Security

[morbiuswilters]

@ekolis said:

"Set them up" more in the sense of "provided them with tools they needed to carry out their plan" and not "tricked them into committing murder"... but yes.

Um... how is this a problem? They are finding the people who are willing to commit violent acts. I guess if you were in charge you'd just sit there with your thumb up your ass until we had a big pile of bodies and then try to track the guy down, hoping he hasn't fled the country yet?

[morbiuswilters]

@ASheridan said:

@this_code_sucks said:

I mean how dumb do you have to be to believe you will get 70 virgins when you blow your self up?

About as dumb as you have to be to assume that terrorist is the same thing as Muslim

Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. I take it you are too stupid to acknowledge that, though.

[morbiuswilters]

@JoeCool said:

 @pjt33 said:

@blakeyrat said:

At the point where you're exchanging money for a bomb, is there any practical difference between these two groups?

No, but if you're a US taxpayer you might not consider turning ranting idiots into terrorists and then imprisoning them for many years to be a good use of your money.

 

Would you rather the FBI sell this person a fake bomb, or that a terrorist group (it being likely that the group knows about this person just like the FBI), sell a real bomb to this person?

Probably the latter, because he's a dipshit. His attitude seems to be "They're okay in my book until they murder a bunch of people and we can't really do a single thing to prevent mass murder."

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

@sprained said:

Either way it's just security theater.

I often wonder why people think that security theater serves no purpose.

I agree it serves some purpose, but I think the costs far outweigh any benefit. X-ray scanning luggage and metal detectors at airports are a good idea, but the backscatter machines are stupid. The problem is, it's not practical to scan all luggage going onto trains, so if you want to murder a bunch of people, just bomb a train. I don't think there's any real concern over highjacking aircraft any more; anyone who tries it is probably going to get torn to shreds by a mob and the pilots aren't going to allow it.

[morbiuswilters]

@rstinejr said:

I don't buy it. The whole agent provocateur thing stinks, and is something you expect in despotic states, not democracies. I also have reservations when the FBI pats itself on th back for these busts; it sounds more to me that they have caught terrorist wannabes instead of stopped a real threat.

So basically, in your book, string operations against criminals are a big no-no. We can't try to stop someone from murdering people, we just have to let them murder away.

I'm in favor of putting everyone like you on an island, shipping all the "non-terrorists" who are buying and planting bombs there and watching in delight as the numbers of both are thinned.

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

Maybe, but I doubt it, because I don't think that it would rise to the level of plausible security measure.

True, word would eventually get out that they aren't real devices. I say just ditch 'em altogether. They are an idiotic waste of money.

[nexekho1]

@morbiuswilters said:

I'm in favor of putting everyone like you on an island, shipping all the "non-terrorists" who are buying and planting bombs there and watching in delight as the numbers of both are thinned.

Now you're thinking like a Sims player.

[Weps]

@morbiuswilters said:

@boomzilla said:

I'm sure there are legitimate entrapment issues to deal with whenever this happens, but I haven't heard anything substantive in that respect on any cases so far.

Yeah, but these cases aren't entrapment--not even close. Entrapment would be the FBI finding a disgruntled Muslim (because, come on) and saying "Hey, you know what you should do? Blow some people up." and then persuading him (because, come on) to break the law. The idea for illegal action must come from law enforcement AND law enforcement must convince the criminal to break the law AND the criminal must not have been liable to break the law on his own.

Ignorance is bliss.

[serguey123]

@morbiuswilters said:

Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

Do you have hard data on that? For what is worth AFAIK most people that claim to be muslim and are terrorist are using religion as an excuse and are not real muslims

[this_code_sucks]

@Weps said:

@morbiuswilters said:

@boomzilla said:

I'm sure there are legitimate entrapment issues to deal with whenever this happens, but I haven't heard anything substantive in that respect on any cases so far.

Yeah, but these cases aren't entrapment--not even close. Entrapment would be the FBI finding a disgruntled Muslim (because, come on) and saying "Hey, you know what you should do? Blow some people up." and then persuading him (because, come on) to break the law. The idea for illegal action must come from law enforcement AND law enforcement must convince the criminal to break the law AND the criminal must not have been liable to break the law on his own.

Ignorance is bliss.

I may not be in a state of bliss; but I am sure as hell ignorant... of what the fuck you are refering to.

[this_code_sucks]

@serguey123 said:

For what is worth AFAIK most people that claim to be muslim and are terrorist are using religion as an excuse and are not real muslims

No true Scottsman

[boomzilla]

@serguey123 said:

@morbiuswilters said:

Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

Do you have hard data on that? For what is worth AFAIK most people that claim to be muslim and are terrorist are using religion as an excuse and are not real muslims.

