imagine

[Dota_Monk]

Why the fuck do canadians care, worry about your own socialist country.

Anyways, Ron Paul has VERY GOOD beliefs, but also VERY BAD ones. He ran as a Libertarian in 08, and switched to GOP for this election in hopes to gain more votes. His ideals are very radical, but he's the only one that has a plan to do something about this torn economy.

I'm more likely to vote Romney though since he's more moderate.

do you know wat socialism is ROFL. BTW CONSERVATIVES usually don't control "socialist" countries smart one.

[Uohz]

your choice of the word amusing was unnecessary. interesting would have sufficed.

pray tell why you disagree and whether it be from a rational or emotional origin

neither 'interesting' nor 'amusing' are really necessary.

rational origin. i have no emotional attachment to kant, having never met him. i don't think your analysis is verifiable or intellectually honest, and i don't think it accounts for what i perceive to be tremendous philosophical merit in kant's works. you can accord his ethics to his upbringing if you want, but that's not an argument against them being true. i think this deference to animalistic instincts is, to be frank, far more juvenile than idealism ever will be.

well i agree with a few things u said there disagree in sum

its true that my analysis is not verifiable in the sense that the sourness of grapes out of reach is not verifiable. most psychoanalysis is of this vein. intellectually honest though? yes. kant has merit and was a smart guy no doubt but the spine of his ethics is garbage. everything wrong and contorted he wrote came from bending over backwards to justify his ethics. where ethics wasnt the issue, he mostly did good work. animalism is certainly more juvenile than idealism in the sense that babies are more juvenile than adolescents but not in the sense that adolescents are more juvenile than adults. it is interesting that old people are more like babies than those in between. adults are just overgrown children who have conditioned themselves to the farce of civility and then came believe it to be true. but if you examine how people act, rather than what they say, im sure you will find that humans are more animalistic than they pretend to be. here on the internet people are more savage and more honest because there are no serious consequences from behind the keyboard (a consequentialist judgement btw). idealism is an emotional construct for ego feeding and a luxury for those who live in incubation, as in those who have never known any real struggle for survivability. prolonged idealism sublimates into masochism, in the sense that a marathon runner who is no good at winning, runs with no shoes (a self imposed handicap) so as to give himself an excuse for not winning the race. there are also links here to underlying religiousity, more specifically what nietszche calls slave morality, even in atheists.

if that didnt blow your mind, u didnt understand it

holla

[Zigrakil]

your choice of the word amusing was unnecessary. interesting would have sufficed.

pray tell why you disagree and whether it be from a rational or emotional origin

neither 'interesting' nor 'amusing' are really necessary.

rational origin. i have no emotional attachment to kant, having never met him. i don't think your analysis is verifiable or intellectually honest, and i don't think it accounts for what i perceive to be tremendous philosophical merit in kant's works. you can accord his ethics to his upbringing if you want, but that's not an argument against them being true. i think this deference to animalistic instincts is, to be frank, far more juvenile than idealism ever will be.

well i agree with a few things u said there disagree in sum

its true that my analysis is not verifiable in the sense that the sourness of grapes out of reach is not verifiable. most psychoanalysis is of this vein. intellectually honest though? yes. kant has merit and was a smart guy no doubt but the spine of his ethics is garbage. everything wrong and contorted he wrote came from bending over backwards to justify his ethics. where ethics wasnt the issue, he mostly did good work. animalism is certainly more juvenile than idealism in the sense that babies are more juvenile than adolescents but not in the sense that adolescents are more juvenile than adults. it is interesting that old people are more like babies than those in between. adults are just overgrown children who have conditioned themselves to the farce of civility and then came believe it to be true. but if you examine how people act, rather than what they say, im sure you will find that humans are more animalistic than they pretend to be. here on the internet people are more savage and more honest because there are no serious consequences from behind the keyboard (a consequentialist judgement btw). idealism is an emotional construct for ego feeding and a luxury for those who live in incubation, as in those who have never known any real struggle for survivability. prolonged idealism sublimates into masochism, in the sense that a marathon runner who is no good at winning, runs with no shoes (a self imposed handicap) so as to give himself an excuse for not winning the race. there are also links here to underlying religiousity, more specifically what nietszche calls slave morality, even in atheists.

if that didnt blow your mind, u didnt understand it

holla

this isn't the first time i've encountered this point of view, so my mind can't be blown twice .

[Spit-wad]

[saga16]

I think that you can definitely put a price on a human life. That price is just nowhere near the negative value of potential unemployment.

the epa has a VSL - value of a statistical life.

they say vsl because frankly no one wants to think in the terms of what a life if worth, but you kind of have to consider is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to save a few people worth it? -no, spend the money elsewhere and save thousands of lives.
[this refers generally to safety implementations but can be applied elsewhere]

The vsl changes, but I think it's around 6 million dollars.

also: I didn't bother reading 2 pages of politics because I cannot stand politics and religion so sorry if this was discussed the hell out of.

[RsF-GoSu-]

i wasted so much time reading this

so out of anger i am going to bump this once again so someoen else wastes their time reading this crap

because im a bitch

[ironstove]

yes, i agree with what uohz said that is why all things are ultimately valueless because all things any group of humans value can be deconstructed to selfish motives proving that they were subjectively constructed and not holding any real authority or truth.

i personally like barrack obama more than I like ron paul, and I like ron paul more than I like the rest.

nobody wants bad things to happen or the world to suck but when the solution for fixing the problem means ridding themselves from the picture, at that point what choice do people have other than to adamantly disagree with what the solution is and come up with some crackpot ideas instead?

like a bad teacher doesn't want her students to turn into failures, but the fact of the matter is that the bad teacher is one of the key reasons the students will grow up unprepared and untrained for what the real world holds in store for them causing a wide range of negative effects, however as much as it would sadden the bad teacher with her bad lessons to see the pupils going off into the world after leaving the bubble only to be torn apart by sharks, what kind of bad teacher in her right mind would give up her position of security in order to find a new job i.e. find me a person who would so willingly sacrifice the stability and safety that they locked in to give a better chance to groups of people that would not even understand the sacrifice made or show thanks and you'll also have found someone who is fucking nuts.

[Uohz]

doesnt matter how much a u qq only how much u pew pew