Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 08 2019, @11:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the einstein-dismisses-india-scientists dept.

BBC:

Some academics at the annual Indian Science Congress dismissed the findings of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Hindu mythology and religion-based theories have increasingly become part of the Indian Science Congress agenda.

But experts said remarks at this year's summit were especially ludicrous.

[...] The head of a southern Indian university cited an old Hindu text as proof that stem cell research was discovered in India thousands of years ago.

G Nageshwar Rao, vice chancellor of Andhra University, also said a demon king from the Hindu religious epic, Ramayana, had 24 types of aircraft and a network of landing strips in modern day Sri Lanka.

Another scientist from a university in the southern state of Tamil Nadu told conference attendees that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were both wrong and that gravitational waves should be renamed "Narendra Modi Waves" [Narendra Modi is the current Prime Minister of India].


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 09 2019, @03:05PM (29 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 09 2019, @03:05PM (#784122) Journal

    Humble pie is good for most everyone, the vain most of all, but you talk as if that would screw things up.

    Indeed, you are correct on that last observation. One can be humbled by one's hubris or by someone else's hubris. The rich shouldn't pay for your hubris any more than you for theirs. You have yet to describe a problem that requires forced serving of "humble pie". The rich aren't supermen, nor are they responsible for most of the problems you perceive - even when those problems actually are problems.

    My view on hubris is that the disease is the cure. And if it doesn't result in said self-serving of humble pie, then it wasn't hubris in the first place. I have many better things to do with my life than take down people who are trying to make the world a better place - even if for the wrong reasons.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:21PM (14 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:21PM (#784154) Journal

    > You have yet to describe a problem that requires forced serving of "humble pie"

    That's a "Let Me Google That For You" problem. Where to begin? How about "Too Big To Fail"? Whole lot more bankers, financiers, and CEOs should've been axed. And stood trial and gone to prison for all kinds of lying and market manipulation and straight up theft such as not paying their employees.

    > The rich aren't ... responsible for most of the problems you perceive

    Either they are mature adults with rather more power than the average bear, and responsible for corrupting our politics and rigging the game, or they're spoiled childish greedy brats whom we have failed to keep on a tight leash, failed to notice they shouldn't be allowed to drive a child's tricycle let alone a nation. If they're mostly the second sort, then you are in a way correct. They aren't responsible. They have learned enough to ape maturity and fool most people most of the time (and whose fault is that, ours or theirs?), know to dress in nice monkey suits, can (barely) hold together a facade of wholesome family life (might need some of that wealth to pay off the objects of all those extra-marital involvements), but they aren't mature adults and leave a trail of disappointment and disaster every time they step in and take charge, because, contrary to their dearest desires, they are not great thinkers nor pillars of morality, quite the opposite. The harm they do is small and confined when they stay in their mansions, or play CEO of a middling company. But when they get delusions of greatness and try their poisonous, unethical shtick on entire nations and actually manage to gain power despite their utter ineptness, incompetence, and meanness, not to mention their crimes, because some of us really did want to elevate them to such dizzying heights of responsibility, then life gets rougher for us all.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:48PM (13 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:48PM (#784166) Journal

      That's a "Let Me Google That For You" problem. Where to begin? How about "Too Big To Fail"? Whole lot more bankers, financiers, and CEOs should've been axed. And stood trial and gone to prison for all kinds of lying and market manipulation and straight up theft such as not paying their employees.

      "Too big to fail" had nothing to do with the hubris of the people involved and everything to do with how the US (and most of the rest of the developed world) choose to address the problem. As to the "lying and market manipulation and straight up theft such as not paying their employees" that was a relatively minor component of the crisis. The crisis still would have happened in their absence.

      Either they are mature adults with rather more power than the average bear, and responsible for corrupting our politics and rigging the game, or they're spoiled childish greedy brats whom we have failed to keep on a tight leash, failed to notice they shouldn't be allowed to drive a child's tricycle let alone a nation.

      Neither is choice three. I think it should be obvious that just because one is rich doesn't mean any of the above is true. There are other ways to become and stay rich. It also ignores the complicity of the US voter who has been more concerned about getting their piece of the squeeze than in relatively honest government for decades (exhibit A: the people whining about the Social Security money "promised" them by the Federal government).

