Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

programmingisterrible.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–387 of 387 posts

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#381

Post by pessimizer »

aidenn0 wrote: post #378
pessimizer wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if 'relativism' is reduced to 'different relative to my own' due to solipsism. There remains the possibility that there's an absolute morality intrinsic to the universe that your own personal models fail to describe accurately. i.e. just because you cover up your eyes doesn't mean that I can't see you.

You said it depended on "your" (which I took to mean "ones own" rather than specifically referring to "me") ethical system. If there is an absolute morality, then the morality of any given action is not dependent upon the morality subscribed to by the actor. [edit] Furthermore any statement about an action being moral or immoral that doesn't explicitly reference a moral system is implicitly assuming a moral system. I…

I was commenting on your assertion that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with high levels of wealth equality. The degree to which that is true, assuming an intrinsic morality, is the degree to which "your" (which I intend to mean you, the person posting as aidenn0) moral system corresponds to that intrinsic morality.

As there was no argument pertaining to the actual existence of an absolute morality, all we are discussing is your model. All that we can gleam from that model is that steady per-capita income increases imply a good outcome for everyone, and that a good outcome for everyone implies that economic disparities that exist along with that outcome are not morally wrong. Therefore, there's no need to assume that moral relativism is a valid outlook, only that there's no proffered evidence that your assertion represents an aspect of that hypothetical intrinsic morality.

If there were one, evidence that a particular condition compels a particular conclusion in one's model would only imply a particular condition within a moral universe would depend on the correspondence of one's model to the reality of that universe.

Also, blah, blah, blah, blah-de-blah

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#382

Post by coldtea »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #370
coldtea wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> European nations would not be able to afford universal healthcare and all the welfare if they had to pay for their security. US bases in Europe are great financial aid. This is the kind of statement that only an American, and a very naive and ignorant of world matters at that, would ever make. US bases in Europe are no security at all. They are a pest, relics of the cold war and unwelcome by the people of Western E…

Your argumentation is pathetic and typical of many Europeans. Americans are stupid. That's the beginning, middle and end of your idea about the country and your only argument in the discussion. You are the one who should learn more about Iran or Russia. You are the one naive like a child who thinks everybody's nice, while they are playing you. It was the same with Hitler (who some of you still claim was a great leade…

>Your argumentation is pathetic and typical of many Europeans. Americans are stupid. That's the beginning, middle and end of your idea about the country and your only argument in the discussion.

No. In fact it never shows up in any part of my argumentation that "Americans are stupid".

What I wrote is that Americans are just ignorant. I follow US discussions in tons of places, US media, and have been all over the US. You could not find a people more ignorant of world affairs if you try. The little they know is what they are being spoon fed by tightly controlled media, all "patriotic" and all collaborating on the official country line.

>You are the one who should learn more about Iran or Russia. You are the one naive like a child who thinks everybody's nice, while they are playing you.

Actually, it's us that have direct contact and centuries (actually millennia in some cases) of political experience dealing with Russia and Iran, including at the very direct level, and for which world news and world history are as important as our country's news and history. It's also us that we travel frequently outside our own country (something most of Americans do not do. Heck, only 30% even have passports) and that we speak at least 2 languages (e.g english is my second -- and I have more). Heck, Americans do not even watch foreign movies, much less read foreign books (with the exception of a few classics, that again are only read by a tiny minority).

And you, who, in a house in rural Idaho, some trailer in Georgia or some loft in NY etc, by which I mean, half a world away from both Russia and Iran and in a totally provincial environment, form bizarro ideas on them and their intentions, based on what the absolutely crap your media coverage tells you, mostly based (often copied verbatim) on US government targeting.

>It was the same with Hitler (who some of you still claim was a great leader). It was the same with Stalin (who many of you still love in Europe).

Which is beside the point anyway. The point being the accurate assessment of foreign countries role, intents and power in the global scene.

People who "still claim Hitler was a great leader", did not do it because they miscalculated some world player's strength. They do it because they agree ideologically with him, whoever perverse that might be. That said, those are an irrelevant minority in Europe, on par with those who support things like the KKK in the US (oh, and there are Hitler supporters in the US too).

To continue this off-track theme, lots of people in the US approved of Bush and his policies, they voted Nixon into office, they approved slavery, racism and segregation, approved McCarthyism, approved Truman dropping nuclear bombs on civilians, etc etc. Oh, and this Hitler guy? He had much support in the US too, before the US entered into WWII. Here's a quick insight: https://www.google.com/search?q=hilter+support+in+the+US&#38...

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#383

Post by berntb »

arethuza wrote: post #371
berntb wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Labor was ~ Social Democrat? Maybe shocking to right wing crazies, but hardly _Socialist_ in a modern use of the language? (But OK, even I know that Labor have changed a lot over the last 50-60 years.)

