I'll have to take your word for it, because, like I said, I'm no math guy, but I see we start with 2 people and end up with 16 in four generations. What am I missing?

if each parent has two children, the growth rate should stay stagnant. — god must be atheist

I will stipulate to being a math dummy, even among Americans, I am a dummy. But if a woman and man replicate themselves with two kids who grow and each have two kids (grandkids) and they grow and each have two grand kids before the original mom and dad die, haven't we had exponential growth?

Forget right or wrong, long or good odds, just asking what are the different scenarios people have come up with so far:

1. Negligent animal to human;
2. Negligent weapon research lab to human;
3. Negligent health research lab to human;
4. Intentional weapon research lab to human;
5. Intentional false flag operation;
6. Other?

I can understand why people might be concerned about an intentional release, but other than a change in animal-market or virus lab protocols to prevent this from happening again, why would anyone care? Is this all about finger-pointing? I have not followed this and really don't know what the scoop is. I just see a lot of people discussing it. That's cool, I guess, as long as it doesn't take any wind out of the health care response.

When one gives up smoking, or the ghost, who does one give it to? — unenlightened

When one takes a shit, who does one take it from?

Are you grateful for these gratuities or not? — 180 Proof

I try to be. I've been trying harder lately, but it's a tough row to hoe for a stick in the mud like me. I've heard it's gets easier as you do it. Come on, Nelly!

Here's an example of Trumpette thinking: If they suffer a purge due to their threating and intimidating of legislators and their families, they will go all snowflake and compare it to Stalin and his purges. They bring shit on themselves and then cry when consequences come.

Granted, some Republicans are actually full-on Trump, but not all. Those who are smart, yet stick with him can't all be playing for votes from the base. Some of them are in fear for their lives and family. That shit right there is unsat. I won't shed any tears if they suffer the worst when found out. The only question is, are they so insinuated into the investigative authorities (or judiciary) that nothing happens.

Leadership is on you, Biden.

Wouldn't someone have to go away before you could miss them? My flag would say "Go away and let's see!"

Under many black codes freed men weren't allowed to bear arms, — NOS4A2

It's my understanding Ronald Reagan first championed gun control in CA in response to black folks packing guns at rallies and occupations. Gun control is evil, unless it means black folks. Then it's okay. Guns seemed to have worked for some blacks in the 50s and 60s. Read "Negros With Guns" by Robert F. Williams, 1962. Apparently him and MLK had some back and forth.

I think it is as worthy of questioning as systems of slavery, feudalism, and caste. — Xtrix

I agree. I just don't think the pure form has ever been tried. The original efforts to lure ill-gotten gains out from under the beds in the castles and into the merchant markets for investment capital, was profit-making's and speculation's foot in the door. That could be corrected through the imposition of personal responsibility that these grifters like to blab about.

I think collective bargaining is a great idea, but so long as capital can run over seas to take advantage of communist (or other non-democratic) labor, then it can't work. The labor supply reduces demand and lowers the value.

But yeah, along with severe questioning, I think it could be tried, if only to shut up the self-identified (but disingenuous) proponents of something they have no clue about. Showing the king has no cloths might actually push more people in your direction.

But that is not what it means now. — Andrew4Handel

Because the right is so adept at what it does. See flag. See "liberal". See "American". See "patriot."

That and the fact that the left does not stand up on it's hind legs. They eat themselves instead.

I just love irony. But if they were Conservative values, I question whether Conservative values exist anymore here in God's Favorite Country. — Ciceronianus the White

:100:

Even if they did, they are now inextricably married to the company they keep. They had a chance to divorce, but alas, Liz Cheney was thrown under the bus and the marriage with racism and fascism was consummated. I suppose she could have rescued the values with an inappropriate objection, but she failed.

I can see her calling a press conference, or going on Faux News, walking out and saying "Donald John Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar." Then she grabs her crotch and says "I've got bigger balls than any of the little bitches that vote for him. Fuck off!" Then dropping the mic and walking away.

