prev <-> next
[2004-05-07 11:02:00] - "I am always trying to apply Tempo and Tempo-related ideas to my actual play. But what is tempo? It seems to me that Tempo is kind of like pornography. Much as you would like, you can't quite put your finger in it... but you sure know it when you see it." hehe -dave
[2004-05-07 11:00:00] - Sorry guys, I was called away to a meeting. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:55:00] - that was me, though maybe I shouldn't be owning up to it - vinnie
[2004-05-07 10:55:00] - travis: aha, so like all great phrases, it's racist in origin. you vandalous mongol
[2004-05-07 10:54:00] - blue collar: "Industrial blue-collar workers formerly and to a large extent still do wear "work clothes" where the shirts are a navy blue color" - travis
[2004-05-07 10:53:00] - blue blood: "This expression is said to have originated in Spain to differentiate people with very pale skin (i.e., European) from those with Moorish or Jewish ancestory. For people with pale complexions, blood vessals appear to have a blue tint" - travis
[2004-05-07 10:52:00] - davron: i've always wondered that myself. especially weird since blue-collar means almost the opposite of blue-blooded - vinnie
[2004-05-07 10:50:00] - maybe it can be construed as someone who's blood is totally devoid of any oxygen, HEHE -dave
[2004-05-07 10:49:00] - aaron: the term means kinda like from a very privileged background, or royalty. Like both Bush are Kerry are construed as blue-blooded since they came from elite families / backgrounds. Both in that frat. Skull and Bones or somesuch, both went to yale, etc etc -dave
[2004-05-07 10:48:00] - sunday is mother's day. Just so no one forgets -dave
[2004-05-07 10:48:00] - dave: What does the term mean? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:46:00] - how did the term "blue-blooded" come into being? is it based on anything ? -dave
[2004-05-07 10:45:00] - All companies care about is "i want a bigger beach" and "more sand means more customers to buy Big Johnson T-shirts" - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:44:00] - Companies are selfish. People are selfish. Look at the whole jetty conundrum on any given coastline. Nobody gives a damn how nice the beach looks, or how dangerous it is to be swimming near a solid brick of concrete - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:43:00] - mig: haha, you know what's funny? it ends up being like govt, except the govt is a bunch of different agencies that are privately owned. -dave
[2004-05-07 10:42:00] - kinda funny since they also absorb heat better than others -dave
[2004-05-07 10:42:00] - did you know that black materials radiate heat better than others? most interesting -dave
[2004-05-07 10:40:00] - aaron: yeah i think so. i'm pretty sure there would be a group that would formulate their own building code standards, kind of like the Doctor's Association that paul was talking about. - mig
[2004-05-07 10:39:00] - paul: I believe we have hashed this out between us before, but I think the core issue is that you believe that companies would self-regulate and make things generally ok. I have a less altruistic viewpoint and think that companies generally wouldn't -dave
[2004-05-07 10:37:00] - aaron: profitable for them to investigate that kind of thing? It's the company that is profitting by it. They tell the stockholders, oh we made this profit, when they actually didn't. -dave
[2004-05-07 10:37:00] - Or i guess some impartial yet money-driven company, the American Association for Ethical Companies, would be hired to certify that their company was sound - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:37:00] - paul: house of straw? well if your house catches fire it makes it much more likely that same of your neighbor's houses would catch fire too. -dave
[2004-05-07 10:35:00] - dave: I'm sure it would be profitable for the company to investigate that kind of thing eventually - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:33:00] - other things businesses get away with are like accounting "errors". I doubt stockholders would know about companies making these "errors" unless the govt caught them -dave
[2004-05-07 10:33:00] - mig: So if fire safety regulations were repealed, buildings would be about as fire-safe as they are today - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:31:00] - mig: Architects? Really? How many buildings does an architect build over the course of his life? What are the odds that, even if his buildings aren't fire-safe, that it will be discovered? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:31:00] - one instance of businesses getting away with stuff is the big mutual fund scandals. The govt caught them, but the businesses got it past the "consumers" for something like 10 years -dave
[2004-05-07 10:29:00] - Paul: I'm talking about like, a five-story library where they decide it's unprofitable to pay someone to regularly test the fire extinguishers and smoke detectors, or have regular fire drills, because nobody cares about those things and they're very inconvenient - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:29:00] - aaron: architects and construction companies have a very strong incentive to make their buildings safe. - mig
[2004-05-07 10:29:00] - Paul: Public buildings, not private buildings - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:28:00] - Aaron: I think fire regulations are also wrong. Why shouldn't I be able to make my house entirely out of straw if I want to? -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:27:00] - Aaron: Yes, it would be working for profit, but that doesn't mean it would be bought off. Hundreds, if not thousands of magazines, and organizations and websites work for profit now and don't accept any money from companies they review. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:26:00] - Aaron: There could be ways worked around it, and even if there aren't ways, that's just too bad, IMHO. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:25:00] - Paul: How about government-enforced fire safety of public buildings? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:25:00] - I've never seen anybody use that expensive looking device and I'm pretty sure hardly nobody ever does, because they are actually currently using it to store boxes. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:24:00] - Aaron: No, I don't think it's cost effective for them to have it and I don't think they should be forced to have it either. There is a quiznos near my work that needs this bulky escalator type machine which takes up (and I'm not exagerating here) nearly a quarter of their space used for people sitting to eat. