readily adopt:

Susan B. Anthony once said, "Let me tell you what I think of bicycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world."

The 1900 United States Census Report, released more than 20 years after the introduction of the bicycle, said, "Few articles ever used by man have created so great a revolution in social conditions as the bicycle."

Until the CAR came along.

QUOTE
Life would be so much nicer if you could bike 3-5 miles to work each day.

Maybe to YOU.

But

The vast majority of people continue to choose the car as their preferred method of transportation.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 23 2010, 01:42 PM)
You really need to stop assuming that YOUR specific Likes and Dislikes are the same as the general populations.

I don't. I was just expressing my personal preferences. Don't read more into things than are meant by them.

I'm all too aware of personal automobile fixations. Compared to bicycles, these vehicles are enormous, hyper-complex, and costly. What makes people think that transporting themselves is worth all the energy and effort that goes into producing and maintaining an automobile?

More so than that they think they're worth it, the effect is actually usually the other way around. They avoid facing their personal doubt of their self-worth by focussing on their car as a measure of their worth as an individual. People are hiding in their cars, and relying on their cars to signify something they wish they could be. Cars are masks and social props.

The speed and distance of traveling in a car also lets people avoid most of their environment. As the scenery flies by in a blur, they get the feeling that they control a larger chunk of geographic territory than they've even begun to witness.

But I believe you're right. The weak individuality of most people means that they will continue driving as long as possible, and only begin to consider other forms of (pedestrian) transportation when a sufficient trend has developed to do so. Until then, they will cling to their steering wheels and scoff and people who dare to get around in other ways. They are mostly miserable behind the wheel, but with the help of radio they can hypnotize themselves until their deliverance somehow magically emerges.
occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 03:06 PM)

But I believe you're right. The weak individuality of most people means that they will continue driving as long as possible, and only begin to consider other forms of (pedestrian) transportation when a sufficient trend has developed to do so. Until then, they will cling to their steering wheels and scoff and people who dare to get around in other ways. They are mostly miserable behind the wheel, but with the help of radio they can hypnotize themselves until their deliverance somehow magically emerges.

I guess youre just better than them.

Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE
They are mostly miserable behind the wheel, but with the help of radio they can hypnotize themselves until their deliverance somehow magically emerges

Pretty much.

I hardly ever listen to ANY music any more, and usually don't watch anything other than the News or Weather on television any more either.

Almost all media and entertainment has become simply a method of capitalist hypnosis and conditioning. Additionally, now that the radio and televison have been around for a while, there has even begun to develope this "hypnotic entertainment aristocracy" whereby multiple generations of the same family are basicly "groomed" by the entertainment industry to be the next mass-hypnotist instrument. Miley Cyrus and Angelina Jolie are prime examples. Thus the "invisible hand" capitalism has developed into a hypnotic psuedo-CASTE system, and has virtually none of the good characteristics of the caste system, and all of the abuses.

They are harlots in every sense of the word, because they sell sex, even Miley Cyrus has already started doing the striper thing now, while the american people are whoremongers. but it's all "good" because we live in a "democracy" where everything is "good" as long as (50% + 1) people with seared consciences think it's good.

ANYWAY, if you want to be hypnotized by someone elses brand of morality, and of course brainwashed to crave their products more and more, television, music(mp3, radio, walkman, whatever), and internet gaming are the best possible thing you can do to brainwash yourself.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 10:06 AM)
I don't.  I was just expressing my personal preferences.  Don't read more into things than are meant by them.

I know they are your personal preferences.

Which is why I said:

You really need to stop assuming that YOUR specific Likes and Dislikes are the same as the general populations.

QUOTE
Life would be so much nicer if you could bike 3-5 miles to work each day.

But the REALITY is you are a snob who apparently thinks your are better than most people.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Life would be so much nicer if you could bike 3-5 miles to work each day.

But the REALITY is you are a snob who apparently thinks your are better than most people.

They avoid facing their personal doubt of their self-worth

QUOTE
People are hiding in their cars

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE People are hiding in their cars

People are... relying on their cars to signify something they wish they could be.

QUOTE
The weak individuality of most people

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The weak individuality of most people

They are mostly miserable

QUOTE
they can hypnotize themselves until their deliverance somehow magically emerges

My experience with people who think they are better then everyone else is that your opinion of yourself is not shared by most of the people you meet.

Which, ultimately will hinder your success in life.

Arthur

flyingbuttressman
Wow, talk about a superiority complex... QC and LITT, you take the cake.
QUOTE
I ... usually don't watch anything other than the News or Weather on television any more either.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I ... usually don't watch anything other than the News or Weather on television any more either.

even Miley Cyrus has already started doing the striper thing now

LOL

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.....

What news channel are you watching?

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 23 2010, 03:35 PM)
Wow, talk about a superiority complex... QC and LITT, you take the cake.

Probably normal self-confidence seems like superiority from the perspective of self-hate and insecurity you experience as a baseline.

Superiority and inferiority are two sides of the same coin: i.e. ego.

Get over defining yourself in a status hierarchy vis-a-vis others and, voila', superiority and inferiority gone.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 23 2010, 10:42 AM)

LOL

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.....

What news channel are you watching?

Arthur

If you are wondering about news media bias, I am aware of these things, which is why I try to avoid using the same news programing too much.

