 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 12:06 am  I have often thought that there is a relationship between socialism and urbanization. It seems to me that the need for government grows exponentially as population density increases. What do you all think?
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 01:11 am I think lemon cheesecake could always be improved by adding more lemon.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 01:20 am Yummy 
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 02:59 am I agree.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 08:55 am Yes defenitly more lemon.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 10:30 am I agree, it also removes the self sufficiency found in a society with a higher percentage of population working in agriculture. Control. Also Latias, our sim scientists have discovered that the lemon is made better by adding the cheesecake. As a matter of fact, our sim scientists have discovered that adding cheesecake to anything makes it better. We are currently running tests to see how much better cheesecake makes nuclear weapons. We are expecting an increased yield in these weapons of several fold over the key lime pie.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 11:52 am Alas the lemon/cheesecake ratio eventually falters when you grow to the Walitzki-Dayton threshold (size over gooeyness)and have discovered when you reach the lemon cheesecake macro-scale we eventually have to incorporate sim forks and sim napkins clogging up the room for further lemon. Placing the lemon nuclear missiles on plates may help alleviate this issue
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 12:56 pm @ Solomon When comparing urban to rural regions, the urban areas seems to have a greater need for a wider range of gevernment services, including policing, housing, remedial schools, juvenile facilities, etc. Why would this be true? Middle class flight from urban areas to the suburbs is a dominant feature of many US metro areas. Is the difference between urban and suburban/rural areas merely a function of class? @ the rest of you I am disappointed that the need for chocolate and fruit in a cheesecake never got a mention. Chocolate/Blueberry is simply thhe best combination. And none of those nasty store bought refrigerated indistrial cheesecakes. I want mine homebaked to luscious, creamy perfection. Plato
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 08:25 pm This case does not suit your assumption: The region with the lowest population density in Portugal, Alentejo, is largely communist. It is, as a mater of fact, the communist stronghold in Portugal. It is mainly an agricultural region, with a high percentage of people over 65. Alentejo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alentejo I agree with the "the denser the population, the greater the "need" for Government". Mostly because Government is Society's Manager and has population grows, systems tend either to become more complex or simply larger, depending of their stage in development.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 10:36 pm Plato, No, it's racially motivated. The exodus began just after the riots in 1967. AKA 'the great white flight'. Detroit for example was like any college town in America before the riots, people walking the streets shopping, etc. To this day Detroit has never recovered and probably never will. especially with (you guessed it) the evil ruling class pumping heavy drugs into the inner cities for the love of money, and YES the government is behind the epidemic. That's what the 'war on drugs' is all about. The same creeps taking control of the drug industry (at least)nation wide. *(evidence supplied upon request) Some of the seeming need for increased services is an illusion. With more people per square mile naturally you would need more services. If the urban has 5 times the population then a 500% increase in services does not equal more. As for a wider range of services needed, I do not believe this is true either, only that people will travel to urban areas for those services because with the lower density those services are less profitable in those kinds of areas so they aren't placed there. Rural probably has the greater
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 12:21 am Yes Solomon I would be interested in seeing such "evidence" because I strongly suspect its total crap. Also, would the example you have used be typical for country areas. Is an interesting example though, suggests people in rural areas are more self reliant
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 01:52 am Your Honor, I call my first witness, Michael Ruppert.
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 03:13 am Mr Ruppert you may step down, but don't leave you may be recalled... I now call Maxine Waters to testify. The Kentucky model I gave is typical for a state with smaller counties, about three to one when compared to Michigan. At let's say under 6 million people. A state like California would probably stand as it's own model. You can imagine how the dynamics might change with the average size of the counties, geography etc.
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 03:32 pm i find the arguments on both sides of this issue compelling. my inclination is to say that the more complex a society the more need for government control. community becomes a primary factor in determining how much control is exerted by gov't/society. my hunch is that the stronger a community network is, the less necessary for societal control. if i know my neighbor and have common values and goals, it would seem that gov't intervention would be less necessary. on the other hand, there are many countries that are quite urban, democratic and socialistic that seem to work relatively well. we are realizing that possibly the best form of gov't combines, democratic principles, capitalism and a strong social safety net. i'm intrigued by Laguna's example of a rural elderly communistic region in Portugal. communism as well as severe examples of socialism seem to stiffle creativity and free markets, which can either be a stimulus or create their own set of problems.