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:23:00] - Paul: And the AADA would be working for profit - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:23:00] - But if someone's grandmother wants to go to his birthday party, and she's chair-ridden and can't go, someone's going to feel awful about that. - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:23:00] - Aaron: Not necessarily Walmart approved. But something like American Association of Doctors Approved. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:22:00] - Paul: Is it really worth it for ULTRA-ZONE to have a handicap access ramp? Are that many people going to use it? It's almost definitely not cost-effective - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:22:00] - Paul: I don't know - handicap accessibility for instance - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:21:00] - Paul: So instead of the FDA, you'd have like, "Walmart-Approved" you're thinking? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:21:00] - Aaron: Like what? -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:20:00] - Aaron: Also interesting to note, what did the FDA, with all it's glorious power to help protect people from evil, do about cigarette smoking? -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:20:00] - I don't think everything can be driven by money. There are some pretty good things which businesses are forced to do today although they are not necessarily cost-effective - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:20:00] - Aaron: No cigarette companies are one of the exceptions (although actually they DO want their customers to stay alive and be happy with their product as long as possible. They don't WANT their smoking customers to die, ironically enough). -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:18:00] - Aaron: Any of those things would work. Mostly I think physicians and pharmacists would do the work. They often won't prescribe drugs until there have been many studies done showing it's safe. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:17:00] - and it's not like there wouldn't be watchdog groups set up by consumers. - mig
[2004-05-07 10:16:00] - If it were up to them they'd probably just have a naked woman covering the entire outside of the package. I don't think they'd care about warning labels at all - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:16:00] - Paul: I don't know. Do you think Tobacco companies first interest is, "I want our customers to stay alive and happy?" - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:16:00] - Aaron: Companies, along with the normal groups of physicians and pharmicists and medical groups, consumers groups, etc. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:15:00] - Paul: Maybe rely on, I don't know, word of mouth, or the media, to tell me if the company is lying? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:15:00] - Aaron: The important thing that I think many people forget is that businesses aren't out there intentionally trying to think up of ways to kill their customers. In fact, keeping their customers alive and happy is probably one of their biggest priorities. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:14:00] - Paul: So companies should be themselves fully responsible for warning people about the possible negative effects of a product which they're trying to sell? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:14:00] - If the product has some potentially dangerous side effect or something that the customers need to know about, I'm confident the business would make note of it or the information would be distributed somehow. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:13:00] - Aaron: I'm not against warning labels themselves (except for stupid ones like not using a brick as a flotation device, j/k) but I don't think the government should force companies to put warning labels on their products. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:12:00] - Aaron: My only point is that when it comes to the moral high ground, I definitely don't think the government has it. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:11:00] - Paul: Drugs that may unknowingly kill you though? I mean the FDA is also responsible for ensuring warning labels are put on drugs to ensure people are aware of the side effects of a drug. Are you against that? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:10:00] - Mig: That's another good point. It seems like governments are also a helluva lot better at covering things up than businesses. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:10:00] - Paul: Businesses don't generally have armies they need to enforce those kinds of practices
- aaron[2004-05-07 10:10:00] - It's like if you support the right to die, then I can't imagine how you could NOT support the right to buy medicine which may or may not kill you. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:09:00] - Aaron: To me, the issue isn't accountability (that was for the benefit of Pierce) but of control. I don't think the FDA has the right to tell me that I can give money to some company in return for a product they make. I don't care if there is undisputed facts showing that the medicine will kill me. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:08:00] - to add again to what paul is saying, has a business really ever "gotten away" with any misdeeds that they have committed? - mig
[2004-05-07 10:07:00] - Even our own "great" democracy has been responsible for sanctioning slavery, segregation, jailing Japanese citizens for committing no crimes, forced sterilizations, multiple unjust wars, and even now have arrested loads of Arabs for no reason. What's the worst businesses have done? Denny's might have not served a couple of black people. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:06:00] - Gotta work, I'll rejoin later. - pierce
[2004-05-07 10:05:00] - Paul: So if the FDA were held more accountable for their misdeeds, would you support them? - aaron
[2004-05-07 10:05:00] - Pierce: Just think of all the great human tragedies of history. Nearly all of them were done by governments, not businesses. The holocaust, crusades, nearly every war. Businesses have a sterling track record compared to governments, even democracies. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:03:00] - Pierce: A politician's primary concern is to be re-elected. A businessman's primary concern is to make money. Both involve doing things that the public thinks is good. The difference is that politicians typically have more power than businessmen. I see no particular moral difference between them. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:01:00] - Mig: Excellent point. I would challenge you to show me how agencies like the FDA, IRS etc are even remotely accountable to the people. Businesses are FAR more accountable for their misdeeds than those agencies are. -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:01:00] - Paul: but the priorities are different. If a legislator represents business wallets over people, we can say "you're not doing your job" and fire them. If a businessman represents money over people, on the other hand, we can hardly blame him because he is doing his job. - pierce