If you are on the democrat's channel, it's all the republican's fault, and if you are on the republican's channel, its all the democrat's fault...

"We are a FAIR AND BALANCED 'no spin zone' program..."

"...in other news, that other network is spreading their propaganda and lies again..."

Or let us never forget the tylenol vs advil vs aleve thing, whereby all of them claim nine out of ten doctors prescribe their product most....

More likely, nine out of ten commercial ads is an outright lie on at least one point...

Also, I'm not a lady. I'm a man and straight...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 23 2010, 11:25 AM)
I'm not a lady. I'm a man and straight...

The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" indicates that you think the subject's ardent denial of a proposition is meant to cover up its embarrassing truth.

For example, if you offered someone a beer and they said "No thanks. I absolutely hate beer. Never touch the stuff, ever. I can't even imagine ever wanting to drink a single drop of that filthy, mind-numbling liquid. It's poison to me. I absolutely do not want a beer," you might well think that they were trying hard to restrain themselves from taking it.

Arthur
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 11:00 AM)
Probably normal self-confidence seems like superiority from the perspective of self-hate and insecurity you experience as a baseline.

LOL, ok Sigmund Freud.
QUOTE
Superiority and inferiority are two sides of the same coin: i.e. ego.

No, a superiority complex is when you think that you are better than other people for whatever reason. In your case, you think you are better than people who drive cars on a daily basis.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Superiority and inferiority are two sides of the same coin: i.e. ego.

No, a superiority complex is when you think that you are better than other people for whatever reason. In your case, you think you are better than people who drive cars on a daily basis.
Get over defining yourself in a status hierarchy vis-a-vis others and, voila', superiority and inferiority gone.

It's not my fault that you don't know what a superiority complex is.
occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 04:00 PM)
Probably normal self-confidence seems like superiority from the perspective of self-hate and insecurity you experience as a baseline.

Superiority and inferiority are two sides of the same coin: i.e. ego.

Get over defining yourself in a status hierarchy vis-a-vis others and, voila', superiority and inferiority gone.

Is that how you justify slavery?
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 23 2010, 11:32 AM)
The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" indicates that you think the subject's ardent denial of a proposition is meant to cover up its embarrassing truth.

For example, if you offered someone a beer and they said "No thanks. I absolutely hate beer. Never touch the stuff, ever. I can't even imagine ever wanting to drink a single drop of that filthy, mind-numbling liquid. It's poison to me. I absolutely do not want a beer," you might well think that they were trying hard to restrain themselves from taking it.

Arthur

I have never tasted beer or smoked anything or took any illegal drug, and can't possibly imagine why I would want to, given rational examination of the relationship of those things to death and injury through accident, violence, foolishness, and disease, and have never found it difficult to refuse the few times a friend was mis-guided enough to offer it to me or otherwise suggest that I should. I find no rational reason to want to put those substances in my body at all.

And let's be clear, because I will admit I HAVE viewed pornography before on more than one occasion, lest you miss the point. It's defnitely not something I'm proud of, because I fail to live up to my own moral convictions. It is also misleading and ungratifying, and promotes false and even unhealthy expectations of real sexual experiences. And this is precisely what the entire Hollywood movies, music, and music-video industry preys upon.

And it is quite contrary to what you have described. For me, it is more like having been dared to touch a hot stove, and then regretting taking the dare....quite different from what you have described...
flyingbuttressman
Wow, way to COMPLETELY miss the point.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 23 2010, 05:13 PM)
Is that how you justify slavery?

no, slavery comes when some people define themselves as superior and therefore worthy of being served by others they deem inferior. Sometimes it happens when people deem themselves inferior and therefore only worthy of service to others.
occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 05:28 PM)
Sometimes it happens when people deem themselves inferior and therefore only worthy of service to others.

Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 23 2010, 12:18 PM)
Wow, way to COMPLETELY miss the point.

LOL

If there were Oscars in the catagory, that post would easily get a nomination.

Arthur
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 23 2010, 12:15 PM)
it is quite contrary to what you have described.

Ah QC, the ONLY thing I remotely "described" about you was that you probably watched more on TV then just News and Weather.

But thanks for those CANDID admissions.

Arthur
Quantum_Conundrum
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 23 2010, 06:02 PM)
Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?

I believe that is the traditional way that people ended up in slavery. After a war, the survivors on the losing side could either choose to die or submit to domination by the victors. If someone on the winning side wanted to, they could accept this submission and put such people to work doing whatever they wanted. I believe that some slaves in pre-modern times were able to eventually buy their freedom and become citizens, but that probably depended on how independent their "masters" were. People who are too lazy to live without slaves usually find reasons not to let them go free, I think.

Why did this become a discussion about slavery? Oh, right, people defining themselves and others as superior or inferior.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 05:25 PM)
I believe that is the traditional way that people ended up in slavery. After a war, the survivors on the losing side could either choose to die or submit to domination by the victors.

How is choosing NOT TO DIE the equivalent of deeming themselves inferior?

Total BS.

Arthur
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 23 2010, 05:36 PM)
How is choosing NOT TO DIE the equivalent of deeming themselves inferior?

Total BS.

Arthur

Even this is actually a misconception.

On the issue of "prisoners of war" and "widow-hood"..