Or better yet, challenge Trump to a cage match. Tell him "If it weren't for the laws against it, I'd challenge you to a duel, kill you on Fifth Avenue, and no one would give a shit, you little pussy."

Those are the kind of theatrics that the new conservative loves. Pop corn and all that. But alas:

. . . absurdity and stupidity don't seem, to be a worthy goals of philosophy. — Ciceronianus the White

/

Crash mass consumption — 180 Proof

Sounds intractable. Somewhat off topic, and fiction, but have you ever seen "Captain Fantastic" 2016? I always recommend people not read reviews, but if you want to kill a few hours, it's fun.

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why. — Baden

:100:

ourse Friedman was too clever not to see this — Xtrix

Yep, they all are. And they are smart enough to fool the stupid people into thinking they are a bunch of self-made, risk-taking, boot-strapping captains of daring-do; wild stallions running free and creating jobs and tech (they suck off of publicly funded universities) and blessing us with their hard and smart work ethic. "Look at me! You can be like me too! Just work harder and smarter, like (for) me! I will trickle it down to you!" And working class, conservative Republicans swallow that shit, hook, line and sinker: willing to die for them.

True capitalism would be great. It's just that all the self-described capitalists are "Socialism for me, capitalism for you."

it always allows proponents to claim we need more actions to get closer to that ideal in order to see the promised results — Xtrix

And it is on that point where I don't know why the opposition has not called them on it: "You want true capitalism? Okay, no more government sanction/recognition of the corporation. You are all now strictly, jointly and severally liable for your actions. Sound good? You now have to pay others for the costs you impose upon them. Sound good? No more statutory limits on liability. Sound good? No more tax exemptions. Sound good? You want to use the commons, then you pay fair market value. Sound good? No? What's the matter? I thought you wanted government out of the way? How's about you are prohibited from benefiting from communism, dictatorships and other 'emerging markets'?"

I could go on, but you get the picture. True capitalism, which they claim they want, would crush them. They are a bunch of government tit-sucking hypocrites and true capitalism would show them for the cowards they are. Show me a true risk-taking, bootstrapper who did everything on his own and I'll kiss Ayn Rand's dead ass.

Reasonable people can come to the table and agree it would be nice to free up cowardly held capital for investment by providing limitations on liability, etc. But the so-called "capitalists" should first post a bond and promise to refrain from whining like a little bitch about the paltry taxes placed on their winnings to cover a fraction of the damages they impose on society, and to build the infrastructure they use. They should also be precluded from whining about regulations designed to protect them from each other and to protect the citizens from them.

But somehow the left has let them turn the narrative, steal our flag, and turn "liberal" into a dirty word. I guess if we allow that, we deserve it.

End rant

I'd prefer to see much quicker reaction and, ultimately, the overthrowing of corporatism (and capitalism) altogether, in favor of real democracy (i.e., extending to the workplace as well) -- but I'm also a pragmatist. — Xtrix

Personally, I don't think capitalism is the problem. The problem is self-described capitalists who externalize the costs of their activities onto those who have not agreed to assume those costs in a knowing, arm's length, free-market transaction. That, and the ownership of the state by corporations, resulting in limits on liability, and shareholders being protected from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions. All this hiding behind the skirts of big government is inimical to true capitalism. They also avail themselves of artificially low prices for goods, services and labor provided by their communist and dictatorial/junta partners-in-crime over seas. And tax loopholes. In short, they are parasites.

at or beyond a critical threshold, — 180 Proof

Where/when do you think that break point is?

aggregately decoupling the means of consumption from the means of production. — 180 Proof

I'm having a little brain lock-up on that one. Can you give me an example of when that might have been, past or present, as a reference? Would that just be when we used to make and consume everything on site, ourselves?

It feels that the whole internet is now just a bunch of people taking offense at something. — Andrew4Handel

So much so that I feel uncomfortable, out of sorts, when someone agrees with me. It must be a trick, right? Or sarcasm? What am I to do if I can't take offense, or if I have not offended?