This is a retarded argument. What's your definition of a "real" muslim? They certainly claim to be muslims. Perhaps if we modified the statement to, "most terrorists claim to be Muslims," it would pass your pedantic dickweed standards?

[morbiuswilters]

@serguey123 said:

@morbiuswilters said:

Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

Do you have hard data on that? For what is worth AFAIK most people that claim to be muslim and are terrorist are using religion as an excuse and are not real muslims

Ah, the "not real Muslims" excuse. Which, of course, could apply to everyone. I mean, most people don't want to be associated with the mass murder of civilians (well, except all those Muslim groups that claim responsibility after a terrorist attack). Ergo, terrorists don't belong to any group. "He's not a real neo-Nazi, he's just using it as an excuse." "That guy who bombed an abortion clinic wasn't really pro-life."

Also, you seem to be under the impression that terrorists-who-happen-to-be-Muslim don't consider themselves devout Muslims, which is false. The fact is, they do consider it a religious duty to wage jihad, an idea they got (perhaps incorrectly) from Islam.

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

Also, you seem to be under the impression that terrorists-who-happen-to-be-Muslim don't consider themselves devout Muslims, which is false. The fact is, they do consider it a religious duty to wage jihad, an idea they got (perhaps incorrectly) from Islam.

Also, Communism has never been tried.

[TheCPUWizard]

@morbiuswilters said:

@rstinejr said:

I don't buy it. The whole agent provocateur thing stinks, and is something you expect in despotic states, not democracies. I also have reservations when the FBI pats itself on th back for these busts; it sounds more to me that they have caught terrorist wannabes instead of stopped a real threat.

So basically, in your book, string operations against criminals are a big no-no. We can't try to stop someone from murdering people, we just have to let them murder away.

I'm in favor of putting everyone like you on an island, shipping all the "non-terrorists" who are buying and planting bombs there and watching in delight as the numbers of both are thinned.

All operations against criminals should be floating point!

[this_code_sucks]

@boomzilla said:

@morbiuswilters said:

Also, you seem to be under the impression that terrorists-who-happen-to-be-Muslim don't consider themselves devout Muslims, which is false. The fact is, they do consider it a religious duty to wage jihad, an idea they got (perhaps incorrectly) from Islam.

Also, Communism has never been tried.

If it had it would of worked... you know instead of just turning into forced class system where party members live in luxury and everyone else dies of hunger.

[this_code_sucks]

@TheCPUWizard said:

@morbiuswilters said:

@rstinejr said:

I don't buy it. The whole agent provocateur thing stinks, and is something you expect in despotic states, not democracies. I also have reservations when the FBI pats itself on th back for these busts; it sounds more to me that they have caught terrorist wannabes instead of stopped a real threat.

So basically, in your book, string operations against criminals are a big no-no. We can't try to stop someone from murdering people, we just have to let them murder away.

I'm in favor of putting everyone like you on an island, shipping all the "non-terrorists" who are buying and planting bombs there and watching in delight as the numbers of both are thinned.

All operations against criminals should be floating point!

I was thinking fixed point.

[serguey123]

@morbiuswilters said:

Also, you seem to be under the impression that terrorists-who-happen-to-be-Muslim don't consider themselves devout Muslims

Some of them do, some of them are opportunist shits.
@morbiuswilters said:

terrorists don't belong to any group.

They belong to the terror group ;)
@morbiuswilters said:

The fact is, they do consider it a religious duty to wage jihad, an idea they got (perhaps incorrectly) from Islam.

Some of them yes, most of them are simply indoctrinated kids without much choice in the matter or people with some retarded urge to belong that hang with the wrong crowd. Now, I'm not making excuses for them but the issue is more complex that "Muslism are terrorist!" which is pretty much the brush they get painted with undeservingly so.

@boomzilla said:

Perhaps if we modified the statement to, "most terrorists claim to be Muslims

Again, I would love to see hard data backing that claim, historic data for the last century should be enough, maybe a pie chart

[morbiuswilters]

@serguey123 said:

"Muslism are terrorist!"

Nobody said this. I said "Most terrorists are Muslim", a statement I stand by.