For example, in Israel, when they were at war with another nation/city and they captured the city, the women and children were spared in most cases, and the women had the option of marrying the man of HER choice, and there are laws that forbade the man from mistreating her, or having "favorite" wives in cases of polygamy.

So if he had a jewish wife and he was a polygamist and married someone else (which they technically weren't supposed to do except in certain circumstances,) but if he did so, the non-jewish woman was supposed to have rights equal to the jewish woman.

There is also the law of the kinsman redeemer, which prevents a widowed woman from being abandoned, in that the nearest available kin of the original husband was supposed to marry her, even if she was not Jewish. (See the book of Ruth for a specific case of this being exercised.) In essence, it is considered her RIGHT to have a husband, and moreover, she can elect whether or not to exercise this right.

For who knows what'th time, most usage of "slavery" in the bible as it regards jews falls under one of several categories.

Endentured servanthood. In many cases, even when the term "slave" is used in the king james, if you check the context and teh laws given concerning this issue, you will find a seven year limit to "ownership" and the slave has the option of leaving or staying after the seven years...in addition, on the jubilee, all slaves were freed regardless of circumstances.

So let's be clear, at least as far as the law goes, there was in no way a similarity between "legalized" Jewish "slavery" and what happened in America...it is a completely different system primarily for debt resolution.

This in fact IS a bankruptcy system, and in addition, the system prevents monopolies in the process, but the Jews also had ANOTHER extra-biblical bankruptcy sytem which would allow them to avoid this process entirely, which I won't go into too much, but there is a vague reference made to it in allegory regarding Jesus' death on the Cross in Colossians chapter 2, which is called "Possessing the Double". You won't find that term in the scripture, but the short end of it is that if a person had outstanding debt, it was nailed to a beam publicly on a skin or tablet with the debtor's name and who all he owed, for everyone to see. Then anybody who was wealthy could choose to pay the debt out of the kindness of their heart.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 23 2010, 10:36 PM)
How is choosing NOT TO DIE the equivalent of deeming themselves inferior?

Total BS.

Arthur

admission of defeat and submission to a victor is a pretty clear and practical statement of abdication to a superior opponent, wouldn't you say?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 08:54 PM)
admission of defeat and submission to a victor is a pretty clear and practical statement of abdication to a superior opponent, wouldn't you say?

Yes.

Doesn't make you inferior though.

Were the French inferior to the Germans because they surrendered?
Were the Germans then inferior to them when they surrendered to the Allies?

Of course not.

Being on the losing side of a battle just means you lost the battle.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 24 2010, 02:12 AM)
Yes.

Doesn't make you inferior though.

Were the French inferior to the Germans because they surrendered?
Were the Germans then inferior to them when they surrendered to the Allies?

Of course not.

Being on the losing side of a battle just means you lost the battle.

Arthur

If you recall my original post that raised this topic of superiority/inferiority, I was saying that people should get over the ego-issue of superiority and inferiority altogether. I don't believe in inferior/superior status. I believe in constructive interaction.

Collective egoism is even worse than the individual kind. The French are not a unified collective ego, nor are the Germans. Individuals carry ethnic identities as part of their complex psychic architecture. Each individual is unique, regardless of how they identify ethnically.

Collective status and individual status are little different. Inferiority/superiority is always a means to something else, never a reality in and of itself. It's a game people play to dominate each other.
Oh horsepucky.

QUOTE
Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?

To which YOU replied:

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?

To which YOU replied:

that is the traditional way that people ended up in slavery. After a war, the survivors on the losing side could either choose to die or submit to domination

So you EQUATED deeming themselves inferior to submitting to domination, when their other choice is to die.

When I called you on it, this last post is your totally off the wall response that totally avoids the issue?

The dead tree stump outside my door has more sense than you do.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 24 2010, 02:48 AM)
Oh horsepucky.

To which YOU replied:

QUOTE (LITT+)
that is the traditional way that people ended up in slavery. After a war, the survivors on the losing side could either choose to die or submit to domination

So you EQUATED deeming themselves inferior to submitting to domination, when their other choice is to die.

When I called you on it, this last post is your totally off the wall response that totally avoids the issue?

The dead tree stump outside my door has more sense than you do.

Arthur

So where is the logical inconsistency, exactly?
The only logical inconsistancy is that I knew you were a crank and yet I responded to your post.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 24 2010, 04:34 AM)
The only logical inconsistancy is that I knew you were a crank and yet I responded to your post.

Instead of insulting me with ad hominem attacks, you could just admit that you are afraid to explore your logic because you're uncomfortable with the possibility you haven't thought your position through well enough to avoid logical problems and misreasoning.
occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 10:25 PM)
I believe that is the traditional way that people ended up in slavery.  After a war, the survivors on the losing side could either choose to die or submit to domination by the victors.

Yes, the traditional way people ended up as slaves was often after wars, which you covered when you said:

QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 23 2010, 05:28 PM)
no, slavery comes when some people define themselves as superior and therefore worthy of being served by others they deem inferior.

But then you went on to say:
QUOTE
Sometimes it happens when people deem themselves inferior and therefore only worthy of service to others.

So again meem, Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Sometimes it happens when people deem themselves inferior and therefore only worthy of service to others.

So again meem, Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?

