Lootifer wrote:It's like democracys version of market failure. It's also waaaaay off topic so simple answer is no.
Perhaps you would care to start a new thread to inform myself and others?
I lied, I was just tired when I posted that.
I kinda relates to my equality of opportunity being more valuable to society then the results of religious freedom + democratic process.
Pretty much just specifically relates to same-sex marriage, but I wouldnt limit it to that (that seems to be the only current one now that racism and sexism is on the decline - inb4 player: YES DONT WORRY WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:It's like democracys version of market failure. It's also waaaaay off topic so simple answer is no.
Perhaps you would care to start a new thread to inform myself and others?
I lied, I was just tired when I posted that.
I kinda relates to my equality of opportunity being more valuable to society then the results of religious freedom + democratic process.
Pretty much just specifically relates to same-sex marriage, but I wouldnt limit it to that (that seems to be the only current one now that racism and sexism is on the decline - inb4 player: YES DONT WORRY WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO).
Thanks for clarifying your statement. I disagree with some of your details but as you mention, it is off topic from this thread so i'll leave it be.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
Definition:
Bigotry: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
In fairness, couldn't the term bigotry be used to define those who are devoted to their opinion of legalizing gay marriage and not tolerating others to have the opposite opinion; and if they do, those people can be labeled as bigots? Isn't there some irony behind that?
I personally think boycotting a business is the best approach but some people were calling for it to be completely shut down which isn't tolerant of other peoples views; and is also a form of bigotry
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
If Chuck E Cheese CEO declared, "Jews are an abomination" I certainly would disagree with his position. I might even choose not to eat there myself. I would not however demand it close down. That is tolerance. You see, leftists pick and choose to whom they will be "tolerant" of. Christians are way way way down on their list.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
If Chuck E Cheese CEO declared, "Jews are an abomination" I certainly would disagree with his position. I might even choose not to eat there myself. I would not however demand it close down. That is tolerance. You see, leftists pick and choose to whom they will be "tolerant" of. Christians are way way way down on their list.
Jesus seems to have an issue with business being involved in religion, or at least so I'm told. He wasn't particularly tolerant of the money changers in the temple.
Christ never struck me as a right wing figure, though, to be fair.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
BigBallinStalin wrote:
How do you measure the marginal benefits and costs of any opportunity? How can the opportunities available to one individual be measured likewise? And then how can you apply this analysis across all individuals?
Control theory and optimisation. (incoming engineer-speak)
The objective function is just the same as the free market objective function (least cost) but with additional factors to accomadate non-monetary/social value. The "coefficients" are explicitly defined or related to the state of technology and available resources (both directly available and known potential).
For example: here in nation X do we currently have the technology and resources to supply the entire nation X with healthcare up to Y standard without some defined acceptable drop in efficiency Z. X is known, Y is defined explicitly by technology, and Z would be optimised by neutral smart people considering the outcome of some democratic process.
ps: dont get misled into thinking im focussing on equality of results here. The control system gets applied to the government/authority not the policy results.
inb4 BBS gives me some homework which I prob wont do.
I'm gonna read up on this and make fun of you in 3 three years. =P
Does this book describe what you're talking about?
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
Definition:
Bigotry: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
In fairness, couldn't the term bigotry be used to define those who are devoted to their opinion of legalizing gay marriage and not tolerating others to have the opposite opinion; and if they do, those people can be labeled as bigots? Isn't there some irony behind that?
I personally think boycotting a business is the best approach but some people were calling for it to be completely shut down which isn't tolerant of other peoples views; and is also a form of bigotry
Lootifer wrote:Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Intolerance: lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
Pretty open and shut case to be honest. By opposing gay marriage you are being a bigot; sure its only a minor offence as far as the wider area of bigotry is concerned (I for one am glad you arent going out every night and beating the shit out of suspected fags NS), but it is bigotry nonetheless.
Yes this definition pretty makes everyone on CC OT forums a bigot (except for me, Im pretty much an angel) but it is what it is.
Let's run with this. As you've implied, according to those definitions then anyone opposed to fascism or Nazism is also a bigot. They'd be a bigot for good reasons in my opinion, but they'd be a bigot nonetheless.