[2004-05-07 10:01:00] - Pierce: So you think it's perfectly ok for the government to step into our little private transaction and say "I'm sorry, we're not going to let you make the decision to buy this"? -Paul
[2004-05-07 10:00:00] - and I'd like to add to what paul said that people in government bueracratic agencies like the FDA are even less accountable for their misdeeds than politicans themselves. - mig
[2004-05-07 10:00:00] - Aaron: No, you seem to understand well enough. In order for a voluntary court system to work, both sides have to want to resolve the issue. In some cases, the company probably would not want to go to court. But I believe that in most cases it would. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:59:00] - Paul: by what moral authority? It's not all that complicated. Hurting other people = morally bad. Convincing people to hurt themselves = close enough to hurting people to be morally bad. Selling a harmful drug = convincing people (who do not have medical background) to harm themselves = morally bad. - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:58:00] - Pierce: And once again I think you're putting too much unreasonable faith in the government. The government is no more noble than a business. They are both comprised of flawed humans who are ultimately looking out for themselves. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:58:00] - paul: I probably don't understand but it sounds like the customers would say, "Please come to court!" and the company would say, "No!" and that would be that - aaron
[2004-05-07 09:57:00] - paul: Explain how a voluntary court system could, I don't know - penalize a company who knowingly released a day-after pill which was really a placebo, just to get money - aaron
[2004-05-07 09:57:00] - Pierce: Ok, think of it this way then. You decide to mix OJ and Vodka and find it tastes good and cures cancer. I decide I want to buy some of your OJ and Vodka from you. What right does the government have to tell me that I can't? -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:56:00] - I'm not saying faulty drugs never hit shelves now, just as I never claimed that current government has no corruption. My point is that we have an authoritative body that is ultimately obligated to represent and/or benefit its citizens, rather than its wallet, as the top priority. - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:56:00] - well, yes, clearly it will do something, just not enough to my liking
- vinnie[2004-05-07 09:55:00] - Vinnie: It all really depends on what you mean by "work". In many respects, a voluntary court system probably wouldn't "work" for you guys. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:54:00] - Paul: no, I didn't. But what you're "willing to bet" sounds like an incredible gamble to take. Ultimately, it leaves the decision of what drug to take in the hands of people who are uneducated about medicine. And history has shown that people will frequently trust the marketing of the drug companies over the claims of their doctors. - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:54:00] - Aaron: Yeah, medicine is a very iffy science still. It can take years for potentially dangerous side effects other bad things to happen. Just think of all the waffling that Travis was talking about regarding eggs. We can't even decide how safe a natural food is. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:54:00] - here's where I unsurprisingly differ from paul: i don't think voluntary court will work
- vinnie[2004-05-07 09:52:00] - aaron: I believe you're right - vinnie
[2004-05-07 09:52:00] - Pierce: Both sides find an arbiter that they find acceptable impartial and agree to abide by his/her decision. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:51:00] - Doesn't faulty medicine still hit shelves somewhat regularly, with the current system? I thought I remembered reading that medicine often got like 6 months of "shelf-time" before the FDA could catch up and claim it as unsafe - aaron
[2004-05-07 09:51:00] - Pierce: Besides, on what moral authority are you taking their money? Even if their drug was dangerous, I'm sure that the vast majority wasn't intentionally designing a dangerous drug. And the drug also had to have been pretty useful too, otherwise people wouldn't have bought it. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:50:00] - Explain to me, if you don't mind, how a voluntary court system can be at all effective. In a capitalist world, could it not be bought? Even if it can't, why would a corporation that had done something wrong subject themselves to a court that would find them guilty? - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:49:00] - Dammit. "my world". -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:49:00] - Pierce: The practitioners of faulty medicine are still held accountable in "my world
[2004-05-07 09:48:00] - Pierce: Did you read that article I posted about the FDA? I would be willing to bet that the FDA has hurt more people by keeping life saving drugs off the market then it has helped people by keeping potentially dangerous drugs off the market. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:48:00] - damn, one letter short. - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:48:00] - Paul: but government regulation allowed the practitioners of faulty medicine to be accountable, when all is said and done, for their actions. They had to give back a lot of the money they had received to the people they had received it from. In your world, as far as I can tell, they'd get to keep the money that they fraudulently received. - pierc
[2004-05-07 09:47:00] - Pierce: It could operate like the civil courts in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, where it's essentially voluntary. It can be voluntary and still be effective enough. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:46:00] - pierce: well, i'd chalk most of it up to lack of knowledge. things have slipped past government regulations too - vinnie
[2004-05-07 09:46:00] - Pierce: For instance, I'm pretty sure the US Army regularly used mercury as a medicine during the civil war. So not only did the government allow such a dangerous medicine, it promoted it's use. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:46:00] - Travis: but all the swaying is good... it makes everybody take what they hear with a grain of salt, and decide for themselves. Mmmm, salt and eggs. - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:45:00] - Pierce: A lot of those medical things you describe happened under the government's watch, though, and it was the fault of science and biology more than capitalism. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:44:00] - Paul: the "anarcho-capitalist" world was the one I was referring to. So there would have to be a civil court system, huh? Well, if everyone is subject to the rulings of that system, then I don't see how that's not on the "side" of socialism