If you recall my original post that raised this topic of superiority/inferiority, I was saying that people should get over the ego-issue of superiority and inferiority altogether.  I don't believe in inferior/superior status.  I believe in constructive interaction.

Now youre just trying to justify your sick believe that slavery is ok. Clearly youre the one who has failed to explore your faulty logic. You must be uncomfortable that you haven't thought your position through well enough to avoid logical problems and misreasoning.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 24 2010, 04:32 PM)
So again meem, Do you have an example of people who deem themselves inferior making a choice to become slaves?

Maybe this is a difficult psycho-social phenomenon for you to comprehend. Inferiority/superiority is a status, and artificial construct used to label people by themselves and/or others. War or other forms of fighting are often used to construct people's status as superior or inferior, in order to produce relations of domination and submission. Therefore violence is used as a means to get people to deem themselves inferior and submit to slavery. Ever heard of "crying uncle?"

QUOTE
Now youre just trying to justify your sick believe that slavery is ok.  Clearly youre the one who has failed to explore your faulty logic.  You must be uncomfortable that you haven't thought your position through well enough to avoid logical problems and misreasoning.

I think slavery is terrible. I think what's worse is that in the modern discourse of wage-labor, the idea of slavery is used as a decoy for coercion and domination in the "free" labor market. So, while similar tactics of domination through economic defeat and socialization into self-inferiority through education are used to incite a servant-ethic in people, these people are ideologized into accepting that their service is 100% voluntary because slavery is securely contained within the past and a few atrocious modern instances.

If you are against slavery, the most fruitful approach to take would be to look at all forms of service-labor as varying degrees of slavery. That way, you can pursue a long term strategy of progressive liberation. If you think that the end of slavery took place with the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment, then you effectively wash your hands of any concern with coercion and manipulation in labor markets.

Slavery is not ok, but Moses was doing the right thing by recognizing it among the people and attempting to regulate it in the interest of ethical relations and treatment of slaves. Translating Mosaic laws on slave (mis)treatment into modern terms, you would basically get protections against workplace abuse and harassment.

I think I went farther into the topic of slavery than was really called for in this thread, but I don't enjoy being strawmanned as a supporter of slavery when it's something that deeply concerns me.
occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 24 2010, 04:55 PM)

I think slavery is terrible.  I think what's worse is that in the modern discourse of wage-labor, the idea of slavery is used as a decoy for coercion and domination in the "free" labor market.  ...

I think I went farther into the topic of slavery than was really called for in this thread, but I don't enjoy being strawmanned as a supporter of slavery when it's something that deeply concerns me.

Then you shouldnt have said this:

QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 18 2010, 08:57 PM)

Abuse of slaves is wrong.  Exploitation of slavery is wrong.  But I don't think that slavery in itself is wrong.  Perhaps every slave should have the opportunity to buy their freedom and their own means to live, but how else can they attain those means from those who own them unless they either inherit them, otherwise get them as a gift, or earn them through labor?

Looks like youre backtracking, meem. Again.
Clearly youre the one who has failed to explore your faulty logic. You must be uncomfortable that you haven't thought your position through well enough to avoid logical problems and misreasoning.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 24 2010, 05:02 PM)
Then you shouldnt have said this:

Looks like youre backtracking, meem. Again.
Clearly youre the one who has failed to explore your faulty logic. You must be uncomfortable that you haven't thought your position through well enough to avoid logical problems and misreasoning.

Ok, you got me.

But it comes down to this: Should people be able to barter their services in repayment of a debt?

If they don't, what are the consequences?

If you're ethic is that protection and preservation of life supercedes freedom, then slavery is better than dying upon loss of freedom.

However, should slaves then have the opportunity to achieve freedom? I would say so.

So just because slavery is not wrong as an alternative to death and unbearable suffering, that doesn't mean that its an ideal and something that can be comfortably employed legitimately as a means to prosperity.

light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 24 2010, 05:02 PM)
Then you shouldnt have said this:

Looks like youre backtracking, meem. Again.
Clearly youre the one who has failed to explore your faulty logic. You must be uncomfortable that you haven't thought your position through well enough to avoid logical problems and misreasoning.

Ok, you got me.

But it comes down to this: Should people be able to barter their services in repayment of a debt?

If they don't, what are the consequences?

If you're ethic is that protection and preservation of life supercedes freedom, then slavery is better than dying upon loss of freedom.

However, should slaves then have the opportunity to achieve freedom? I would say so.

Should slaves be treated with decency and otherwise ethically? I would also say yes.

So just because slavery is not wrong as an alternative to death and unbearable suffering, that doesn't mean that its an ideal and something that can be comfortably employed legitimately as a means to prosperity.

occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 24 2010, 05:18 PM)
Ok, you got me.

Yes meem I did.
QUOTE
But it comes down to this:  Should people be able to barter their services in repayment of a debt?
Of course. But work is not the same as slavery, and to equate it like you have been doing is just stupid.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE But it comes down to this:  Should people be able to barter their services in repayment of a debt?
Of course. But work is not the same as slavery, and to equate it like you have been doing is just stupid.
If you're ethic is that protection and preservation of life supercedes freedom, then slavery is better than dying upon loss of freedom.
Yes, Id much prefer a blow to the head than a kick to the groin. But its still wrong and to continue to argue otherwise is typical of your inability to form a reasonable argument.

light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 24 2010, 05:59 PM)
Of course. But work is not the same as slavery, and to equate it like you have been doing is just stupid.