      They have learned enough to ape maturity and fool most people most of the time (and whose fault is that, ours or theirs?), know to dress in nice monkey suits, can (barely) hold together a facade of wholesome family life (might need some of that wealth to pay off the objects of all those extra-marital involvements), but they aren't mature adults and leave a trail of disappointment and disaster every time they step in and take charge, because, contrary to their dearest desires, they are not great thinkers nor pillars of morality, quite the opposite.

      Amateur psychoanalysis is worthless here. Oh dear, there's a rich person somewhere out there with mental problems. Doesn't tell us what to do about the ones who don't have those problems. This sounds like one of those dehumanization shticks before someone goes out and does something stupid and cruel, like ethnic cleansing.

      When you attack a group of people whose sole common characteristic is that they're successful financially, then you're attacking the employers and producers of society. It's a classic Ayn Rand villain move right up to the faux moralizing. Sure, you'll occasionally scoop up the sociopathic parasite, but that's not what most rich people are.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday January 09 2019, @06:16PM (7 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @06:16PM (#784211)

        Tell me honestly, do you believe "too big to fail" actually meant that congress truly believed that letting them collapse, or breaking them up, would destroy the US economy, or that it would damage their campaign contribution and post-political employment options (and likely hurt they and their friends investment portfolios)

        That's the fundamental problem - pretty much ALL politicians serve the interests of themselves and their campaign contributors rather than their constituents, as proven by their voting records. And why not? Those moneyed interests have outsized control of the pre-election process, such that they can pretty much pre-select the candidates who will be running in most prominent elections. Why is the top marginal tax rate a measly 40%, when the country was doing much better by pretty much every measure when it was 90% on income over $1M? Not because there's any rational argument to support it, but because the people with money bought a change in the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the general populace.

        Frankly, I don't think the underlying problem is rich people with mental problems (though they can do a LOT more damage than if they were poor), the problem is perfectly rational rich people who have radically outsized influence in the system, and no particular concern for how much the populace is hurt so long as they personally benefit.

        You want a start to a fix? I'd say eliminate the corporate veil completely, and force the rich to take responsibility for their actions. Tesla gets hit with multiple counts of involuntary manslaughter for Autopilot malfunctions - Don't just fine them, sentence them to the typical 1-4 years of prison per count, to be served proportionally by the owners of the company. Say it's only 10 years, then Musk's ~20% of stock gets him 2 years behind bars. The wealthy investor who holds fifty thousand shares (~$17M) only gets 24 hours, but is still required to show up and spend his brief time behind bars, or face automatic contempt of court penalties. The investment corporation that owns Tesla stock gets its prison time proportionally distributed amongst its own stockholders, recursively, until the final human stockholders are found. Most retirement accounts hold so little stock that they'd only get their owners a few minutes or seconds behind bars - probably waive that entirely rather than incur the implementation overhead - or maybe just keep a record, and if/when your total share of all corporate punishments gets to something worth imposing, *then* you do your day in prison.

        We should eliminate corporate bankruptcy as well - if liquidating the company can't pay its debts, then let the shareholders pay the balance.

        Stop letting the people who own and operate the bulk of the economy hide from the consequences of their actions. Eliminate all value to corporate shell games. Let's get business back to having some semblance of responsibility for their actions beyond building shareholder value.

        Of course, that won't fix things completely - modern corporations (which bear little resemblance to the limited term, single-task institutions that originally carried than name in the U.S.) were created in response to those same wealthy individuals, who wielded outsized influence even without those shields. But at least it's a step in the right direction.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:56AM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:56AM (#784406) Journal

          Tell me honestly, do you believe "too big to fail" actually meant that congress truly believed that letting them collapse, or breaking them up, would destroy the US economy, or that it would damage their campaign contribution and post-political employment options (and likely hurt they and their friends investment portfolios)

          The latter more likely. But that's not how they rationalized it.

          That's the fundamental problem - pretty much ALL politicians serve the interests of themselves and their campaign contributors rather than their constituents, as proven by their voting records. And why not? Those moneyed interests have outsized control of the pre-election process, such that they can pretty much pre-select the candidates who will be running in most prominent elections. Why is the top marginal tax rate a measly 40%, when the country was doing much better by pretty much every measure when it was 90% on income over $1M? Not because there's any rational argument to support it, but because the people with money bought a change in the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the general populace.