. And if participation is voluntary, I don't see how it would be effective at all. - pierce[2004-05-07 09:43:00] - and testing is never really done or final, just look at the swaying back and forth about such things as the health effects of eggs - travis
[2004-05-07 09:43:00] - pierce: i'm thinking that in an anarchocapitalist world that paul describe, landowner corporations would set the rules and enforce them over their jurisdiction. so enforcing the lawsuits would fall on them - vinnie
[2004-05-07 09:41:00] - Vinnie: what about all the snake-oil that was released before government regulation? What about "doctors" who prescribed mercury baths? What about Fen-Fen and (yes, I know it's a procedure not a drug, but) lobotomies as "valid" medicine? - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:41:00] - Pierce: Oh, I guess it kinda depends on what "my world" we're talking about here. In a true anarcho capitalist society, I'm not sure if they would face lawsuits or not. To me, it seems like there would have to be SOME sort of civil court system that is constructed. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:39:00] - yeah, good example, paul. that's the kind of thing where I think standards are kind of silly - vinnie
[2004-05-07 09:39:00] - Travis: Who are the three people and what is their position? -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:39:00] - Paul: they'd still face lawsuits? Who would be the authoritative body hearing, judging, and enforcing the effects of those lawsuits? - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:39:00] - except i'm kind of more with paul. i can't see companies releasing some really horrible drug that they haven't tested thoroughly - vinnie
[2004-05-07 09:39:00] - Vinnie: Oh, right. I totally agree with that. Without government regulations we probably wouldn't have nearly as many airbags in cars (if any at all). Of course, that could be a good thing in terms of both efficiency AND safety. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:37:00] - hehe, it's funny that three people who have read fight club are all on the same on this
- travis[2004-05-07 09:37:00] - Pierce: Because the relative severity of the penalty is the same. And they would still face lawsuits in "my world". Fines are almost always insignificant compared to loss of customers and bad press. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:36:00] - it's just as likely to make the product but I think it is less likely to be released. not arguing whether this a good or bad thing (safety vs. efficiency) but I could definitely see a scenario where a company would release a product that the government wouldn't allow released. the government can have higher standards than people need - vinnie
[2004-05-07 09:36:00] - mig: but not every car is dangerous, so the company doesn't such a bad reputation, and the few cases where something dangerous is released might not get much publicity - travis
[2004-05-07 09:35:00] - Travis: So let me get this straight. Disney gave Moore money to make a film and then decided they didn't want to market it (and hence make money off of it), and Moore is mad about this? Didn't he just get free money from Disney? -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:35:00] - Paul: how do you figure? Right now they face long-term loss of customers and fines and lawsuits. In your world, they would only have the first of those three. How can you say they'd be "just as likely" to build faulty cars in both of those circumstances? - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:34:00] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3690115.stm "robot" made from DNA - travis
[2004-05-07 09:33:00] - Travis: Yeah, the point isn't that businesses would start making exploding cars. The point is that a business is just as likely to make a product it KNOWS is dangerous now as it is without government regulations. Because either way it's going to mean heavy penalties for the company. -Paul
[2004-05-07 09:32:00] - travis: i think that thinking however is a little flawed since it doesn't take into account how much future business you'll lose once everyone figures out your cars are dangerous. - mig
[2004-05-07 09:30:00] - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901 moore knew disney wasn't going to release his movie - travis
[2004-05-07 09:29:00] - seems to make the most sense in paul's ultra capitalisic world - travis
[2004-05-07 09:29:00] - about the harmful drug topic: it would probably turn out like the car making theory in fight club, where you see how much money you'll lose because of lawsuits from faulty cars and if it's less than the profit you make selling the cars you go ahead and release a dangerous car - travis
[2004-05-07 09:26:00] - mig: Although that would be hilarious if they just opened their mouth, closed it again, and were like, "That's all of them" - aaron
[2004-05-07 09:18:00] - mig: no, it won't be short because Fox will just claim all the failures as "achievements". It's a feature, not a bug. - pierce
[2004-05-07 09:11:00] - dave: looks like that fox news show will be a short one. - mig
[2004-05-07 08:51:00] - Dave: It happened in King of the Hill once. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:50:00] - out of curiosity - I wonder if any of the olympic flame bearers has ever accidentally dropped it? -dave
[2004-05-07 08:47:00] - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-05-19-hss_x.htm hypersonic sound - enables you to generate localized sounds. Kinda cool cuz my dad told me about it half a year ago when he did a patent on it -dave
[2004-05-07 08:43:00] - Dave: That's what I thought. I posted them just in case. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:43:00] - Dave: I remember somebody suggested that maybe a news anchor should read the names of the soldiers still serving in Iraq, so people could pray for them or something. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:42:00] - paul: That's ok, as you know, I put no stock whatsoever in statistics so I won't even read them -dave
[2004-05-07 08:42:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6799-2004May6.html oops, here is the link -dave
[2004-05-07 08:41:00] - haha. Ted Koppel devoted a show to reading off the 721 names of dead soldiers from Iraq. Now Fox is going to devote a show to listing off the achievements that have been accomplished in Iraq -dave
[2004-05-07 08:40:00] - http://www.downsizedc.org/cases/fda.shtml Not sure if you will accept these statistics over your own personal experiences, but here they are.