So, then we'd have argue about who is a "good bigot" and who is a "bad bigot."
Henceforth, all accusations of bigotry should include "good" or "bad" before the word "bigotry/bigot."
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
Definition:
Bigotry: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
In fairness, couldn't the term bigotry be used to define those who are devoted to their opinion of legalizing gay marriage and not tolerating others to have the opposite opinion; and if they do, those people can be labeled as bigots? Isn't there some irony behind that?
I personally think boycotting a business is the best approach but some people were calling for it to be completely shut down which isn't tolerant of other peoples views; and is also a form of bigotry
Lootifer wrote:Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Intolerance: lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
Pretty open and shut case to be honest. By opposing gay marriage you are being a bigot; sure its only a minor offence as far as the wider area of bigotry is concerned (I for one am glad you arent going out every night and beating the shit out of suspected fags NS), but it is bigotry nonetheless.
Yes this definition pretty makes everyone on CC OT forums a bigot (except for me, Im pretty much an angel) but it is what it is.
Let's run with this. As you've implied, according to those definitions then anyone opposed to fascism or Nazism is also a bigot. They'd be a bigot for good reasons in my opinion, but they'd be a bigot nonetheless.
So, then we'd have argue about who is a "good bigot" and who is a "bad bigot."
Henceforth, all accusations of bigotry should include "good" or "bad" before the word "bigotry/bigot."
Excellent work, Lootifer.
That is awesome. Thanks for sharing BBS!
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
The only monograph on the topic, this book concerns geometric methods in the theory of differential equations with quadratic right-hand sides, closely related to the calculus of variations and optimal control theory. Based on the author’s lectures, the book is addressed to undergraduate and graduate students, and scientific researchers.
That sounds ... intimidating
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
Haha, the control theory/optimisation thing is just my way of explaining it; kinda just rambling and I dont have any sources.
But basically just define each issue as an optimisation or control problem and solve for greatest good. With greatest good being defined by technology, expert advice and democracy as appropriate. Since life is continious it is neccessarily a control theory problem more than a optimisation one, but the maths is similar.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
You'd be surprised what us "leftists" believe.
Protip: You're wrong; stop listening to the bias media outlets; its in their interest to stimulate your confirmational bias (otherwise known as group think - ironically)
I have no issue with some CEO coming out and being anti-gay marriage; but im certainly not going to let it slide, and try to ensure that everyone is aware of his stance.
On the other hand the Mayor of Boston is an idiot; I sympathise with his cause, but hes an idiot nonetheless (and in no way should be able to bar Chik-Fil-A from operating in the Boston area).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Haha, the control theory/optimisation thing is just my way of explaining it; kinda just rambling and I dont have any sources.
But basically just define each issue as an optimisation or control problem and solve for greatest good. With greatest good being defined by technology, expert advice and democracy as appropriate. Since life is continious it is neccessarily a control theory problem more than a optimisation one, but the maths is similar.
Yeah, but you didn't define "opportunity" or what exactly is the optimum set of opportunities...
And whatever the optimal set of opportunities may be, would it be optimal for each individual given certain constraints of nature (or whatever)? Or would it be optimal for all individuals?
Besides, how do you measure "technology"--with its unpredictable future "cycles," or "democracy"--with its multitude of various regulatory, political, legal, etc., institutions? Is this where you guys formalize these variables into something tractable--albeit not quite representative of reality?
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
You'd be surprised what us "leftists" believe.
Protip: You're wrong; stop listening to the bias media outlets; its in their interest to stimulate your confirmational bias (otherwise known as group think - ironically)
I have no issue with some CEO coming out and being anti-gay marriage; but im certainly not going to let it slide, and try to ensure that everyone is aware of his stance.
On the other hand the Mayor of Boston is an idiot; I sympathise with his cause, but hes an idiot nonetheless (and in no way should be able to bar Chik-Fil-A from operating in the Boston area).
Although I'm a libertarian and free market advocate, I do appreciate many of our friends on the left. They're just mistaken but well-intended.