No, work is the basic means of expressing creativity constructively. To submit one's work-power to external control, things get more complicated. The issue is whether one serves another out of free will and love, or whether it is a response to fear and domination. It brings to mind a relevant passage in Thomas A Kempis, Imitation of Christ, where it says that if you submit your labor in service, it should be done wholeheartedly and with a true heart. Can slavery ever be performed wholeheartedly and with a true heart?

QUOTE
Yes, Id much prefer a blow to the head than a kick to the groin.  But its still wrong and to continue to argue otherwise is typical of your inability to form a reasonable argument.

So, in your opinion then, what is the ethical response when a disenfranchized person submits themselves to servitude in exchange for life or mercy? Dismissal?
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 24 2010, 12:59 PM)
Yes meem I did.
Of course. But work is not the same as slavery, and to equate it like you have been doing is just stupid.
Yes, Id much prefer a blow to the head than a kick to the groin. But its still wrong and to continue to argue otherwise is typical of your inability to form a reasonable argument.

While work is not the same as slavery, modern capitalism is based on corporations closely pushing the envelope of just how much they can cheat their employees and customers and get away with it.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 24 2010, 09:44 PM)
While work is not the same as slavery, modern capitalism is based on corporations closely pushing the envelope of just how much they can cheat their employees and customers and get away with it.

I would say that despite the attempt to universalize capitalism as a system of production and trade by free individuals voluntarily for mutual benefit, people still figure out means of coercing labor and exerting relative market control.

Capitalism isn't the cause or the culprit. It's the attempt at a solution despite cultural resistance to economic freedom.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 24 2010, 04:44 PM)
While work is not the same as slavery, modern capitalism is based on corporations closely pushing the envelope of just how much they can cheat their employees and customers and get away with it.

Not necessarily.

And here's the GOOD news.

You can work at ANY company you have the qualifications needed to be hired at.

More good news.

You can start your OWN company and run it the way you want to.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/
http://www.landsnail.com/apple/local/ejob/apple.htm

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 25 2010, 01:38 AM)
Not necessarily.

And here's the GOOD news.

You can work at ANY company you have the qualifications needed to be hired at.

More good news.

You can start your OWN company and run it the way you want to.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/
http://www.landsnail.com/apple/local/ejob/apple.htm

Arthur

You could also indenture yourself to any slave-master who would recognize your qualifications to serve them. I suppose the difference is that you can quit any job, although some employers will avoid hiring your without a good reference from your previous employer.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 24 2010, 08:38 PM)
Not necessarily.

And here's the GOOD news.

You can work at ANY company you have the qualifications needed to be hired at.

More good news.

You can start your OWN company and run it the way you want to.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/
http://www.landsnail.com/apple/local/ejob/apple.htm

Arthur

Unless you are talking about a lemonade stand, starting your own company typically requires far more money than the average person or family can get through personal finance or loans.

In addition, I'm not a good liar(and don't want to be,) so I probably wouldn't be good at false advertisements, fake warranties with hundreds of loopholes, defrauding employees, or evading taxes like all our "good" capitalist business model is based on...

"Nine out of ten doctors prescribe my product most..." says ten different competing companies...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 24 2010, 08:48 PM)
Unless you are talking about a lemonade stand, starting your own company typically requires far more money than the average person or family can get through personal finance or loans.

In addition, I'm not a good liar(and don't want to be,) so I probably wouldn't be good at false advertisements, fake warranties with hundreds of loopholes, defrauding employees, or evading taxes like all our "good" capitalist business model is based on...

"Nine out of ten doctors prescribe my product most..." says ten different competing companies...

Oh horsepucky.

Here's a number of teenagers who started their own businesses.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusines...usinesses_N.htm

Here's info on Small Business Grants

Here's a list of 2008's most ethical companies.

http://ethisphere.com/wme2008/

Now as you walk into my company, there are two bronze busts, for two of our salesman who died in plane crash, Hinson and Tuck.

And above them is a large plaque that reads:

QUOTE
He who would be greatest, let them be servant to all.

Every year our company President selects one or more employees to receive the Hinson-Tuck award and it is given to those who most exemplify the spirit of that plaque.

Now every year employees submit the names of coworkers along with anecdotes about why the person deserves the nomination.

And then on Hinson-Tuck day, the whole company dresses up in our Sunday best and we start the day in our biggest auditorium, and the families of Hinson and Tuck are present and the president gives us a "state of the company" address, and then proceeds to read some of the nomination letters. And of course most of us quickly understand who is being discussed in the letters, even though the person's name is not mentioned. And the cheering starts.

Finally the person is called up, to a standing ovation (and typically most of their family has been secreted to the location as well, and come up to the stage as well) and they are presented with a small sculpture that honors Hinson and Tuck and they get to say some words and by the end there is not a dry eye in the house.

We then have a great lunch during which we all manage to get around to congratulating the person on their well deserved recognition.

By the time we get back to the office, their name will have been added to the short list of Hinson-Tuck award recipients, which everyone will see from then on as they enter our office.