-Paul[2004-05-07 08:37:00] - Dave: Ah, ok. Gotcha. Yeah, most people don't expect satellite radio to make a profit for a good long time. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:37:00] - Dave: Well, I guess my point is that a business WOULDN'T be creating deadly drugs and failing so the situation probably would never arise. A counter-question, though, is that do YOU think the cost of a few dead people is an acceptable cost for the FDA? -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:36:00] - paul: I know sirius is what you invested in. That's why I said it was bad news for you. Because XM is growing like mad - presumably much faster than Sirius -dave
[2004-05-07 08:36:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6811-2004May6.html - haha, baseball dropping the plans for ads on bases. Guess too much backlash -dave
[2004-05-07 08:35:00] - Dave: It's still bad news for me, but Sirius is the company that I invested in.
-Paul[2004-05-07 08:34:00] - paul: I know they wouldn't stay in business long, but you think the cost of the first few dead customers is acceptable? -dave
[2004-05-07 08:33:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6843-2004May6.html - Bad news for you paul. XM triples sales, but still posts loss -dave
[2004-05-07 08:33:00] - Dave: Lots of different ways. The drug companies would do their own studies, personal physicians and pharmacists would probably only recommend the safe drugs, and a drug company that starts killing off their customers isn't likely to stay in business very long.
-Paul[2004-05-07 08:31:00] - paul: or just flat out drugs that dont' do what they're supposed to and may be actually harmful -dave
[2004-05-07 08:30:00] - Dave: You mean drugs that are created that have potentially harmful side effects? -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:29:00] - Dave: And how is calling my opinion 'sad' any less personal than me saying I trust my statistics over your personal experience? Not that I care, I'm just trying to figure out how I offended you before.
-Paul[2004-05-07 08:28:00] - paul: interesting thought - I know you support no govt. regulation of drugs - so how do you stop unsafe drugs from harming some people before people realize that they are harmful? -dave
[2004-05-07 08:27:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6766-2004May6.html -Plan B (day after pill) not to be sold over the counter -dave
[2004-05-07 08:24:00] - paul: yeah, I know you don't. Still kinda sad that you feel that way tho -dave
[2004-05-07 08:21:00] - Dave: That's not the only reason, and to be honest I don't ever expect to be put in a situation where me not marrying out of the knowledge that she will leave me comes into play. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:19:00] - paul: as a slight aside, it seems to me somewhat sad that you wouldn't get married for fear that the woman would leave you -dave
[2004-05-07 08:18:00] - Dave: Shouldn't the men be pretty faithful too then?