It may seem foreign to the well adjusted, but I must work on accepting peace, a compliment, good will.

Yes this does make a lot of sense. I suppose that regardless of whether or not the exitance of an object can be "checked" or not, doesn't change the fact that it did exist. — Bradaction

It’s a fur piece from the Vishnu Schist to the distal twist. Climbing from the depths of the Grand Canyon to the tip of a bison horn will cover some miles of vertical distance, and one thousand seven hundred fifty million years.

And from this are missing tens of millions of years of steps on this Grand Staircase below Escalante. It’s entirely possible that everything we know has come and gone, several times, and left no trace. Hell, there was the “Ancestral Rockies”, a mountain range arose and reduced to a sea which lay where my Rocky Mountains now stand. Again. How do you wrap your brain around that? How do you look at these granite peaks and see them melting rapidly away, like an ice cream cone on a hot summer side walk? How do you see that continental crust, that sidewalk, and the countless trillions of tons of rock above it? How do you see that as light and fluffy, floating on a magma sea? The oceanic crust is too heavy to support us. It lies beneath the waves.

How do we know there was no creature before us, better than us, smarter and more artsy? We don’t. We don’t know schist.

Well, what my question is getting at is what, exactly, is claimed? And before anything can be claimed as stolen, it must first be determined what was stolen. — tim wood

An idea I like to play with is air. I personally think that while I don't own all the air, I own that which I inhale; at least until I exhale it. So, if an individual, a corporation, a state or a state-sanctioned entity pumps poison into the air, and I can't breath without getting some of that poison, has there been a theft of clean air to breathe? Or am I only entitled to my last breath, and not the next one?

The state is only a consequence of the development of technique (being a technique in itself). — darthbarracuda

I think you may be right, but I am saddened by the thought of politicians constituting a beneficial technique; especially the conniving ones. Those that have the technique down tend to dominate and last like herpes.

Who let the dogs out? That is a legitimate question, the answer to which can inform future action. But in the meantime, I'll not stop anyone who's out shooting and killing the dogs before they start packing up and running deer, cattle, or anything else.

Don't let the origination issue inform the wearing of masks, distancing, cleaning, or vaxxing. Even if a bad actor was a vax company who released it to make sales, take the vax and deal with the perp later. Likewise a lab release or other nefarious activity.

As to the Facebook thing, what were the lab theory people saying that would slow the roll on masking, distancing or vaxxing? Or was it just an environment so polluted with BS from the likes of POTUS that FB over-reacted and started shutting down everything out of an abundance of caution? If the latter, then, while calling out FB, it might be a good thing to remember what might happen when slinging shit in tweets.

I don't know; the whole "War on Christmas" thing seems pretty convincing to me. Maybe we are out to get them. :wink:

By that test, I'm not very woke. :sad: :smirk: :grin:

We are likely just boringly representative of the clever and the charming. — Baden

Well, as Stephen Colbert said, ". . .reality has a well-known liberal bias."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who wants to say something, but feels put-upon, censored, or PC'd out of a conversation, will have a number of angles from which to approach the same idea in a way that will let them through the door. The only thing that limits them is their lack of creativity, analytic thought, and reasoning ability.

If it's argued that they should be able to express themselves in the manner they choose, no matter how crude, stupid, pre-judgmental or offensive, then the response to that is this: Consequences. Others have the same right to shit on you. Don't like it? Tough. Quit being a fucking snowflake.

But here's an idea: Sit down, pencil and paper in hand. Think, strategize, formulate, and then write down honest questions from a sincere seat of curiosity. Then ask those questions. No body here, or anywhere else, is going to make you, or ask you to drink hemlock, simply because you asked honest questions. And make no mistake, asking questions will get across any point you have to make much better and more persuasively than simply blathering about things like racial superiority, the benefits of slavery, "the final solution" or whatever "philosophy" you think you hold. It will work better than trying to shift a burden of proof to those who think you are a POS, and who don't have the burden of making your case for you.

But yeah, can't figure out how to stay in the game? Consequences. It's evolution, taking out the trash.