          Please recall those tax loopholes that went with the high tax rate (for example, in 1960 the 0.01% was paying roughly 45% [wsj.com] on income despite having that 90% tax bracket). We have actual cases where really stupid governments pushed marginal taxes truly over 90%(here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] - notice in both cases the protests are by parties who favored high taxes until they had to give up hard earned wealth to greedy governments).

          And I find it telling how you whine piteously about the mean legislatures serving the wealthy and then propose to give more money to those wealthy via taxes. Who has the overseas tax shelters? Who gets the lion's share of tax revenue?

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:45AM (5 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:45AM (#784445)

            You think anybody in the 0.01% is actually paying the current 37% tax rate on actual income either? Closing tax loopholes is good - but there's still plenty of ways to doge taxes with a good enough accountant.

            Perhaps you can explain how I'm advocating giving the wealthy more money through higher taxes on *the wealthy*? Yes, they will undoubtedly get most of it back into their own pockets, but they'll also be paying for a larger share of society's infrastructure costs. Costs of which they are the greatest ultimate beneficiaries, since the smooth functioning of that society is what generates all their wealth.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:26AM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:26AM (#784889) Journal

              You think anybody in the 0.01% is actually paying the current 37% tax rate on actual income either? Closing tax loopholes is good - but there's still plenty of ways to doge taxes with a good enough accountant.

              Well, close the loopholes then. It's not rocket science. I don't see the point of advocating for 90% tax rates when you're not willing to fix what would break that ridiculous tax rate in the first place.

              My view is that we'd have a vastly better system, just keeping the current tax brackets and eliminating (and keeping eliminated!) all tax breaks and loopholes. That also means far less demand for said "good enough accountant". Meanwhile a 90% rate that isn't actually paid by the wealthy is a big waste of time.

              Perhaps you can explain how I'm advocating giving the wealthy more money through higher taxes on *the wealthy*?

              The first observation is that most of that money goes to the wealthy in the first place either directly paid by government, or through laundering by poorer people first. Then all they have to do is avoid paying taxes on that profit and there are plenty of ways to do that.

              Costs of which they are the greatest ultimate beneficiaries, since the smooth functioning of that society is what generates all their wealth.

              Sure they are. They also already pay more even at the reduced tax rates than anyone else for those benefits.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @04:18PM (3 children)

                by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @04:18PM (#785090)

                You do realize that the strong private property laws that allow them to build and maintain their fortunes are one of the major features of the smooth functioning of society, right? Ther's nothing sacred about those - just another social construct. Natural law is that you can only keep what you can personally defend.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @05:03AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:03AM (#786273) Journal

                  You do realize that the strong private property laws that allow them to build and maintain their fortunes are one of the major features of the smooth functioning of society, right?

                  A 90% tax rate means you don't have those strong private property laws. The thieves are in charge.

                  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 14 2019, @03:50PM (1 child)

                    by Immerman (3985) on Monday January 14 2019, @03:50PM (#786459)

                    Only if you pay the tax - and as I've already mentioned, the whole point of such a tax is encourage businessmen to spend money on their business, rather than pocketing excess profits.

      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday January 09 2019, @06:32PM (4 children)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @06:32PM (#784213) Journal

        > whose sole common characteristic is that they're successful financially

        Read this: https://planetsave.com/2013/12/23/a-rigged-game-of-monopoly-reveals-how-feeling-wealthy-changes-our-behavior-ted-video/ [planetsave.com] . It's about experiments in which the game of Monopoly was rigged to give one of the players, chosen at random, an unfair advantage. In short, most became pretty obnoxious about it. Some even rationalized their success as the consequence of their superiority.

        > then you're attacking the employers and producers of society.

        Again, they're not supermen. They aren't uniquely qualified, there are many others who could produce if only they had the resources and power.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:50AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:50AM (#784371) Journal

          the game of Monopoly

          The game of Monopoly is not real life. It is deliberately designed to be cutthroat. For example:

          A 'Rigged' Game Of Monopoly Reveals How Feeling Wealthy Changes Our Behavior [TED VIDEO] shutterstock_128036102 I remember playing various board games as a kid with my family and friends…games like parcheesi, The Game of Life, and Monopoly. And of all the games we played, it was that last game on my list that I liked the least (although I would be initially enthusiastic about playing it).