-Paul[2004-05-07 08:16:00] - paul: ahh ok. Then I disagree with you. I think most guys are scumbags. I probably see a slightly different cross-section than you being as I'm more immersed in the christian culture, but most of the females I've seen have been pretty faithful -dave
[2004-05-07 08:14:00] - Dave: That's not what I was saying at all, I think that most WOMEN are scumbags, not men. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:14:00] - Dave: I think it was a mixture of both, but I'll go ahead and bite and say that I also think marriage would be somewhat stupid for me specifically too. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:13:00] - paul: I agree with you then. I think most guys are scumbags and the women definitely should divorce them. -dave
[2004-05-07 08:12:00] - Dave: The cliche is something like a college graduate is in the top X% or so of the population (I forget the commonly stated statistic too
) -Paul[2004-05-07 08:12:00] - paul: ahh ok. I got it wrong then, I was going off of the fact that you said you just thought marriage was wrong because you would be scared the woman would leave you. I thought we were talking on a more specific lvl -dave
[2004-05-07 08:11:00] - paul: like you keep on stating, us having a college education puts us in some minuscule %? I forget what % you always state -dave
[2004-05-07 08:11:00] - Dave: I put a great deal of stock in personal experience too, but I don't think we were necessarily talking about ourselves as much as whether or not marriage is a good idea for men in general. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:10:00] - paul: I guess another way to state my point, is that if you can come up with a statistic that says that 2/3 of women get divorces from guys like us who probably would be the most faithful people in the world, then that would be a good statistic. But we just aren't like most of the population -dave
[2004-05-07 08:10:00] - Dave: No, I don't think I ever stated you were wrong. I said that I thought that my statistic trumped your personal experience. I was stating my opinion, and you told me to stop the personal attacks, which I found a bit perplexing. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:09:00] - paul: granted, that probably will never happen, but I was just trying to make a point -dave
[2004-05-07 08:08:00] - paul: I think in the end, the only real thing that matters is personal experience. Who cares if 95% of the world is doing one thing? If the world that you have interaction with is in that 5%, then the statistics are not going to have any bearing on the matter -dave
[2004-05-07 08:07:00] - paul: I never said that you weren't entitled to your opinion. In fact, I've never really flat out even said that your statistic is wrong - because it is probably based on some good stuff, I was just raising surprised skepticism because it doesn't match with what I've seen in RL. You on the other hand, flatly stated that I was wrong. -dave
[2004-05-07 08:07:00] - Dave: The thing is we can't count on our personal experiences because we have too small a sample pool and a biased pool. That's why I personally put more faith in big statistics like the one that was stated over personal experiences most of the time. -:Paul
[2004-05-07 08:06:00] - Dave: Well, I've never heard of it happening. Not that I'm saying you're lying or anything, just that in my personal experiences it NEVER happens. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:05:00] - Dave: Right, and you are entitled to your opinion that I am extreme, I just don't understand why I am not entitled to my opinion that YOUR opinion on men initiating most divorces is wrong. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:04:00] - paul: I was surprised as you in each of those cases - surprised that the guy would just up and leave. In one instance, no one knew where the guy had gone. But he had taken some of his stuff with him -dave
[2004-05-07 08:04:00] - Dave: I'm sure it's entirely possible that many divorces ARE the fault of men. But I think just as often men have good reasons to initiate divorce too. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:03:00] - paul: umm, I don't know how often. Just like 4-5 out of those 5-6 instances I used as an example -dave
[2004-05-07 08:03:00] - paul: yes, you do try to check both sides. On the other hand, many times you take views that I believe are extreme even in the face of (to me) compelling evidence otherwise -dave
[2004-05-07 08:03:00] - Dave: How often do you think it happens that men just up and leave their wives without filing for divorce though? -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:01:00] - paul: the other thing is, it seems fairly plausible to conjecture that those women who filed for divorce may have had good reason to - they may have had the stereotypical husband who slept with other people -dave
[2004-05-07 08:01:00] - I didn't just find this random website and take everything it says as fact. I've been reading about this topic for YEARS and I've never heard anything to even suggest that the statistic is made up or misleading. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:00:00] - paul: my other point, is that maybe the statistics are misleading. Thinking back on those 5-6 situations where the guy left, I realized that actually, I don't think any of the guys actually filed for divorce. They just up and left. Obviously that wouldn't be included in your statistic -dave
[2004-05-07 08:00:00] - Dave: I would hope by now that all of you realize that I DO make sure I check both sides of a debate before accepting statistics though. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:00:00] - Pierce: And when you say "Dave is almost certainly right in saying that there are likely to be statistics "proving" both sides of the argument", I have never even heard of anybody who has tried to claim that men initiate more divorces than women. Even the radical feminists that I tend to hate seem to admit it. -Paul
[2004-05-07 08:00:00] - paul: obviously, many people dont' feel that way, but if you went solely off of statistics etc, you might get the idea that they were correct -dave
[2004-05-07 07:59:00] - paul: I think the thing is, is that many times it's useful to do a reality check on statistics or news things that you see published. Personal experience I believe is the best way of doing that. For example, the RIAA has published / pointed to many studies that say that P2P is THE thing that is reducing their profits... -dave