@serguey123 said:

Again, I would love to see hard data backing that claim, historic data for the last century should be enough, maybe a pie chart

Well, we're not talking about since the beginning of time, we're talking about current terrorist threats. Like, the Communists and KKK used to be pretty big terror groups, but aren't now. And my comments were in the context of the US, where most terrorists (or attempted terrorists) are decidedly Muslim. Total up terrorist attacks and attempts over the last 20 years, there are a handful of non-Muslim ones (Oklahoma City, Unabomber, that Millenium plot guy) compared to numerous Muslim ones ('93 WTC bombings, 9/11, Richard Reed, Christmas bomber, etc..) Hey, maybe in your country the Keebler Elves are the big terror threat, which is great because I hear they are easy to bribe with cookies. But here in the US, it's mostly Muslim.

[this_code_sucks]

@serguey123 said:

most of them are simply indoctrinated kids without much choice in the matter or people with some retarded urge to belong that hang with the wrong crowd. Now, I'm not making excuses for them but the issue is more complex that "Muslism are terrorist!"

I do not see how this statment contradicts the statement that most terrorists are muslim.

Also, you seem to be confirming my orignal comment that helped fuel much of this thread, "terrorists are stupid"

[boomzilla]

@serguey123 said:

@boomzilla said:

Perhaps if we modified the statement to, "most terrorists claim to be Muslims

Again, I would love to see hard data backing that claim, historic data for the last century should be enough, maybe a pie chart

It's certainly possible, after we killed so many of them (and they killed themselves) in Iraq, that there are more non-Muslim living terrorists than Muslim living terrorists. I doubt this, though. In the past, you had the IRA plus other European Soviet backed terrorist types. I guess you still have some here and there in South America (e.g., FARC, Shining Path).

But your insistence on hard data seems silly to me. Do you seriously doubt this, or are you just the sort who doesn't believe he can figure out how to avoid spilling coffee without a peer reviewed study?

[antiquarian]

@boomzilla said:

Also, Communism has never been tried.

I had a roommate during the Soviet era who sincerely believed this. He referred to the economic system in Soviet Russia as "state capitalism".

[morbiuswilters]

@PedanticCurmudgeon said:

@boomzilla said:

Also, Communism has never been tried.

I had a roommate during the Soviet era who sincerely believed this. He referred to the economic system in Soviet Russia as "state capitalism".

I don't know that I 100% disagree with him. Communism is supposedly an ideal state where there is no need for government; Communism and anarchistic Capitalism actually have a lot in common, in my opinion. Both are idealized systems that simply won't exist at a national level. Both ignore history and human nature. The Soviets claimed to be striving for Communism but were really in a highly-regulated form of socialism.

And I don't think "state capitalism" is an entirely inappropriate name for what the Soviets were doing. Ultimately, I think so many of these terms are so poorly-defined and there are so many commonalities between the systems that arguing over terminology is tiresome.

[serguey123]

@PedanticCurmudgeon said:

I had a roommate during the Soviet era who sincerely believed this. He referred to the economic system in Soviet Russia as "state capitalism".

There is some true in that.
@this_code_sucks said:

you seem to be confirming my orignal comment that helped fuel much of this thread, "terrorists are stupid"

Terrorism is stupid, not all of the person involved are stupid, cannon fodder maybe, but the higher ups tend to be less stupids which makes them really shitty human beings

@this_code_sucks said:

I do not see how this statment contradicts the statement that most terrorists are muslim.

Maybe not, I'm just really trying to give some context really, most people just think that Islam is a terrorist breeding religion which is untrue.
@boomzilla said:

Do you seriously doubt this

I'm open to the posiblities
@morbiuswilters said:

Hey, maybe in your country the Keebler Elves are the big terror threat, which is great because I hear they are easy to bribe with cookies

NOT SO!, they are really picky about the type of cookie they want and sometimes they change their mind in the middle of negotiation. Man dealing with chechens is easier than this.

[pkmnfrk]

@boomzilla said:

@serguey123 said:

@boomzilla said:

Perhaps if we modified the statement to, "most terrorists claim to be Muslims

Again, I would love to see hard data backing that claim, historic data for the last century should be enough, maybe a pie chart

It's certainly possible, after we killed so many of them (and they killed themselves) in Iraq, that there are more non-Muslim living terrorists than Muslim living terrorists. I doubt this, though. In the past, you had the IRA plus other European Soviet backed terrorist types. I guess you still have some here and there in South America (e.g., FARC, Shining Path).

But your insistence on hard data seems silly to me. Do you seriously doubt this, or are you just the sort who doesn't believe he can figure out how to avoid spilling coffee without a peer reviewed study?

To be fair, I have not yet figured out how not to spill coffee. The best I can do is mitigate the problem by not wearing long sleeve shirts.

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

@PedanticCurmudgeon said:

@boomzilla said:

Also, Communism has never been tried.

I had a roommate during the Soviet era who sincerely believed this. He referred to the economic system in Soviet Russia as "state capitalism".