          Even though I was young (and lacked the technical vocabulary to describe the phenomenon), I would quickly become aware that the game, as it progressed, seemed to cause a change in the behavior of those who were “winning” (as to my behavior: I cannot recall ever winning the game, and I mostly found it boring)…a change that I would later identify as more cut-throat (or ruthless), and, they were less likely to forgo collecting their due rent from those who had little capital. And, of all the games we played, Monopoly seemed to be the one in which people were more likely to “cheat”, if only in small ways.

          What's going on is a typical cut-throat game tactic. Play cooperative at first, so you aren't dogpiled by everyone else. Then when you're so far ahead that dogpiling won't work, win the game. That is always going to be pretty cut-throat in the end because nobody wants their game of Monopoly to last all night while stringing along the losers. The research is nonsense and says nothing about actual wealthy people who never stop needing cooperation and real life which is not a zero-sum game like Monopoly.

          In one humorously shocking (or shockingly humorous) example, one of the advantaged players, after successfully winning the game, was heard explaining what he had done, strategically, to succeed and win. This example speaks to “how we make sense of advantage”, says Piff

          Because strategy stops working when one side has an advantage? And notice how aggressively they move those playing pieces and eat those pretzels!

          Again, they're not supermen. They aren't uniquely qualified, there are many others who could produce if only they had the resources and power.

          Point is that there's a great system for finding and funding a large population of people who have demonstrated success in their area. Sure, there might be others, even many others, who could do the same, but are somehow slighted by the system. But those others have already failed a big test of fitness by not having mustered resources and power in the first place. How are you going to figure out who're the hidden producers in a supposedly better way without throwing too many resources on people who aren't?

          Plus, your little Monopoly article just indicates to me that if we ever did find a better way to allocate resources than the already generous present, you would dish out that humble pie anyway. It's almost like you just hate successful people.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:49AM (2 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:49AM (#784448)

            >But those others have already failed a big test of fitness by not having mustered resources and power in the first place.

            You would have a point, if not for the fact that the most overwhelmingly common source of those resources and power is not your own talents or efforts, but an inheritance from your parents.

            That's not a test of fitness, it's a blood dynasty.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:37AM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:37AM (#784891) Journal

              if not for the fact that the most overwhelmingly common source of those resources and power is not your own talents or efforts, but an inheritance from your parents.

              Suppose your assertion is true. You still have the matter that just because someone gets money from a relative doesn't mean that they keep the money.

              And it's something that could be solved in a few generations by the older generation giving resources to the next generation. Then everyone has that common source of resources and power. Don't hold your breath for the majority of people who just aren't interested in that to start doing it.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @03:39PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @03:39PM (#785065)

                >You still have the matter that just because someone gets money from a relative doesn't mean that they keep the money.

                Right, they might be spectacularly incompetent and lose it all. Or spectacularly generous and give it all to good causes. It happens. Just like you occasionally get a Bill Gates that climbs from the working class into the wealthy elite.

                But that's not the way to bet. If you're wealthy, it's a really good bet that your parents were wealthy. Same thing with poverty. And that means that all the clever minds born at the lower end of the social spectrum will tend to stagnate, while the mediocre ones at the top will tend to bungle on.

                And no - I don't think it's an easily solved problem - but it *is* a major problem when capitalism is combined with inheritance - both in terms of social justice, and economic efficiency. The wealth in the hands of those mediocre minds would be leveraged much more effectively by some of the clever minds that will never see it.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:51AM (13 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:51AM (#784374) Journal

    How do you manage to talk fluently with your tongue all over the elites' boots? Is it because you're talking out your ass?

    Hallow, you are not a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire. You are not part of the elite. You will never be part of the elite. Brownnosing the elite will avail you nothing; you do not even figure into their worldview, and were you to starve and die on the street, none of them would know, nor would they care if they did know.