[2004-05-07 07:58:00] - I really don't see what the problem is here. All I was saying is that I put more faith into statistics which probably involved thousands if not millions of people over a single person's experiences involving 5 or 6 people. Isn't that pretty reasonable? -Paul
[2004-05-07 07:57:00] - Pierce: Right, and that's why I said "I think" that the statistics trump his personal experience. I know that it's possible for statistics to be false, but I don't believe that these statistics are because I have never heard anybody even try to refute them AND it goes along with my own personal experience and theories on life. -Paul
[2004-05-07 01:37:00] - Just as personal experiences don't inherently trump statistics. - pierce
[2004-05-07 01:32:00] - I'm not saying that proves anything one way or another in this argument, but the presence of statistics doesn't "trump" anything inherently. - pierce
[2004-05-07 01:31:00] - Paul: yes, because "evidence" has never been manipulated to say anything other than the truth. </sarcasm> Fact is, Dave is almost certainly right in saying that there are likely to be statistics "proving" both sides of the argument. So one could say that your choice of statistics is as "silly" as Dave's choice of personal experience. - pierce
[2004-05-06 20:08:00] - I have no problem with people using personal experiences (I use it all the time), I just think that it's silly to insist that your personal experiences apply to the majority when other evidence implies otherwise. -Paul
[2004-05-06 20:06:00] - If you gave me statistics from some large study showing that my personal experiences were contrary to the majority, then I would certainly accept that just like I would hope others would accept those kinds of statistics when they go contrary to their own personal experiences. -paul
[2004-05-06 20:04:00] - Travis: No, there was a difference and I was treating both personal experiences the same. They have their place, but if wider statistics exist, I think they trump personal experiences. -Paul
[2004-05-06 19:18:00] - you chastised dave for using personal experience but place your own on a pedestal - travis
[2004-05-06 19:17:00] - Paul: just to be nitpicky about your debate with dave, you said both "Somehow I think nationwide stats done on lots of people trump your personal experience with 5 or 6 people" and "I'm going mostly from personal experience and observations, true, but I think there is reason to think it applies to the population as a whole as well." - travis
[2004-05-06 19:13:00] - Mel: heh, i think some people were leaving work when you were getting lunch
- travis[2004-05-06 18:08:00] - Travis: I have a reason for doing that, but I would rather explain tomorrow. Bye all! -Paul
[2004-05-06 18:07:00] - ok, lets continue the discussion when you guys come back tomorrow. Once again the west coast time gets me. -Mel
[2004-05-06 18:07:00] - Paul: and the main reason i bring the animal aspect up is that you keep equating love with having sex/kids, even though there are millions of couples who love each other but never have kids - travis
[2004-05-06 18:05:00] - and i do realize how hippyish that sounds
- travis[2004-05-06 18:04:00] - All I'm saying is that I trust stats taken on a larger pool of people than stats taken on a smaller pool. -Paul
[2004-05-06 18:04:00] - Paul: well, it's more like do animals love? because your theory of love evolution uses the same principle of male protection as you usually see in animals - travis
[2004-05-06 18:04:00] - Dave: I'm a bit confused, I'm not getting personal here, you're the one quoting personal examples. -paul
[2004-05-06 18:03:00] - paul: Don't get too personal. And there are statistics support both sides I'm sure. That's why I was quoting personal experience -dave
[2004-05-06 18:03:00] - As much as I hate it, since I really want to defend my stance on the evolution of love, I think I should be leaving too. Work ended for me about 20 minutes ago.
-Paul[2004-05-06 18:02:00] - Dave: Bye dave. -Paul
[2004-05-06 18:02:00] - paul: no, they can. but it's much much more rare. they're lucky to get the guy to marry them in the first place -dave
[2004-05-06 18:02:00] - Dave: Somehow I think nationwide stats done on lots of people trump your personal experience with 5 or 6 people.
-paul[2004-05-06 18:02:00] - dave: bye, I'll look for more statistics on who initiates divorce most often and post something. -mel
[2004-05-06 18:02:00] - everyone: cheers and have fun ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 18:02:00] - Dave: You think that women CAN'T initiate divorce? -Paul
[2004-05-06 18:01:00] - paul: personal experience. I know of 5-6 couples that have gotten divorced. Ever single one was the guy leaving the girl -dave
[2004-05-06 18:01:00] - Travis: I don't think I am stretching the definition of love at all. I'm just saying that love probably had to evolve, right? And so there must be a reason for it to exist, right? Presumably to help propogate the species? -Paul
[2004-05-06 18:01:00] - paul: i'm not missing that fact. i think that fact is wrong. -dave
[2004-05-06 18:00:00] - hence the woman wouldn't want to go off and have kids with a weak man, nor be protected by one - travis
[2004-05-06 18:00:00] - Everyone: well, I understand paul's point but disagree with it. so I'm off since i think it will end up being discussed for a good while longer. have fun ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 18:00:00] - vinnie: that's a really good comparison (risks involved with marriage and poker). -Mel
[2004-05-06 18:00:00] - Dave: You're missing the fact that women initiate most divorces. It would take something earth shattering for me to initiate a divorce too, but I can still fear a woman initiating it. -Paul
[2004-05-06 18:00:00] - Paul: yes, but evolution also means men and women want to find the best possible mate so their genes have a stronger chance of moving on based on quality, not just quantity - travis
[2004-05-06 17:59:00] - vinnie: yeah, the odds are probably much more likely that you will die in a car accident. But everyone still drives ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:59:00] - That doesn't mean she won't favor some. Maybe the father of her child, maybe the strongest, whatever. But it's probably not nearly as strong a connection as a man has with a woman bearing his child. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:58:00] - Women are the ones bearing the child, the don't need to stick with the father or any one, single man like the man does (he is linked to the woman who is bearing his child). She just needs a protector, ANY protector. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:58:00] - it's like saying you should never play poker because most people lose money on it - vinnie