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 04:33 pm Any chance of linking us to the sources of information that this guy references, Solomon? I'm sorry, but the rational, logical little voice in my head - cantankerous, pedantic little cow that she is - has never really been all that good at creating an informed opinion upon questionable sources. At best, this is a secondary source which alludes to a primary without actually stating it directly. At worst, is could well be propaganda. And I'm curious to find out which.
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 04:34 pm Another factor that might have a bearing on the issue is age demographics. Laguna's example of a region in Portugal that was Communistic, with older citizens may parellel to some extent the current debate in the US on healthcare. Some of the most vocal critics of the bills being considered are older people on medicare and social security. They often claim that they don't want socialized medicine but they don't want their social security or medicare cut. They either want things to stay the same or have more benefits. Younger people tend to be more concerned with freedom of action and less gov't intervention into their lives. In most of the western countries we see that socialism tends to inhibit personal capital creation as opposed to the desire for gov't to provide a more stable environment even at the cost to personal freedom. China on the other hand seems to be moving into capitalism through gov't planning and increased planned market freedom. Their is great pent up demand for stuff and for freedom and this is one way they will achieve this in the short run. Long term as their pop ages they will be challenged by the same issues other developed aging economies face. Oh, I'm not a big cheesecake fan. Lemon gelato for me.
| |
| Friday, October 2, 2009 - 01:01 am Well I listened to the two witnesses & am not really impressed - anybody can say anything. Those two witnesses seemed to be either media whores or had another agenda. Am just not a big fan of consipiracy theories - except maybe Rodolph Hess & UK & Russia & Nazi Germany - true story did not come out there. What Laguna said about growing complexity requiring more Govt intervention made sense thou. A socialist Government CAN operate effectively, just as a capitalist Govt can operate ineffectively.
| |
| Friday, October 2, 2009 - 02:02 am Yeah thats all well and goood... but what happened to the lemons?
| |
| Friday, October 2, 2009 - 02:02 am Kali, it's obvious NO evidence would have been good enough for you, why'd you ask? Latias, at what point does it become our responsibility to educate ourselves? Tuasman, the lemon is sitting in my driveway.
| |
Friday, October 2, 2009 - 02:59 pm
When we wish to learn, of course; which is precisely why I'm asking you to provide primary source information. I wish to educate myself further on the matter from a reputable source of information. As a participant in a discussion it is your responsibility to back up your own opinion with factual sources - I assume some must exist, if the video is even an rough approxomation of the truth. Whilst the video is indeed interesting and raises several questions, the factual nature is questionable without any primary source information with which to reference.
| |
| Friday, October 2, 2009 - 04:55 pm Some people are never happy. I find that when a subject interests me and someone brings up a point, I go looking for the evidence myself. Just cross reference the point from all info found and the truth will be out there. But it's very rare a thought can be proved without any shadow of a doubt. For until the thought becomes no longer a thought but reality can a thought be proved to be the truth.
| |
| Saturday, October 3, 2009 - 12:03 am Latias, you have all the same information at your finger tips as I do mine, now... Why exactly should I be doing your searches for you? I can tell you Michael Ruppert was poisoned and fled to Canada and then Venezuela, I'm not sure if he's back in the U.S. or not. Obviously you are interested, search it out to learn more. I haven't dwelt on Mike Ruppert, there's a lot out there. If I do any research it will be on the extreme poverty in Venezuela that I saw for the first time just before I posted THAT video here. If I do research it, it will be for my own benefit, not to try to convince someone who may not be willing to be convinced in the first place.
| |
| Saturday, October 3, 2009 - 12:23 am Speaking of research... I just found out Aaron Russo is dead, I'm bummed  I did find this, and I'm watching it for the first time, I'm most of the way through the first part and I think the whole thing will be worth seeing.