I don't know that I 100% disagree with him. Communism is supposedly an ideal state where there is no need for government; Communism and anarchistic Capitalism actually have a lot in common, in my opinion. Both are idealized systems that simply won't exist at a national level. Both ignore history and human nature. The Soviets claimed to be striving for Communism but were really in a highly-regulated form of socialism.

If he means that it was never implemented according to Marx's ideal, then I'd agree. But that's not the same as "not trying."

@morbiuswilters said:

And I don't think "state capitalism" is an entirely inappropriate name for what the Soviets were doing. Ultimately, I think so many of these terms are so poorly-defined and there are so many commonalities between the systems that arguing over terminology is tiresome.

Yeah, if I were to call something state capitalism, it would be the type of corporatism you get in, say, Fascism, or today's General Motors. Basically, it would be a form of socialism (and most of these discussions get distracted by semantics instead of substance) where the state merely attempts to centrally plan stuff while leaving ownership (in part or whole) with someone else. The key isn't ownership (which the semantic defenders of socialism love to emphasize), but control. Socialism of any variety generally works in inverse proportion to the amount that it is centrally planned.

[morbiuswilters]

@serguey123 said:

Terrorism is stupid, not all of the person involved are stupid, cannon fodder maybe, but the higher ups tend to be less stupids which makes them really shitty human beings

Agreed. Most suicide bombers in Afghanistan are just poor, stupid kids manipulated into committing mass murder. I read somewhere that something like 80% of suicide bombers are high on opium when they detonate; their masters like to pump 'em full of the goof juice to keep their nerves from getting to them. Another tactic that was on the rise a few years ago (don't know if it still is) was to kidnap a young woman, rape her and then tell her the only way she could cleanse her spirit and get into heaven was by strapping on a bomb. These people are seriously fucked in the head.

@serguey123 said:

Maybe not, I'm just really trying to give some context really, most people just think that Islam is a terrorist breeding religion which is untrue.

I do see it as that, somewhat. Most modern Muslims seem to be at about the point Christianity or Judaism were 500 years ago. And I do think, given the right circumstances, Christianity could be manipulated to turn people into terrorists. However, most of modern Christianity is benign whereas most of modern Islam has a bit of work to do.

That's not the same thing as saying "All Muslims are terrorists"; people who would say that are idiots. And I do think Islam can be pacified and modernized. But ideology matters and when you have a bunch of people who are poor, uneducated and being manipulated by sociopath Imams, then yes, Islam is going to breed terrorism.

I do think Americans worry about terrorism too much. 9/11 was clearly very traumatizing but even moderate changes to security policy pretty much guaranteed we'd never see something like that again. I do think indulging ourselves in security theater is a bad idea; sting operations to catch terrorists who want to plant a bomb are a good idea; randomly searching bags at the train station is silly. Ultimately, I think we have to learn to live with the fact that we can't prevent 100% of terrorist attacks and that we have to weigh the cost of a security protocol against its benefit.

[boomzilla]

@pkmnfrk said:

To be fair, I have not yet figured out how not to spill coffee. The best I can do is mitigate the problem by not wearing long sleeve shirts.

spoiler alert

Don't fill the mug all the way. Walk slowly and watch your mug so you can correct the situation if it starts sloshing too much.

[this_code_sucks]

@morbiuswilters said:

@serguey123 said:

Terrorism is stupid, not all of the person involved are stupid, cannon fodder maybe, but the higher ups tend to be less stupids which makes them really shitty human beings

Agreed. Most suicide bombers in Afghanistan are just poor, stupid kids manipulated into committing mass murder. I read somewhere that something like 80% of suicide bombers are high on opium when they detonate; their masters like to pump 'em full of the goof juice to keep their nerves from getting to them. Another tactic that was on the rise a few years ago (don't know if it still is) was to kidnap a young woman, rape her and then tell her the only way she could cleanse her spirit and get into heaven was by strapping on a bomb. These people are seriously fucked in the head.

@serguey123 said:

Maybe not, I'm just really trying to give some context really, most people just think that Islam is a terrorist breeding religion which is untrue.

I do see it as that, somewhat. Most modern Muslims seem to be at about the point Christianity or Judaism were 500 years ago. And I do think, given the right circumstances, Christianity could be manipulated to turn people into terrorists. However, most of modern Christianity is benign whereas most of modern Islam has a bit of work to do.

That's not the same thing as saying "All Muslims are terrorists"; people who would say that are idiots. And I do think Islam can be pacified and modernized. But ideology matters and when you have a bunch of people who are poor, uneducated and being manipulated by sociopath Imams, then yes, Islam is going to breed terrorism.