[2004-05-06 17:58:00] - but honestly, I think I trust my own judgment in people enough to confidently marry someone. I bet you can find tons of statistics about how dangerous something is, but really, if you think you're careful the odds mean nothing - vinnie
[2004-05-06 17:58:00] - paul: i'm surprised because I would have thought you would have had the same mentality -dave
[2004-05-06 17:58:00] - Ok, let me try from the top. Men and women want their genes passed on. Women are weak and need male protection to survive. Men have evolved to love one female to stick by her and help her survive to help carry on his genes. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:57:00] - Paul: i think you're stretching the definition of love. i don't "love" my money but i will protect it. just protecting an investment (e.g. money, child, mate) doesn't mean you neceassarily love it - travis
[2004-05-06 17:57:00] - paul: I'm rather surprised at you. I have no problem with marriage because it would take something somewhat earth-shattering to ever make a divorce happen for me -dave
[2004-05-06 17:56:00] - i'm not arguing that it's worth it to get married. i'm just saying there wasn't much "benefit" to begin with. most people got married just to be married - vinnie
[2004-05-06 17:56:00] - paul: haha, limited resource. that's funny. yes, I understand your point. But also the girl has a limited time-span whereas the guys isn't. So the guy has much more of a chance at making something work than a woman. She only has a limited time span to make it work -dave
[2004-05-06 17:55:00] - Vinnie: I wouldn't get married just so I can say "I'm married". It's too dangerous. And I'm not joking here. I really do think marriage is dangerous. You can be charged more alimony and child support than you can pay. There are stories of men going broke paying alimony and child support and then getting arrested for not paying. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:55:00] - I don't get that either - vinnie
[2004-05-06 17:55:00] - Paul: "A woman can have the guy die and really not be too bad off as long as she finds a replacement. If the woman dies on a man, he needs to start all over" i don't get it - travis
[2004-05-06 17:54:00] - Paul: my point was that the woman would want to stick around with the superior guy so that she can keep having kids with him - travis
[2004-05-06 17:54:00] - yay for misspelling incentive twice in a row -dave
[2004-05-06 17:54:00] - Dave: You're saying guys are always fertile, so think of sperm as an infinitely available resource. Women aren't always fertile. Limited resource. That's why women don't need to stick with one man, they just need to be able to find A man. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:53:00] - paul: very true, little insentive. The insentive is that sometimes women will leave because the guy can't make a commitment. But more often it is the girl who hangs on waiting for a commitment -dave
[2004-05-06 17:53:00] - except saying you're married, which was the benefit in the first place, no? - vinnie
[2004-05-06 17:52:00] - The article says a prenup would help solve most of the problems, so Dave is right. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:52:00] - paul: missed your logic there, doesn't seem to follow from my comment -dave
[2004-05-06 17:52:00] - All I know is that men are getting married less often and that I think those stats have something to do with it. There seems to be NO benefit for a man to get married in this day and age. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:52:00] - paul: people don't like making prenups because they feel like it's dooming the marriage to failure right off the bat. In your case, you might not have any such inhibitions -dave
[2004-05-06 17:51:00] - Dave: Right, creating a child is a long process that the guys have to oversee. That's why they have to evolve to fall in love to protect the investment in the female while she is pregnant and weak. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:50:00] - paul: yes, the prenup solves the problem -dave
[2004-05-06 17:50:00] - Mel: I'm no legal expert, but I'm guessing no. Or maybe females are refusing to sign prenups because they find the idea offensive. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:50:00] - paul: that's why the guy's stay fertile so much longer -dave
[2004-05-06 17:49:00] - Dave: Yes, but think about how many miscarriages and the like happened back then, along with a year long wait or so. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:49:00] - paul: because he's stuck with her up to this point. the new person you have no idea of really yet -dave
[2004-05-06 17:48:00] - holy shit, you all went debate crazy while I went home - vinnie
[2004-05-06 17:48:00] - Paul: So doesn't a prenup eliminate the problem with marriage? -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:48:00] - Dave: I'm sorry, I meant based on what is the old guy more likely to stick around? -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:47:00] - Mel: Pretty much, but I imagine the divorce process is also pretty stressful and the like. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:47:00] - paul: why? if it fails, he can just go get another woman and have another baby? -dave
[2004-05-06 17:47:00] - A woman can have the guy die and really not be too bad off as long as she finds a replacement. If the woman dies on a man, he needs to start all over. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:46:00] - paul: based on practical experience. Haven't you heard of the girl leaving the guy for some other guy, and the being dumped by the other guy later? quintessential -dave
[2004-05-06 17:46:00] - Ok, think of it this way. A man impregnates however many women and sticks with one to try to ensure the baby lives. His really REALLY needs to stick to this woman because he can only protect one at a time. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:46:00] - Paul: ok, I haven't finished reading the article yet. But it seems to me that breaking up with a longtime gf messes up your social and emotional life anyway. So the difference is mostly financial. -Mel
prev <-> next