It seems as individuals grow more powerless, alignment to states and political parties and ideologies becomes a means of satiating their will to power. — Tzeentch

I read a persuasive article some time ago, postulating that we would soon have to side with the Plutocracy or cartels. Both of those entities would permit the continuance of government to basically serve as a punching bag, or outlet for rage against the real source of the people's problems. Both would, through charity/philanthropy, take care of many good things, while letting government do the dirty jobs. I think we are almost there, especially when the plutocracy owns the government. We better take it back or suffer the consequences.

So, you think those wars for freedom were fought to protect your liberty and not those you disagree with. — T Clark

Yes. I think those wars were fought to free slaves and slaughter racists and fascists murders. I don't want them to have liberty.

P.S. I'm not a big fan of monarchs, religious states, dictators, et al, either.

I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this discussion. — T Clark

Could be.

I think there is a direct relationship between statism and population.

If you're saying that because others restrict speech we think is valid, we should do the same, I disagree. — T Clark

I don't think we should restrict speech we think is valid. I think we should restrict speech we think is invalid, regardless of what they think. I'm saying you don't want to bring a flower to a gun fight.

And really, my gun analogy is too early and too late. The opposition we currently fear, and the champions of their right to speak (you?) should thank their lucky stars I'm just talking about shunning, banning, marginalizing, pushing back under the fridge and into the darkness, and de-platforming. It's a shame they were not all slaughtered during the Civil War and WWII when the guns were out. Now we dishonor the memory of those who did all the hard work by allowing these people to crawl back out from under the fridge. That's what flowers will get us.

hat's pretty much the argument used whenever speech is censored by those in power. — T Clark

The fact that evil can use a gun does not mean that goodness should forgo the use.

P.S. Unless and until we educate to the point where falsehood becomes a point of humor, entertainment, or parable, we'd do well to license and prohibit.

How can "property," correctly understood, be theft? — tim wood

I think a lot hinges upon the words "correctly understood" and "theft." If we are to limit our consideration to law or other norms, then it is easy to argue that property is not necessarily theft. However, if "property" is anything held, or withheld then we must ask "held by whom" and "withheld from whom"? (Not too sure about my use of the word "whom" but you get the idea.)

In answering the first question, we should ask, how did they come into ownership of it? And how did their predecessor in interest come into possession of it, and the person before that? In answering the second question, we should ask what claim does that party have to it? And is that claim reasonable?

And then there is the nature of the "property" itself. If it is free and abundant, there is no need for the consideration of property. Those from which it is withheld would lay not claim, because they have "their" own. But if it is limited and expensive, then work must be undertaken to gain ownership of it. If the work involves taking, with only might as a justification, then a claimant might reasonably argue it was "theft."

The law and other norms like to provide a limitation on actions and other fictions in order to avoid the messy process of tracing an origination of ownership back to a point of "harmless" obtaining of possession, and the consequent "ownership." But if we don't run from that business and take on the challenge, I think it is reasonable to argue that all property is theft. It all was originally taken from someone or something that would otherwise have shared in it's use. That would include non-human entities. Their weakness and inability to resist our work cannot reasonably be distinguished from a certain person's weakness or inability to resist. Does weakness or inability to resist grant good title?

That brings my mind back to legal fictions, like "first in time, first in right" and "possession is 9/10ths of the law" and adverse possession, condemnation, etc. All variables on the notion of "might makes right." In the end, theft successfully executed results in property. Some criminals have succeeded to the point of going respectable. But it was still theft. Even their "innocent" heirs stand on theft.

Just thinking out loud.

It might be incorrect to say humanity ever existed, but a lie would require intent to deceive. In either case, a perceiver is required. As to something having no effect, I liken it to the butterfly effect. Everything has an effect. Even nothing has an effect. The ultimate effect, the cumulative effect, of all effects might be the end of the universe and all perception. But if the absence of the universe is like the tree in the forest, then by definition, there will never be nothing to not hear. The "checking" is not determinative of an objects existence. The universe, as a checker, is not the measure of all things. It simply is, and as such, the nothingness exists now. A = -A.