I do think Americans worry about terrorism too much. 9/11 was clearly very traumatizing but even moderate changes to security policy pretty much guaranteed we'd never see something like that again. I do think indulging ourselves in security theater is a bad idea; sting operations to catch terrorists who want to plant a bomb are a good idea; randomly searching bags at the train station is silly. Ultimately, I think we have to learn to live with the fact that we can't prevent 100% of terrorist attacks and that we have to weigh the cost of a security protocol against its benefit.

+1

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

If he means that it was never implemented according to Marx's ideal, then I'd agree. But that's not the same as "not trying."

I think most mean the former, but you are correct. But the hardcore leftists (just like any kind of extremist) are not very clear thinkers or communicators. Speaking of, is it just me or do most modern day Marxists (or Marxians, as they seem to prefer being called) sound a bit schizophrenic? A lot of what they say and write sounds like incomprehensible word salad; the lack of meaningful structure and logic to their verbal communication reminds me of schizophrenics I've known.

@boomzilla said:

Yeah, if I were to call something state capitalism, it would be the type of corporatism you get in, say, Fascism, or today's General Motors. Basically, it would be a form of socialism (and most of these discussions get distracted by semantics instead of substance) where the state merely attempts to centrally plan stuff while leaving ownership (in part or whole) with someone else. The key isn't ownership (which the semantic defenders of socialism love to emphasize), but control. Socialism of any variety generally works in inverse proportion to the amount that it is centrally planned.

I think better terminology might be to assess economic implementations by their properties: command vs. market; subject theory of value vs. objective theory of value (specifically Marx's labor theory).. That's a start. The Soviets definitely fell pretty far towards "command" and "objective value" whereas the US was decidedly towards "market" and "subjective value". I would consider the US a centrist socialist country, like most of Europe. We can bitch about our differences, but in the grand scheme of things we're virtually indistinguishable from France (of course, I'm just talking economics here).

[C_Octothorpe]

@boomzilla said:

@pkmnfrk said:

To be fair, I have not yet figured out how not to spill coffee. The best I can do is mitigate the problem by not wearing long sleeve shirts.

spoiler alert

Don't fill the mug all the way. Walk slowly and watch your mug so you can correct the situation if it starts sloshing too much.

OK smarty-pants, what do you do if you need to look at your watch to see what time it is? Crotch scalding in this situation is unavoidable...

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

Speaking of, is it just me or do most modern day Marxists (or Marxians, as they seem to prefer being called) sound a bit schizophrenic? A lot of what they say and write sounds like incomprehensible word salad; the lack of meaningful structure and logic to their verbal communication reminds me of schizophrenics I've known.

Yes, but I'm not sure if it's really a Marxist thing per se. It seems more of an academia thing (go look at the stupid comic I posted in the beancounters thread), which just happens to be where most of the Marxists are these days. They generally have had to invent a jargon that made their fields sound more important than they really are. I'm sure it's also because their ideas are so loopy that they don't stand up to scrutiny when expressed in clear language.

@morbiuswilters said:

I think better terminology might be to assess economic implementations by their properties: command vs. market; subject theory of value vs. objective theory of value (specifically Marx's labor theory)..

I agree with the command vs market (I usually refer to it as centrally planned vs not, but same thing). But having a centrally planned / command economy really precludes having anything other than objective prices (the Soviets kind of cheated, by leaching off of Western markets to get some sense of prices), because the price is the result of the market. It's a result of all the zillions of decisions going on in the market (think, "I, Pencil"). Of course, reality is more graduated, and central decisions have impacts by distorting markets.

@morbiuswilters said:

I would consider the US a centrist socialist country, like most of Europe. We can bitch about our differences, but in the grand scheme of things we're virtually indistinguishable from France (of course, I'm just talking economics here).

It's definitely along the same lines, though there are degrees of difference. Some parts of the US are extremely socialistic (the worst example probably being public education). But then, we don't centrally decide on things like paid vacation or the length of the work week. Not that our political class isn't doing their best to catch up and pass countries like France in the amount of central planning.

[boomzilla]

@C-Octothorpe said:

@boomzilla said:

@pkmnfrk said:

To be fair, I have not yet figured out how not to spill coffee. The best I can do is mitigate the problem by not wearing long sleeve shirts.

spoiler alert

Don't fill the mug all the way. Walk slowly and watch your mug so you can correct the situation if it starts sloshing too much.

OK smarty-pants, what do you do if you need to look at your watch to see what time it is? Crotch scalding in this situation is unavoidable...