It's not the Executives.
It's not the Salesman.
It's not the IT gurus

It's the people who work hard every day in the support areas of the business.

Last year our in house travel agent, the person who helps work out all the kinks in our travel plans got it.

And it was richly deserved.

Arthur

Sounds like a great workplace. Places like the one you mention are few and far between.
In my experience most companies care about their emploees even if it is only for self interest.

Finding, hiring and training good employees is expensive so any company wants to do what it takes to retain them.

Of course a company has to make money, so every company is limited in its options by its balance sheet.

If you are working for a company that is struggling to stay in the black you can't expect a lot of perks.

Of course this is how many start up companies are for years, and quite often when these companies finally make it, the workers who stick by them can be well rewarded for sticking through the tough times.

If you are dealing with established companies, its usually no surprise that the best companies to work for also have very positive balance sheets.

It is something you should consider when deciding where to work.

What is CLEAR though, is that "false advertisements, fake warranties with hundreds of loopholes, defrauding employees, or evading taxes " is NOT what your typical US company is based on.

Arthur

light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 25 2010, 02:08 PM)
In my experience most companies care about their emploees even if it is only for self interest.

Finding, hiring and training good employees is expensive so any company wants to do what it takes to retain them.

Of course a company has to make money, so every company is limited in its options by its balance sheet.

If you are working for a company that is struggling to stay in the black you can't expect a lot of perks.

Of course this is how many start up companies are for years, and quite often when these companies finally make it, the workers who stick by them can be well rewarded for sticking through the tough times.

If you are dealing with established companies, its usually no surprise that the best companies to work for also have very positive balance sheets.

It is something you should consider when deciding where to work.

What is CLEAR though, is that "false advertisements, fake warranties with hundreds of loopholes, defrauding employees, or evading taxes " is NOT what your typical US company is based on.

Arthur

Do you think that someone who works for a high salary, with good benefits, and other perks designed to retain them are any less slaves, potentially, as people who are intimidated or otherwise dominated into submission?

Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you truly believe in your work and care about what you're doing. Many people are able to convince themselves and others that they do, but the reason they convince themselves is because they are afraid to lose the salary, benefits, and social recognition.

If you want to understand work that is not servitude, the best thing to do is start with the question, "what would this person do completely at the discretion of their own volition?" "What are their values and vision for creating a life for themselves and others?" When people are able to answer these questions and achieve the means to pursue them, they are self-actualizing.

They may be helping or "serving" others, but they are doing so out of their own vision instead of responding to someone else's vision or demand. If they do respond to someone else's vision, they are doing so freely out of interest and not because they know that it will be good for their status among managers and colleagues.

Most people are slaves to status and social judgement, imo, and not self-determined by free volition.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 12:04 PM)
Do you think that someone who works for a high salary, with good benefits, and other perks designed to retain them are any less slaves, potentially, as people who are intimidated or otherwise dominated into submission?

No.
QUOTE
Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you truly believe in your work and care about what you're doing.  Many people are able to convince themselves and others that they do, but the reason they convince themselves is because they are afraid to lose the salary, benefits, and social recognition.

If you're working a salaried position at a job you don't like, it's your own damn fault.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you truly believe in your work and care about what you're doing.  Many people are able to convince themselves and others that they do, but the reason they convince themselves is because they are afraid to lose the salary, benefits, and social recognition.

If you're working a salaried position at a job you don't like, it's your own damn fault.
If you want to understand work that is not servitude, the best thing to do is start with the question, "what would this person do completely at the discretion of their own volition?"  "What are their values and vision for creating a life for themselves and others?"  When people are able to answer these questions and achieve the means to pursue them, they are self-actualizing.

There are many many professionals in this world who are doing exactly what they want to do. It takes time and dedication to reach a professional level in any industry, if they wanted to bail, they could have done so already.
QUOTE
They may be helping or "serving" others, but they are doing so out of their own vision instead of responding to someone else's vision or demand.  If they do respond to someone else's vision, they are doing so freely out of interest and not because they know that it will be good for their status among managers and colleagues.

Business is a meritocracy. If you are in the position to make important decisions, it's because you have a reputation of making GOOD decisions.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE They may be helping or "serving" others, but they are doing so out of their own vision instead of responding to someone else's vision or demand.  If they do respond to someone else's vision, they are doing so freely out of interest and not because they know that it will be good for their status among managers and colleagues.

Business is a meritocracy. If you are in the position to make important decisions, it's because you have a reputation of making GOOD decisions.
Most people are slaves to status and social judgement, imo, and not self-determined by free volition.

This makes me begin to suspect that you work in middle management.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 12:04 PM)
Do you think that someone who works for a high salary, with good benefits, and other perks designed to retain them are any less slaves, potentially, as people who are intimidated or otherwise dominated into submission?

Probably one of the dumbest things you have ever posted, and the bar was already set at a damn high level.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 25 2010, 05:33 PM)
Probably one of the dumbest things you have ever posted, and the bar was already set at a damn high level.

Arthur

Did you actually think about this post before responding or did the inertia of your ego propel you directly into intuitive rejection as a result of your uncritical assumptions about why people do the work they do?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 01:30 PM)
Did you actually think about this post before responding or did the inertia of your ego propel you directly into intuitive rejection as a result of your uncritical assumptions about why people do the work they do?