So another girl that I've recently had relations with told me that she was raped. By her moms boyfriend no less. Seriously guys what kind of fucked up world are we living in. Or is this more telling of the girls I choose to fornicate with?
jay_a2j wrote:
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
So it's your opinion that, in order to support tolerance and diversity, we must tolerate the diversity that is bigotry? It's your contention that boycotting a business because of that business's practices is not a correct activity?
Or is it just that you happen to like Chick-Fil-A's stance, and you want to rail against the actions because of that?
If Chuck E Cheese CEO declared, "Jews are an abomination" I certainly would disagree with his position. I might even choose not to eat there myself. I would not however demand it close down. That is tolerance. You see, leftists pick and choose to whom they will be "tolerant" of. Christians are way way way down on their list.
Most "leftists" (to use your word that shows me you're not interested in actually discussing the subject reasonably) don't want to "shut down" Chick-Fil-A for the CEO's comments. In fact, I believe you'll find that most "leftists" actually consider such a suggestion to be against good governmental practice. But don't let that stop you from feeling persecuted, as if Christians could actually be persecuted as a group in this nation.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Lootifer wrote:
I have no issue with some CEO coming out and being anti-gay marriage; but im certainly not going to let it slide, and try to ensure that everyone is aware of his stance.
So, were you letting everyone know of Obama's position on gay marriage LAST YEAR when he was against it???????
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Well, you sure are a big proponent of "If I don't like it... shut it down or ridicule it".
you know that's a lie!
Way to make my point people. All I see here is a bunch of responses that 2+2=3, 2+2=5, 2+2=1. 2+2=7
Nobody wants to talk about what tolerance and diversity really are. I think we all know why you guys are scared of it....
Because the left, CHAMPIONS of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY, in reality only want those thing to apply where THEY want them to apply!
Take Chick fil a as an example. Why not be tolerant of the CEO's beliefs? No, no, no it doesn't further their agenda!!!!
Here is your problem, you already believe that if you disagree with CEO's belief you are a leftist, and that those people are furthering a leftest agenda. Get in the real world where people don't tolerate bigotry. Don't make this some political left right bullshit argument. It is about bigotry.
Lootifer wrote:
I have no issue with some CEO coming out and being anti-gay marriage; but im certainly not going to let it slide, and try to ensure that everyone is aware of his stance.
So, were you letting everyone know of Obama's position on gay marriage LAST YEAR when he was against it???????
I know I was. I have no idea how everyone has managed to paint Obama as ultra left wing considering his track record.
Lootifer wrote:
I have no issue with some CEO coming out and being anti-gay marriage; but im certainly not going to let it slide, and try to ensure that everyone is aware of his stance.
So, were you letting everyone know of Obama's position on gay marriage LAST YEAR when he was against it???????
So you concede my other points then? That us leftists arent all the douchebags you think we are and you might try and view your news outlets with a little more critical thought? Good on ya mate! Pleasure debating with you
As far as Obama is concerned; he is a- the product of americas political system, hence I dont pay attention to anything he says, the likelyhood of any president saying anything genuine is 0, and, b- in terms of political spectrum he IS the conservative right from my PoV, hes just slightly less conservative right than some of his competitors: In other words if I could vote in the US voting either way would give about the same amount of representation of my ideals (that is buggar all); where as I can (and encourage others to) vote with my wallet in terms of what fast food restaurant to frequent.
Basically I am more vocal against Chik-Fil-A than Obama (last year) because american politics is retarded, and highly unrepresentative of the voting population.
Last edited by Lootifer on Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:
I have no issue with some CEO coming out and being anti-gay marriage; but im certainly not going to let it slide, and try to ensure that everyone is aware of his stance.
So, were you letting everyone know of Obama's position on gay marriage LAST YEAR when he was against it???????
Lots of people have noted that (you have been gone a while, jay.. and not participated that much for a while before your hiatus. However, to be completely honest, he was not so much against gay marriage as against the national legalization of homosexual marriage. That IS a difference.
It is as much a difference as the difference between saying that you think homosexuality is "PK" and simply saying that the harm caused by keeping homosexuals from living their lives is far worse than the harm caused by just letting them be.
Its similar, by-the-way, to the compromise made when Christians allow Buddhists or Hindus to live in peace... and the people who see those as threats, well...