| |
Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 03:39 pm
Simply because it is data which supports your argument. It is not my duty to prove your point for you; it is your job to back up your own argument. I've simply asked you to extrapolate upon your points with original data rather than a secondary source. When I have my own point to make, I will do the same. If you are incapable of sourcing the original data, that is fine. Just say so.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 04:21 pm The information I've provided already has an abundance of links that are evident upon first examination. If you don't find this satisfactory then I doubt anything you might be offered would meet your demands for support in regards to my argument.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 07:29 pm I'm only asking about this one source because the only link available simply reiterates the town meeting; no reference to a primary data source is offered. As it fails to provide supportung data for the conclusions he draws I am unable to perform further study upon his position in regards to the topic at hand, and as such am unable to draw a complete conclusion. There is no explicitly offered factual basis; simply implied. Hence why I am asking you for access to any primary data source relating to what the gentleman brings up in this video. If you do not have access to any simply say so and I will drop the point.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 09:34 pm Lets see, I googled "Mike Ruppert Confronts John Deutch" which I simply copy & pasted from the top of the Youtube video that was posted. With that I clicked on the first couple of links and they were the you tube video that I just left, so I backed up and clicked on the third one down: [John Deutch - FamousWhy Former LA Police Officer Mike Ruppert Confronts John Deutch.] With that I saw another video titled "Gary Webb, in his own words" (thinking that may be support evidence I clicked it- lo & behold Gary seems to testify to the same thing) So, I want to link that video here and I can't do that from 'Famous Why?' so I'll search for the same video on another client... brb Oops, and there's a google video! Now, why did I have to do that for you?! Sheesh 
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 10:19 pm You seem to be missing the point, Solomon, in at least two ways. Firstly, when one makes a point it is their responsibility to provide information which supports that point. Not the people to whom the point is being made. Secondly, I'm asking for the primary information which the gentleman references in this video, not a reiteration of points he has already made. I don't want the gentleman's opinion/comments (secondary source}. I want to see the information upon which he is basing his opinions. In short, the primary source. If you are simply basing your opinion upon the opinions of others, that is fine. Despite what you are trying to imply I haven't yet taken a side in this discussion. I simply wish to base my own opinion upon the sources mentioned within the video - which I assume to be textual in nature from the way it is discussed - in the same way as the gentleman claims to. If you have access to the information upon which he bases his points, then I would very much like to view it. If not, please say so and I will let it drop here.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 12:29 am lost me , whats this thread about again?
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 12:41 am Latias, I suggest you find someone that will jump when you say 'jump'.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 12:50 am Push Why don't you condone it Why don't you set me free I don't think you own it Cause it belongs to me And if I ever want to take it back You try to lie and hide it Look who laughing last Everyone around me thinks they know They try to see it But I don't let it show Stay out of my business Keep your hands off my door I've got a bed I'd rather sleep on the floor Screaming in my head I don't like it anymore No place to go Leave me alone I don't want to know Nobody ever seems to understand Every day I wake up And do the best that I can I've got my problems You've got yours too You try to label me Have you ever looked at you Nobody's perfect I really think you do And if you are why am I standing next to you No place to go Leave me alone I don't want to know I spin my wheels and try to figure it out What's going on And what's it all about Where did I go wrong I think I'm having my doubts About what you said And what you're going to do I'm so pissed off I blame it on you I've done it all There's nothing left for me to do What's going on Piss on you No place to go Leave me alone I don't want to know
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 05:46 am Solomon, it would be good if you listen to what Latias is asking of you. Otherwise you are not arguing, or debating, or presenting any reasoned argument - you are just trumpeting your opinions without anything to back them up. Geez it is so wearying to listen to conspiricy theorist nutters - they just DO NOT SHUT UP, they gabble on & on & after a while they arnt even funny - certainly never serious.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 06:18 am Thank you, Kali. Solomon; I will assume that this means you do not have the primary source. Thank you anyway.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 10:59 am Oh, ok... Well then just disregard anything and everything I say in the future then please. I obviously provide NO sources what so ever and anything I post is boring and uninformative. Oh, and wrong! Please don't waste your time on reading what I post in the future. Thanks for your help!
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 11:38 am Where will(the rest of) you be on 9-11-10?