It was a really dumb statement. You made a statement based solely on your own opinions of other people. Unfortunately for you, it was dead wrong.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 01:30 PM)
Did you actually think about this post before responding or did the inertia of your ego propel you directly into intuitive rejection as a result of your uncritical assumptions about why people do the work they do?

I've gone back and thought about it again, and it's clear to me that you are totally clueless.

To equate a person who is paid a high salary, benefits and extra perks so that he will remain in the company's employ to a slave who is dominated into submission, is frankly one of the dumbest things you have posted.

You know why it is so dumb?

Well you put it in the qualifications yourself.

QUOTE
works for a high salary, with good benefits, and other perks designed to retain them

Which means not only is the person well compensated for their efforts but the person is FREE to leave whenever they want.

Hence they are the exact opposite of a slave.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 25 2010, 06:46 PM)

I've gone back and thought about it again, and it's clear to me that you are totally clueless.

To equate a person who is paid a high salary, benefits and extra perks so that he will remain in the company's employ to a slave who is dominated into submission, is frankly one of the dumbest things you have posted.

You know why it is so dumb?

Well you put it in the qualifications yourself.

Which means not only is the person well compensated for their efforts but the person is FREE to leave whenever they want.

Hence they are the exact opposite of a slave.

Arthur

No, the exact opposite of a slave is someone who is the master of their own labor. Not a highly privileged and coddled house slave.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 06:09 PM)
No, the exact opposite of a slave is someone who is the master of their own labor. Not a highly privileged and coddled house slave.

QUOTE
slave
Pronunciation: \ˈslāv\
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

Merriam Webster
The key words there are "held," "servitude," "chattel" and "subservient."
None of them apply to a salaried employee. An employee can leave whenever he/she wants, and only stays on the condition that his/her employer delivers the promised compensation for services rendered.

LITT, you had a shining moment a couple of days ago. I had hoped that it would be a sign of things to come. It wasn't.
occidental
Im starting to believe Meem has someone locked in his basement.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 25 2010, 11:22 PM)

Merriam Webster
The key words there are "held," "servitude," "chattel" and "subservient."
None of them apply to a salaried employee. An employee can leave whenever he/she wants, and only stays on the condition that his/her employer delivers the promised compensation for services rendered.

LITT, you had a shining moment a couple of days ago. I had hoped that it would be a sign of things to come. It wasn't.

Slavery is defined in a way that legitimates semi-voluntary forms of labor, which may well be coerced or alienated in various ways.

Of course you can define slavery narrowly and then celebrate freedom in the free market place, but it is slightly naive.

I gave a clear definition of the opposite of a slave as a person who is master of her/his own labor. Wage labor falls somewhere in between.
occidental
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 11:28 PM)
Slavery is defined in a way that legitimates semi-voluntary forms of labor, which may well be coerced or alienated in various ways.

So now youre just going to make up your own definitions to fit your argument? Talk about pure academic fraud. Isnt that what got you banned last time?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 06:28 PM)
Slavery is defined in a way that legitimates semi-voluntary forms of labor, which may well be coerced or alienated in various ways.

LOL! SEMI-voluntary? That's an insult to victims of slavery. You can't make up your own definitions.
QUOTE
Of course you can define slavery narrowly and then celebrate freedom in the free market place, but it is slightly naive.

I defined slavery CORRECTLY, and you rejected it.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Of course you can define slavery narrowly and then celebrate freedom in the free market place, but it is slightly naive.

I defined slavery CORRECTLY, and you rejected it.
I gave a clear definition of the opposite of a slave as a person who is master of her/his own labor.  Wage labor falls somewhere in between.

"Master of your own labor" doesn't mean squat. Unfortunately for you, there's no handy dictionary definition for that made-up term. When I consent to work for an employer, I am effectively signing a contract that says that I will render my services 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and they will provide me with monetary compensation. I can end that contract at any time.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 25 2010, 11:34 PM)
So now youre just going to make up your own definitions to fit your argument? Talk about pure academic fraud. Isnt that what got you banned last time?

I'm not making up definitions. I'm explaining that definitions make it possible to approximate the thing defined, while escaping formal labeling as such.

This is what bothered me so much during the torture discussions, where the Bush administration people were being insisted to define torture. You know that once a formal definition is recorded, a bazillion different methods for torturing people will be devised that escape formal definition as torture.

Defining slavery works the same way. There are a bazillion ways people can be coerced or manipulated into performing labor for someone else without it being in their interest or self-determination. So defining slavery in narrow terms allows all other forms of labor coercion and manipulation to be defined as "not slavery" and therefore as freely negotiated.

Without specifying old or new definitions, can we at least agree that not all forms of "free labor" are the product of individual self-determination? Not every employee is a master of their own labor, are they?
occidental
You come across as the quintessential whiny american filled with delusions of entitlement. So when your job isnt self-actualizing enough for your tastes, youll just redefine yourself as a slave. Poor you.

Try telling that to the kid in China who's spending 18 hours a day making shoes for nike.

flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 06:47 PM)
This is what bothered me so much during the torture discussions, where the Bush administration people were being insisted to define torture. You know that once a formal definition is recorded, a bazillion different methods for torturing people will be devised that escape formal definition as torture.