I guess it depends what you mean by "socialist" - Labour created the NHS and nationalised some of the key heavy industries of the time (coal, steel, electricity): http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/labour_party_nationalis... Turns out that the NHS was a good idea and the nationalising of industries was a bad idea! Of course, when Labour re-invented itself in the 1990s as "New Labour" they pretty much became "Conser…

For once, the Swedish politics is more interesting! Well, at least if you enjoy sick humor.

The Swedish (ex-)communists became feminists and anti-racists (they argue for something called "structural racism" that native Swedes are guilty of to immigrants -- never with references to non-extremist sources).

In short, just the normal marxism, but another group than "workers" to create conflicts around.

This wouldn't be more than a detail, but the left wing extremists has a big, big representation in the journalist profession since the early 70s. You find lots of left wing academics saying weird stuff in the media, without being identified as e.g. extremist ex-mental patients (Hübinette) or anarchists which wrote admiringly about Ghadaffi (Gardell), etc.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#384

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

just_hobbyst wrote: post #379
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia doesn't use too much logic, their history is all about power not wealth. Arab Spring beneficiaries are Muslim extremists like Muslim Brotherhood. You know, usual pattern, women are treated like slaves, kids at school study Koran and Koran only, etc. They hate, they loathe, Europe as much as the USA. No, it turns out, they don't like your idea of freedom . They want you to be a Muslim or die. As simple as that.

So, in your comments above you claim that Russia has masterminded a plan to divide and conquer USA using clever propaganda tactics. Here you say Russia doesn't use logic. So which way do you think it is? Russia is governed by highly intelligent leaders or stupid brutes?

Good point. Highly intelligent brutes who are not interested in their country development. Which probably sounds crazy in civilized ears but is akin to saying that in feudal times aristocracy wasn't interested in living conditions of lower classes.

You see, they are still feudal, you need to account for that when analyzing the country.

So, as feudal masters in the past, the KGB/mafia that currently runs Russia understands politics very well. They are extremely skilled at political strategy and know and understand how to gain advantage. They will read Dostoyevsky and listen to Bach. At the same time they don't really care or/and understand economy as this is not really needed for them as long as they sit on the vast natural resources reserves. Something like Saudis.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#385

Post by duncan_bayne »

philwelch wrote: post #333
glesica wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with his apparent assumption that you can't "push down on the top" without wrecking things up. Sweden and Finland are proof that this isn't true, both have competitive economies that outscore the US in many important metrics for success (among these is general happiness). You can let people become wealthy, and therefore give people incentive to invest and create, without creating the kind of insan…

In an ideal society, it would not be illegal to be rich. It would be illegal to buy off members of Congress, pay people to vote for you or your cronies, own media outlets and using them to get (and keep) yourself elected into office, or in any way use that wealth to subvert the democratic process. We don't have ideal societies, but that's obviously a direction worth going. That doesn't mean you totally eliminate any…

That is an excellent point.

If I understand you, you're saying that wealth brings broad powers, and it's only a small subset of those (like political corruption) that are bad.

The rest, which are essentially power over the natural world (curing diseases, sending people to Mars, protecting ancient forests, resurrecting extinct animals) are good.

I'm going to remember that explanation.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#386

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

coldtea wrote: post #367
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European nations would not be able to afford universal healthcare and all the welfare if they had to pay for their security. US bases in Europe are great financial aid. I never hear discussions about Iran or Russia being a possible threat in Europe. I do in the US. Which is funny because it really is much bigger problem for Europeans to have guys like Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their door steps. Never happens.…

> European nations would not be able to afford universal healthcare and all the welfare if they had to pay for their security. US bases in Europe are great financial aid. This is the kind of statement that only an American, and a very naive and ignorant of world matters at that, would ever make. US bases in Europe are no security at all. They are a pest, relics of the cold war and unwelcome by the people of Western E…

Finally, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY

by KGB Propaganda Specialist.

This is pretty cool too: http://www.amazon.com/Deception-Testimony-Yuri-Bezmenov-Prop...

I think they already won. Marxist at the White House. Isn;t indoctrination of the education system working wonders for them now?

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#387

Post by ekianjo »

vacri wrote: post #329
ekianjo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not discussing whether it's right or wrong to think this way, but "decent housing" is certainly not remotely considered as a human right. This may be what most people think nowadays, but it's certainly not written anywhere in most constitutions. This is just your interpretation. Now, not being able to afford housing depends on many factors, it's not just about how much you earn, it's also about the artifical bubbles…

Constitutions for the most part are not about describing human rights. They are about describing the method of governments - who is elected where and how, what authorities they have and so forth. There's usually some flowery preamble at the start about how awesome we all are in country -foo-, but the role of a constitution is generally to describe the structure of government.

I kind of agree with you but that is not really true. The American constitution clearly makes the case for fundamental rights such as Freedom of Expression, among others.
Post reply on HN