First, I'd have to get in my car and go to a store to buy a watch. In this case, I'll assume I have a no-spill mug for the car, so I think I'm good to go.

[antiquarian]

@morbiuswilters said:

I do think indulging ourselves in security theater is a bad idea; sting operations to catch terrorists who want to plant a bomb are a good idea; randomly searching bags at the train station is silly.

Actually, just having those three things separately would be an improvement. As it stands now, the sting operations and their results are used as justification for the other two.

[serguey123]

@morbiuswilters said:

I do think, given the right circumstances, Christianity could be manipulated to turn people into terrorists

It has been done in the past
@morbiuswilters said:

Most modern Muslims seem to be at about the point Christianity or Judaism were 500 years ago

I disagree here, what most people think of muslim is actually the super strict orthodox part, and let me tell you 99% of orthodox religion is retarded, most modern muslim I know are pretty much the same as modern christians (except for Jehova withesses which we can agree are the bane of the earth)
@morbiuswilters said:

I do think Islam can be pacified and modernized.

It has been, there is a small portion that still hang on to backwards ways but they are a minority.l

[PJH]

@morbiuswilters said:

Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

Are you forgetting the Irish? Or are you talking about very recent history as opposed to just recent history? (Cue story about 'IRA' appearing on Micky D's American payslips in the '80's.)

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

(go look at the stupid comic I posted in the beancounters thread)

That comic certainly looked Marxist.

@boomzilla said:

They generally have had to invent a jargon that made their fields sound more important than they really are. I'm sure it's also because their ideas are so loopy that they don't stand up to scrutiny when expressed in clear language.

I agree, but I also think it's attracted a fair number of people with mild thinking disorders. It's probably both: the jargony obfuscation has attracted schizotypals who have spawned more jargony obfuscation.

@boomzilla said:

But having a centrally planned / command economy really precludes having anything other than objective prices (the Soviets kind of cheated, by leaching off of Western markets to get some sense of prices), because the price is the result of the market. It's a result of all the zillions of decisions going on in the market (think, "I, Pencil"). Of course, reality is more graduated, and central decisions have impacts by distorting markets.

I wasn't talking about prices, I was talking about value. A way to phrase it might be: if you have a command economy, do the state factories produce what people want (subjective) or what your have scientifically determined people need (objective)? But prices and value systems tend to be closely linked, that's true.

@boomzilla said:

It's definitely along the same lines, though there are degrees of difference. Some parts of the US are extremely socialistic (the worst example probably being public education). But then, we don't centrally decide on things like paid vacation or the length of the work week. Not that our political class isn't doing their best to catch up and pass countries like France in the amount of central planning.

At the level of implementation details, sure, there are differences. But our theories are pretty similar. And we may not centrally decide on things like vacation or the length of a work week, but we have a lot of laws governing labor (and give a lot of benefits to unions) so we accomplish much of the same result.

[morbiuswilters]

@serguey123 said:

@morbiuswilters said:

I do think, given the right circumstances, Christianity could be manipulated to turn people into terrorists

It has been done in the past

I'm sure it has, although I can't think of any examples off-hand.

@serguey123 said:

I disagree here, what most people think of muslim is actually the super strict orthodox part, and let me tell you 99% of orthodox religion is retarded, most modern muslim I know are pretty much the same as modern christians (except for Jehova withesses which we can agree are the bane of the earth)

Maybe in the US and your country, sure. Do you really think the Muslims in the Palestinian territories or Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia are mostly moderate? Do people who execute suspected homosexuals and stone adulterous women to death really moderate? Is a Sharia legal system which punishes a woman for being raped moderate?

[morbiuswilters]

@PJH said:

Are you forgetting the Irish?

I always try to forget the Irish.

But I'm really talking about current threats to the US, that's all.

@PJH said:

(Cue story about 'IRA' appearing on Micky D's American payslips in the '80's.)

I'm not aware of that one. What's the story?

[blakeyrat]

@PJH said:

@morbiuswilters said:

Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

Are you forgetting the Irish? Or are you talking about very recent history as opposed to just recent history? (Cue story about 'IRA' appearing on Micky D's American payslips in the '80's.)

Don't forget FARC. I guess they claim to be a genuine military, but I think it's safe to say that by any reasonable definition of the word, they are a terrorist organization.

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

@boomzilla said:

But having a centrally planned / command economy really precludes having anything other than objective prices (the Soviets kind of cheated, by leaching off of Western markets to get some sense of prices), because the price is the result of the market. It's a result of all the zillions of decisions going on in the market (think, "I, Pencil"). Of course, reality is more graduated, and central decisions have impacts by distorting markets.