Torture has a definition:
QUOTE
torture:
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Merriam Webster
The Bush admin decided to ignore that definition and re-define torture in a way that suited them. In essence, they did what you are doing right now.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 26 2010, 12:12 AM)
You come across as the quintessential whiny american filled with delusions of entitlement. So when your job isnt self-actualizing enough for your tastes, youll just redefine yourself as a slave. Poor you.

Try telling that to the kid in China who's spending 18 hours a day making shoes for nike.

You're falling into ego-management mode.

I'm actually more a master of my own labor than most. And I'm not 100% sure that slavery isn't more fulfilling than free labor.

But, yes, you are right that some workers have it better than others. This is why I mentioned the term, "house slave" as opposed to "field slave."

There has always been variation in classes and levels of privilege among slaves.

When you're focussed on the dichotomy, free/slave, it can divert your attention from the finer distinctions among those whose labor is subservience.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 06:09 PM)
No, the exact opposite of a slave is someone who is the master of their own labor.  Not a highly privileged and coddled house slave.

NOPE

The DEFINING difference is the FREEDOM of choice.

The person you described earlier CHOOSES to work where they do, is well compensated for their efforts, and is also FREE to leave whenever they want.

But a SLAVE has NO CHOICE where to work, what to do and is clearly not FREE to leave, even if he gets to work in the house instead of the fields.

Once again you show that you are not only clueless, but also morally bankrupt, particularly in your choice of the phrase "coddled house slave".

Pathetic.

Arthur
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 26 2010, 02:58 AM)
NOPE

The DEFINING difference is the FREEDOM of choice.

The person you described earlier CHOOSES to work where they do, is well compensated for their efforts, and is also FREE to leave whenever they want.

But a SLAVE has NO CHOICE where to work, what to do and is clearly not FREE to leave, even if he gets to work in the house instead of the fields.

Once again you show that you are not only clueless, but also morally bankrupt, particularly in your choice of the phrase "coddled house slave".

Pathetic.

Arthur

Ever read the book, Green Eggs and Ham?

You get lots of choices about where and how, but you end up having to eat them.

That's how people end up in semi-voluntary work situations. I won't call it slavery, because you do have a point, but you're avoiding the issue of how this type of work compares with self-determination and mastery of one's own labor.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jan 25 2010, 11:34 PM)
Ever read the book, Green Eggs and Ham?

You get lots of choices about where and how, but you end up having to eat them.

That's how people end up in semi-voluntary work situations. I won't call it slavery, because you do have a point, but you're avoiding the issue of how this type of work compares with self-determination and mastery of one's own labor.

What makes it impossible to choose homelessness?

If there's a choice, it's not slavery. Even if the choice is undesirable, it's still a choice.
occidental
I guess Meem wants us to all be hunter/gatherers again. That way we can focus all our energy on being self determined and masters of our own labor as we struggle to find food.

flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 26 2010, 10:32 AM)
I guess Meem wants us to all be hunter/gatherers again. That way we can focus all our energy on being self determined and masters of our own labor as we struggle to find food.

Why are you so certain that LITT is Meem?
occidental
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 26 2010, 03:37 PM)
Why are you so certain that LITT is Meem?

Because nobody else could match his moronic mix of science and religious dogma.

flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 26 2010, 10:44 AM)
Because nobody else could match his moronic mix of science and religious dogma.

There is a mix, but I would say that Meem was much more obnoxiously self-confident than LITT. Meem also had the habit of posting random news articles and quoting bad movies as if they were profound. Meem was a crank-enabler.

LITT, on the other hand, is kind of a hippie. He (?) imagines that there are no absolutes, no facts, only opinions. He thinks that god "exists" because people want god to exist. He also spouts a childish form of Communism by insisting that capitalism isn't fair without offering any realistic alternatives that don't infringe on human rights. He's also a smug environmentalist, boasting about how good he is about reducing emissions and conserving energy, and insisting that everyone else do the same.
occidental
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 26 2010, 04:04 PM)
There is a mix, but I would say that Meem was much more obnoxiously self-confident than LITT. Meem also had the habit of posting random news articles and quoting bad movies as if they were profound. Meem was a crank-enabler.

LITT, on the other hand, is kind of a hippie. He (?) imagines that there are no absolutes, no facts, only opinions. He thinks that god "exists" because people want god to exist. He also spouts a childish form of Communism by insisting that capitalism isn't fair without offering any realistic alternatives that don't infringe on human rights. He's also a smug environmentalist, boasting about how good he is about reducing emissions and conserving energy, and insisting that everyone else do the same.

Yeap, just like meem.

I agree he's toned it down since his meem account got banned, but its meem. Theres other things, like his belief that every thought that pops into his head is sacred, or his love of the Matrix.
light in the tunnel
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jan 26 2010, 03:25 PM)
What makes it impossible to choose homelessness?

If there's a choice, it's not slavery. Even if the choice is undesirable, it's still a choice.

It's not impossible, but that doesn't automatically make everyone who does salaried work a master of their own labor.

Plus, homelessness doesn't provide access to the means to express ones labor freely. One must usually negotiate use of some form of property to be able to labor as one pleases.

Most people who master their own labor are only able to do so by selling a certain amount of their time to an employer. Thus, by slaving in exchange for money, they become able to invest their money in labor projects of their own self-determination.