    You need to wake up to reality: you have much, much more in common with everyone you despise than with the rich.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:17AM (12 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:17AM (#784413) Journal
      Is this going to become another thread where you tell us [soylentnews.org] how wonderful things will become when we screw over 100 people to save 1 person? You used the "temporarily-embarrassed millionaire" line there too. I explained there why it was a nonsensical term. That explanation applies here as well (namely, laws that screw over millionaires routinely screw over the far less wealthy as well - there's a long history of blowback from these schemes).

      Hallow, you are not a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire. You are not part of the elite. You will never be part of the elite.

      I quite agree. So what? When are we going to hear something relevant to the thread?

      You need to wake up to reality: you have much, much more in common with everyone you despise than with the rich.

      I don't think much of the sort of person who doesn't want to try for something (like wealth), complains when they don't get it without said trying, and squanders it when they do get it through a windfall.

      Sorry, I think we have a huge list of more important things to worry about than the alleged psychology of rich people.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 10 2019, @11:11PM (11 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday January 10 2019, @11:11PM (#784714) Journal

        This response doesn't surprise me at all. Disappoints me, yes, but doesn't surprise me. "[T]he psychology of rich people," and fuck your "alleged," is responsible for tremendous ills in this world.

        And why is this? Because money becomes an addiction for them. No matter how much they have, it's never enough. And the more they get, the more distant from ordinary people and ordinary peoples' experiences they become. Money, power, and privilege exert a well-known, easily-observable "gravitational" or positive-feedback effect, in that the more of them you have the easier it is to game the system and attract even more. Combine all of these, and you have a self-sustaining, self-accelerating recipe for disaster.

        How many working poor people do you know? I guarangoddamntee you they work harder than most middle-class people, for obviously far lower wages, in much worse conditions. If hard work were THE prerequisite to wealth and success, single mothers would be millionaires. You willfully refuse to see how the world works, and while I could speculate as to why, I don't give a damn any longer: I'll happily file it away under "Hallow's a shitty human being and has zero will to improve himself."

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:55AM (10 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:55AM (#784894) Journal

          This response doesn't surprise me at all.

          Back at you on that. But what can we do when you continue to fail to learn? The rebuttals remain true and effective today just as they did back then. Meanwhile the shrill mocking of "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" means not only do you not have a clue, you haven't even bothered to try to get a clue.

          How many working poor people do you know?

          Presently, I work at a company that employs thousands of them. I work with them every day.

          Money, power, and privilege exert a well-known, easily-observable "gravitational" or positive-feedback effect, in that the more of them you have the easier it is to game the system and attract even more.

          Until, of course, the amounts get so unwieldy that you can't figure out how to invest it at the higher returns on investment that you could with smaller amounts of wealth. For example, Amazon grew in market capitalization from roughly $14 billion at the beginning of 2005 to over $700 billion presently. This theory of wealth gravitation would then assert that they're going to grow by at least a factor of 50 from the present till oh, 2033 with similar ease. No idea how Amazon would be earning the 1 or 2 trillion USD needed to make that valuation possible, but you'll no doubt figure a way.

          You willfully refuse to see how the world works

          Back at you on that. I've long ago learned to disregard the moral noise from your quarter since you remain ignorant of consequence.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 11 2019, @06:12AM (5 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 11 2019, @06:12AM (#784915) Journal

            Khallow, seriously, she is only trying to help you restore some modicum of humanity, and renounce your ideological arguing in bad faith! We are all here to help you, khallow. I have known several individuals who were severely infected with libertarian fantasies and free-market wishy syndrome, who recovered. The same is possible for you. You only need listen to reason, question your base assumptions, and realize that you are living in fantasy world of your own creation! None of you economics is real, khallow! Not even on a psychological level. It is pure construction, Austrian school mental monetary masturbation. Stop it, or you will go blind. If you have not already.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @01:14PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @01:14PM (#785012) Journal
              I thought this would bring you out. If you ever decide to engage in honest, good faith argument, I'll be around.

              None of you economics is real [...] It is pure construction

              As an aside, that is how you make ideas real. You construct them. Dependency on human minds (or perhaps other minds which aren't necessarily as complicated as a human one - see pollination or carcass feeding behavior for examples of non-human animal behavior that uses some basic principles of economics) doesn't make ideas unreal.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 11 2019, @10:19PM (3 children)

                by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 11 2019, @10:19PM (#785250) Journal

                My gawd, khallow! Are you seriously saying that Buzzards, such as our own dear Mightly one, used their mind, and the principles of economics, to choose to specialize in carrion-feeding? Amazing. Almost a good as the "backhoe rental" theory of capitalism. At least you did not suggest that the "other mind" was a divine creator intelligence, whose invisible hand controls the universe.