I wasn't talking about prices, I was talking about value. A way to phrase it might be: if you have a command economy, do the state factories produce what people want (subjective) or what your have scientifically determined people need (objective)? But prices and value systems tend to be closely linked, that's true.

In a command economy, you produce only baby sized left shoes, because that's the easiest way to fill your quota.

But yes, my point is that if you don't have market prices, you're just fucking making stuff up. The Politically Correct Guide to Socialism (highly recommended) uses the dairy section of the grocery store as an example, talking about all of the various sizes, fat content, etc, that you get there, and all of the crazy decision making you'd have to do to try to centrally plan stuff like that. And why it always leads to shortages. The short version is that it's impossible to determine how many people will value what without letting consumers communicate with suppliers through prices (see also Hayek's knowledge problem).

[Speakerphone_Dude]

@serguey123 said:

except for Jehova withesses which we can agree are the bane of the earth

Jehovah witnesses are a significant number of notches above another major PITA religion that currently has pretty much the control over Hollywood and they have lots of lawyers so I won't name them but their dogma includes extra-terrestrials flying spacecrafts that look like DC-8.

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

In a command economy, you produce only baby sized left shoes, because that's the easiest way to fill your quota.

I think it's more complicated than that, but I know what you're getting at. And to be perfectly honest, the Soviets were fucking inept at running a command economy. I mean, command economies generally suck ass, but the Soviets brought whole new levels of ass-suckiness to the game. For an example of an effective command economy, I think you could use the US during WWII. The government was pretty damn effective at churning out shitloads of bombs, tanks, ships and planes. Which I think proves a fundamental truth: command economies are good at killing lots of people quickly.

@boomzilla said:

But yes, my point is that if you don't have market prices, you're just fucking making stuff up. The Politically Correct Guide to Socialism (highly recommended) uses the dairy section of the grocery store as an example, talking about all of the various sizes, fat content, etc, that you get there, and all of the crazy decision making you'd have to do to try to centrally plan stuff like that. And why it always leads to shortages. The short version is that it's impossible to determine how many people will value what without letting consumers communicate with suppliers through prices (see also Hayek's knowledge problem).

To a degree, yes. But some would question the value of a hundred varieties of milk when one variety is enough to feed people; there's even that hypothesis that all of the choices of a modern, market economy are making us miserable. I actually agree a bit with that hypothesis, although I think the problem of choice is one that will come up in any prosperous economy; it's just that non-market economies are never prosperous. So you get to choose between not having enough to eat or watching your ass expand due to the abundance of cheap food. And obviously the latter is preferable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own costs.

I don't 100% agree with your assessment of prices. Absolutely, supply-and-demand and pricing info are great at driving the distribution of resources, but command economies can emulate some of that. There's no reason a command economy couldn't implement a pricing structure. Shortages of supply can happen in every economy, it's just that in market economies the price of a scare resource shoots up, which leads to a more effective utilization of limited resources, whereas command economies usually operate on a first-come-first-serve basis, so if the store runs out of toilet paper you get to wipe your ass with turnip leaves.

[morbiuswilters]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

...another major PITA religion that currently has pretty much the control over Hollywood and they have lots of lawyers...

It's Jews, isn't it?

[this_code_sucks]

@morbiuswilters said:

@boomzilla said:

In a command economy, you produce only baby sized left shoes, because that's the easiest way to fill your quota.

I think it's more complicated than that, but I know what you're getting at. And to be perfectly honest, the Soviets were fucking inept at running a command economy. I mean, command economies generally suck ass, but the Soviets brought whole new levels of ass-suckiness to the game. For an example of an effective command economy, I think you could use the US during WWII. The government was pretty damn effective at churning out shitloads of bombs, tanks, ships and planes. Which I think proves a fundamental truth: command economies are good at killing lots of people quickly.

@boomzilla said:

But yes, my point is that if you don't have market prices, you're just fucking making stuff up. The Politically Correct Guide to Socialism (highly recommended) uses the dairy section of the grocery store as an example, talking about all of the various sizes, fat content, etc, that you get there, and all of the crazy decision making you'd have to do to try to centrally plan stuff like that. And why it always leads to shortages. The short version is that it's impossible to determine how many people will value what without letting consumers communicate with suppliers through prices (see also Hayek's knowledge problem).

To a degree, yes. But some would question the value of a hundred varieties of milk when one variety is enough to feed people; there's even that hypothesis that all of the choices of a modern, market economy are making us miserable. I actually agree a bit with that hypothesis, although I think the problem of choice is one that will come up in any prosperous economy; it's just that non-market economies are never prosperous. So you get to choose between not having enough to eat or watching your ass expand due to the abundance of cheap food. And obviously the latter is preferable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own costs.