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 04:37 pm Dear me. If this is how you respond when asked for further information, I'd hate to see how you respond when somebody posts a source to the contrary. My request was fairly simple; I wished for you to produce the information upon which the gentleman was basing his opinion, assuming you had it. I see now that assumption was erroneous. It wasn't an attack upon your opinion, though you obviously assumed it was. For that misinterpretation I am truly sorry. Should you at any point find yourself able to differentiate between a primary and a secondary data source source - and furthermore find yourself in possession of the former - then I would be most delighted to recieve a copy. I do so relish having facts at my disposal when I am forming an opinion. My most gracious thanks for your time, Latias.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 10:38 pm No, it's not an attack on my opinion. You are correct. What you've done is go completely off subject because you have no way to defend your position so you take us off to bitching endlessly about references as if that has ANYTHING to do with what's being talked about. JUST SO YOU CAN MAKE SOLOMON WRONG! Pathetic! Guess what? Anyone with more than 3 brain cells and has not been afflicted by the same mental illness as the typical liberal can plainly see this for themselves, oh and they do, believe me. So keep up with your little game, I'm immune. I can easily just never read what you write and never respond when I find myself doing so. Where you're screwing up is the fact that I'm just waiting for you to pull this bullshit on someone who isn't so immune to your tactics of self denial and all the subject changes and personal attacks that go with it. Yup, you're getting jumped every time I see you pulling this shit on someone else. They won't need to worry about replying to you... Your ass will be mine first. I'm going to cut you down EVERY TIME.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 11:12 pm I got an angle Charley
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 11:14 pm I cannot believe you still don't get it... I stated no position. All I did was ask for elaboration. Repeatedly. I only wish you could see yourself. The hypocrisy is incerdibly amusing.
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 12:16 am Oh, ok, all of your positions go away because you don't state them constantly. I guess I'm beginning to understand your mania. You don't believe you take on the ideals that you champion. Pressing the 'footnote' crap is rude and you know it. I'm NOT going to bend over backwards for you... what don't you get about:
You just seem like you're here to confuse and frustrate and I have no respect for that, as a matter of fact I have disrespect for that.
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 12:36 am Go ahead... no really... go ahead... Ask for more supporting evidence... or explain again how what I supplied to you is insufficient and can't possibly meet your needs and it's Solomon's job to measure up to your expectations on being spoon fed. Better yet! Accuse me of not getting it again! (fkukkin RUDE!)
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 01:00 am Hmm & Kali... Kali... Kali... Kali... Might I point out:
Like I was saying... Might I point out that, in YOUR OWN POST you are yourself guilty of what you accuse me:
Yes it is
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 12:23 pm Solomon, how about you STFU by all means post interesting & meaningful things, but dont go spewing on & on like a bore at a party To think I came back to SC to hear this. Where are Calloe Wolfs & Mannys when you want them - at least their crap was witty (sort of) & entertaining
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 02:37 pm Are you finished throwing a tantrum now Solomon? Good. You appear to have many issues, and I'm afraid that one post will be insufficient to address them all. So let's keep this simple. Firstly, looking back over our "discussion", you will note that I haven't stated an opinion upon the topic at hand. All I've done is ask you to produce primary source information regarding what this gentleman said. Information which would back up what he say as fact. You, however, take this as a rude, offensive assault upon your point of view. The world is indeed a very black and white place for you, isn't it. If they're not with you, they're against you. Anybody that doesn't immediately see the conspiracies that you do is obviously an inhumane monster. But all that aside, allow me to define primary and secondary source for you: A primary source is, in simple terms, raw data - an information source which has yet to be coloured by personal opinion. Statistics. Audio recordings of conversations; video footage of an event; direct observational data. As an example from my own experience, it would be something such as the data built up regarding observations of astronomical phenomena; mass, radius, temperature of a star in order to calculate magnitudes and luminosities, for example. Within the context at hand, it would be direct evidence of suggested conversation and the like. A secondrary source is one which references another source for its information; a newspaper article which references a scientific journal; a politicial speech which discusses an official report; a person who discusses a topic in reference to a data set. In these instances use of the newspaper, political speech or person would be the secondary data source. Again, say I were to reference the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, quoting comments made by other researches without directly invoking their original data and extrapolations; this would be secondary data. In the case at hand; an opinion in lieu of direct evidence. If that does not help you, then I am truly at a loss as to what will. You seem to manufacture opinions where none exist; invoke hostility when somebody simply asks you a question. And your personal failings cause you to brand everybody who disagrees with you as part of some morally questionable entity without fondation. And still, despite all this, you fail to present any form of original data. You imply that it exists. Though your unwillingness to prove that it does suggests otherwise. I'm simply amazed that somebody who likes to argue so much doesn't understand the basic precepts of backing up their own argument. Perhaps you would learn if only you could see yourself, and what the community as a whole thinks of your opinions. Still, one cannot make the blind see by force of will alone. C'est la vie.