                So know we know that carrion-feeding is a lifestyle choice, not something that beings are born that way. Next we can expect conservative clinics that "Pray away the Carcass!", and people saying "Hate the disgusting diet, but love the cute Buzzard". Personal buzzard responsibility, and all that.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @05:04AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:04AM (#786274) Journal
                  It's sad that we can't have grown up talks. There's something going on in your head, but it just never gets out.
                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday January 14 2019, @06:45AM (1 child)

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday January 14 2019, @06:45AM (#786322) Journal

                    My dear and fluffy khallow, it is you that prevents rational discourse! Let's for examples's sake. consider the difference between the cost of production, and the price of widgets. Do you not realize that in a normally competitive economy, the fixed cost would be the same for all enterprises, so the only way they could provide a margin of "profit" would be by not paying their workers the full value of their labor? Or do we just hold their kids in captivity, until they agree to our wage demands? You are an intellectual scab, khallow. I would love to have an adult talk with you, but that would have to be predicated upon you actually becoming an adult, and not a Vienna Circle Austrian Economics White Supremacist Ideological syncophant. Suck it up, khallow, or the rest of SoylentNews will continue our embargo of your bullshit.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @01:18PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @01:18PM (#786426) Journal

                      Let's for examples's sake. consider the difference between the cost of production, and the price of widgets. Do you not realize that in a normally competitive economy, the fixed cost would be the same for all enterprises, so the only way they could provide a margin of "profit" would be by not paying their workers the full value of their labor? Or do we just hold their kids in captivity, until they agree to our wage demands? You are an intellectual scab, khallow. I would love to have an adult talk with you, but that would have to be predicated upon you actually becoming an adult, and not a Vienna Circle Austrian Economics White Supremacist Ideological syncophant. Suck it up, khallow, or the rest of SoylentNews will continue our embargo of your bullshit.

                      I await this rational discourse. It sounds quite interesting. But the above is not an example of it.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 11 2019, @05:42PM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 11 2019, @05:42PM (#785143) Journal

            Hallow, there is a limit to how much the gravity effect works, but it only happens when so much money has been hoovered up that it depletes the economy around it. You're doing the equivalent of objecting to the idea of black holes by saying that they stop growing once they've eaten all the nearby stars around them.

            Look, I get it: you're evil. All religions and most secular traditions speak of people like you. I know you can't be changed until you want to, and you're comfortable and well-off enough not to want to yet. Well, that's fine; I do this, again, for everyone watching you, to make sure your selfish, blind horseshit doesn't seem to go unopposed and to break it down for people who might otherwise be ensnared by it. Get it now? This is not for your benefit; it's for the protection of anyone unfortunate enough to stumble into the swamp of moral nullity that is The Hallowsphere.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @05:07AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:07AM (#786276) Journal

              Hallow, there is a limit to how much the gravity effect works, but it only happens when so much money has been hoovered up that it depletes the economy around it. You're doing the equivalent of objecting to the idea of black holes by saying that they stop growing once they've eaten all the nearby stars around them.

              It has diminishing returns long before that point.

              Look, I get it: you're evil.

              Look, you don't get it. You keep reverting to these stupid morality plays rather than thinking. It's been going on as long as you've been here.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:43AM (1 child)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:43AM (#786800) Journal

                You keep on proving my point: evil cannot comprehend good. Again, I understand, and I accept this. If placing humans above profits, if not objectifying people and not deifying things is a "stupid morality play," then I happily accept your accusations, and stand guilty as charged. I can't convince you, or people like you, to place people above objects, and frankly I am becoming weary of trying. Again these posts are not for you, but for anyone unfortunate enough to come into your orbit.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:34PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:34PM (#786895) Journal

                  You keep on proving my point: evil cannot comprehend good.

                  Since you're the one with the comprehension problem, what does that say about you? You keep playing these games, but you're not listening to yourself. I think it's actually more or less good advice. Too bad the person saying it isn't following it.