I don't 100% agree with your assessment of prices. Absolutely, supply-and-demand and pricing info are great at driving the distribution of resources, but command economies can emulate some of that. There's no reason a command economy couldn't implement a pricing structure. Shortages of supply can happen in every economy, it's just that in market economies the price of a scare resource shoots up, which leads to a more effective utilization of limited resources, whereas command economies usually operate on a first-come-first-serve basis, so if the store runs out of toilet paper you get to wipe your ass with turnip leaves.

I wouldn't place all the blame on free market abbunance on our fat ass problem; although it's certainly not helping. We have this thing called crop subsidies; the government PAYS YOU to grow corn. As a result of this oversuply of corn, corn sugar dirt cheap and is in everything; corn sugur, like regular sugar, can make you fat. Additionaly, the oversupply in corn also leads to a lot more beef production since their feed is dirt cheap. Not only is additional beef produced, the beef is much fattier than it should because cows evolved to eat grass, not corn.

[morbiuswilters]

@this_code_sucks said:

I wouldn't place all the blame on free market abbunance on our fat ass problem; although it's certainly not helping. We have this thing called crop subsidies; the government PAYS YOU to grow corn. As a result of this oversuply of corn, corn sugar dirt cheap and is in everything; corn sugur, like regular sugar, can make you fat. Additionaly, the oversupply in corn also leads to a lot more beef production since their feed is dirt cheap. Not only is additional beef produced, the beef is much fattier than it should because cows evolved to eat grass, not corn.

Well, I think the real issue is self-control. I'm not blaming markets for making people fat, I'm just saying that markets enable people to get fat (which is not a bad thing, it's just a thing). Farm subsidies are stupid, but we'd still have cheap corn, cheap beef and fat people without them.

[da_Doctah]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Speakerphone Dude said:

...another major PITA religion that currently has pretty much the control over Hollywood and they have lots of lawyers...

It's Jews, isn't it?

No, Zoroastrians.

[gaffer1]

@this_code_sucks said:

@_gaffer said:

@this_code_sucks said:

I would say the terrorists that don't get caught this way are pretty fucking stupid too. I mean how dumb do you have to be to believe you will get 70 virgins when you blow your self up?

How dumb to you have to be to allow incredible restriction of your civil liberty because of the actions of a few lunatics who don't seem to understand that you can detonate a bomb without killing yourself?

And again, here we go with the generalizations. You assume because I don't have a problem with the FBI arresting people WHO BUY AND ATTEMPT TO DENTONATE BOMBS that I'm on board with the entire war on terror and detaining people without a trial, ect. Fuck you.

The real idiots are people who think there are only two sides to any given issue; people like you.

This, like most things this is a very complex issue. Yes the US government does a lot of shitty things in the name of the war on terror; it's true. But that being true does not negate the fact that there really are some bat shit crazy terrorists that want to blow shit up.

And, here we go with the accusations of generalisation from someone who backs up their argument with strawmen and their own generalisations.

Putting words into my mouth doesn't make the spineless acquiescence to inappropriate violation of civil liberty any better.

Yes, there are those who would injure US Americans in an attempt to scare the people of that country, just as there are those in the USA who would happily destroy those who disagree with them. It cuts both ways.

Your batshit crazy arguments help no one, and just show what a ridiculous fucking cuntrag you really are. You've provided nothing of substance, just a convoluted example of the paranoia that fuels this "War on Terror" parade of horseshit. You might want to think about that before vomiting a bunch of meaningless drivel. Or not. I don't know how you get your kicks.

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

I mean, command economies generally suck ass, but the Soviets brought whole new levels of ass-suckiness to the game. For an example of an effective command economy, I think you could use the US during WWII. The government was pretty damn effective at churning out shitloads of bombs, tanks, ships and planes. Which I think proves a fundamental truth: command economies are good at killing lots of people quickly.

What the command economy needs is for people to be willing to sacrifice for the common goal. An existential war is probably the best way to make that happen. Though a better example of a command economy in the US would actually be WWI. Soon enough, the misallocation of resources catches up to you. Just ask the Chinese.

@morbiuswilters said:

So you get to choose between not having enough to eat or watching your ass expand due to the abundance of cheap food. And obviously the latter is preferable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own costs.

Yep. I'm happy to have the problem of being too rich and having too much to eat any time.

[oheso]

@this_code_sucks said:

I mean how dumb do you have to be to believe you will get 70 virgins ...

 

Not sure if this point has been made clearly enough, but it might be more fun to have 70 non-virgins ...