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 11:30 pm Nope, I'm not finished by a long shot. This WILL take more than one post. First order of business:
Before I continue, I invite anyone who stands with Latias to chime in now.
| |
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 11:57 pm Don't gang me, Kali, don't get knocked back.
| |
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - 02:30 pm Wow. Just; wow. Of all the issues there in my post, you choose to address the one about your popularity. I guess I should've known.
| |
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - 10:52 pm Ok, I have no interest in tearing Latias down. I have no interest in turning Plato's topic into a negative experience FOR A WEEK. (or should I say 'another'?) I apologize Plato, you don't deserve this. I also apologize to the community as a whole, you don't deserve this either. With the amount of people that chose to involve themselves after 24 hours opportunity I'm calling this a dead horse. Lets get back on topic shall we?
| |
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - 11:06 pm Trying to brings things back on subject..... in this time of people being able to post almost anything online, you can make a post and if it is repeated and sent out enough places, it takes on an air of credibility, even though there is no substantive evidence to prove it. and if you put it on u-tube and enough people are standing in the background yelling approval, it doesn't matter what the person says, it takes on a sense of truth. that's one reason why eye witnesses in the court of law are being seen as less than reliable. humans see things from the lenses of their perspective. and our perspectives are most often different. as to the issues of socialism and urbanization the same questions arise about freedom and totalitarianism. is freedom being able to do whatever you want? i don't think so. but deciding what that line is is tricky. for one person freedom is being able to start a new business or believe in a set of values that may not agree with other's values. i think an element of freedom is being able to challenge one another in respectful ways realizing that we may agree, but we also may agree not to agree. that's an element of freedom....that we don't have to agree on everything. but we have to be political(how we live together). in order for freedom to exist we have to be engaged. opting out of the system denys us freedom of movement because we are constricted by our own isolation. totalitarian gov'ts impose those restrictions of movement and thought, but a more sinister form of totalitarianism is self imposed isolation, where i don't become involved in the process of community or relationships. well, anybody want to lick lemon sorbet with me?
| |
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 12:02 am See? We don't get to decide what that line is, as Americans. We've had democracy shoved down our throats so often that we've come to believe in it. The truth is that we don't have democracy in America. We don't get to rally 51% of the people and start changing things. Things like freedom are(were) already established in a Constitutional Republic where even 99% of people can't deny 1% of the people the rights recognized(not established) by the republic's constitution. Democracy = The Mob Rules
| |
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 01:18 am it seems that urbanization encourages socialism and other forms of totalitarianism. because of the proximity of people living in tight quarters, several things begin to emerge. 1.if the group is homogeneous they tend to isolate themselves from other like groups and develop in-groups and out-groups. one group tends to dominate the other and establish the rules of order. 2. if the groups are heterogenious they either have to figure ways to get along or they tend towards anarchy. the old institutions that mediated these differences (schools, churches, unions, fraternal organizations) have tended to lose power , leaving a vacuum. the new mediating institutions in urban communities are sports clubs/teams. look at the billions of dollars spent on stadiums in the US. they're the new cathedrals of our time. you're not considered a major league city unless you have sports teams. without them the social fabric disentegrates. this may deliver a false sense of community but the relational atmosphere is not about reality, but about perception. allegiance to a sports team bridges people's differences. if you're a sports fan and your team loses a big game, what's it like the next day at work. or what's it like if your team wins the big one. it's a sort of patriotism. we can rally around the team while putting up with all the other crap in our lives, including loss of freedom.
| |
| Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 12:55 pm I stumbled upon this and I think it might apply. It's long I'm watching it all now.
|