I once wrote a story about a species of mouse that had much wisdom and would share it with any who would listen. It happened to live in bison skulls. When humans wiped out the bison, the mouse species went extinct. Much of what we want to know is gone. I was not lying. The cure for cancer is in that plant rendered extinct in the clear-cutting of the Amazon Rain Forest. That man we executed for murder was innocent. That which never existed, did, and does. That which exists, doesn't, and never was. All these things are correct. And not. The singularity, the pre-singularity, and the heat death are all one. And not.

Never heard of it and I don't think this diminishes me. There are lots of things I don't care know about. — Tom Storm

:100:

I would also add: Israel, having the benefit of history, may be hoping that the Palestinians will eventually just "accept" the way things are. But the Palestinians likewise have the benefit of history and are probably hell-bent on making sure that doesn't happen.

Second, regarding "conquering" nations/ethnicities/states, it should be remembered that they often incorporate a lot of the blood and culture they "conquer". Out where I'm at, Spanish, Mexican and Native American culture and blood are integrated into much of American culture and blood, just as western-European blood and culture is into them. It's kind of a melting pot. Even the laws out west (community property states) have Spanish/Mexican history. Don't get me started on food and place names and dances and holidays and etc.

I heard one time that the Christmas Tree and some dates were just Rome bending to the locals up north, and here we are, thinking Jesus was born on December 25th. So it's not an either/or situation.

The main point was me trying to point out that "the West" is basically an ethnic history as well. There is no The West and "ethnic history". — schopenhauer1

I tried parsing that and can only say you must be saying the first is conjunctive and the second disjunctive, with the first being correct and the second not? Okay. I can see why I have a hard time understanding you. But that's on me.

The rest is just that Real Politick I was talking about, especially this:

after they conquered them and people just "accepted" the way things are. — schopenhauer1

First read the back and forth in the OP, and if you can, rephrase in your mind what you think the main contention is. — schopenhauer1

I had originally done just that, and just did it again. I don't have an argument with any or it, from you or Judaka. Had I an issue, I would have argued it. My only issue was point 3 and what I perceived to be my rephrasing of it, which you objected to.

That Western history is no different than other "ethnic" history. It IS "ethnic" history. And we can argue all day on ethnic vs. national, if you want. When one culture is definitely "different" than another we can talk about ethnic differences for sure.. We can rename it "national policy" if you want. — schopenhauer1

Right, nations with a state.. not nations being violent, that's all. — schopenhauer1

We must be talking past each other. I fail to see how the distinction between an ethnicity or nation with a state is a relevant difference from those without a state. Being a state, with or without a monolithic ethnicity or nation vs simply being a stateless nation or ethnicity makes no difference in my mind with respect to the analysis I provided. The ethical/moral implications of action or failure to act are the same.

Here's why I thought it was you:

I find it funny that "Western" nations only accept other nations as long as they participated in the idea of "nations with a state" (nationalism) that persisted from the 1600s-1900s. Any peoples outside this time lost their window to do this. Also odd. — schopenhauer1

My response goes to why that is not funny or odd.

Not on whether Israel's violence is justified. It's a bit of a dick move to accuse me of that. — schopenhauer1

If it wasn't you, I apologize. I must have conflated this thread with the Israel thread and other threads where some wag kept harping on the the idea I laid out, above. Something like "it was okay then, but now, all of a sudden, it's a no-go." I took my stated implication from that. Again, if it wasn't you, my bust.

I still think Israel is justified — schopenhauer1

No more justified than those they oppress. Just so we're clear.

I mean, ethnicity is more than purely biology.. It's a culture, habits, behaviors, and a way of life. — schopenhauer1

I'm not arguing with that. An ethnicity could be war-like, slave-owning, clitoris-cutting, pillaging, burning and raping. Or it could be all touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, kumbaya. I guess, outside of my response to what I mistakenly thought you were saying, what's the point here?