Here's a fun little game some of you might enjoy...

http://www.mcvideogame.com/

And, no, its not affiliated in any way with the evil clown, it's created by Molleindustria :)

Also, check out These guys for a clever take on what games can do.

*After playing couple of rounds of McDonalds game, TC starts to shutter in fear, as the world now looks more darker and meaner to him*

Heh, sorry darl' :)

Yes we eat muck today. But I do wonder how those eco people would feed the world today, there are 6 billions people on it and we have to use these methods.

Maybe so, but either way, the idiot who thought that feeding cows to cows was a good idea was an idiot :)

Pretty much yes, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed but you can't expect the world to feed itself with ancient technology.

Not that I'm a health nut, but organic food isn't outdated. Nor do I need my chooks full of antibiotics.

Slash and burn agriculture is bad. It's nothing new either.


I agree, but there is good and bad technology :)

Yep, lets go the Soylent Green way.

"Soylent Green is people!"

For those who are a bit younger and don't know what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

<_<

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Oct 2 2007, 02:51 PM) [snapback]314306[/snapback]</div> LOL Philistines...

Soooo.... Should I be sad that given the chance, most people nowadays would semi-unwittingly rather eat the yellow and blue varieties :P


Good movie btw :)

Glad to be vegetarian :)

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/297...8642029_rs.jpg
:ph34r:

Begone men-eating fiends!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tulac")</div>That's true.
Nothing screams McDonalds like a planet full of morbidly obese, malnourished finks leering covetously at a shitty 4oz burger.
Especially those little black african kids on the tv.
Look at their little pot bellies.
Too many mcdonalds they've had.

Aw Gawd.... and I thought there is no life after Supersize ME.....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Oct 4 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]314555[/snapback]</div>That's true.
Nothing screams McDonalds like a planet full of morbidly obese, malnourished finks leering covetously at a shitty 4oz burger.
Especially those little black african kids on the tv.
Look at their little pot bellies.
Too many mcdonalds they've had.
[/b][/quote]

Heh, you just reminded me of American Gods by Neil Gaiman, in which Famine's greatest achievement is how he introduced humanity to fast food. No nutritional value, yet they all get fat and die, instead of skinny starvation.

Good book.

Would you eat differently grown beef at home?

The problem isn't in McDonalds itself. There was fast food before (pizza, kebabs and alike) the problem is that people don't eat at home anymore. McDonalds is just symbol of that way of life, but it's not the cause.

Yes. :)

I very much doubt you can find it anywhere. McDonalds and supermarkets/butcheries have the same suppliers in the end.

True, but when I get to eat beef (which is rare around here) it's not ground up with meal and assorted offal, like what you find in their burgers, it's actual cuts. Whether or not it's chock full of hormones I don't know :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Oct 4 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]314591[/snapback]</div>Hehe, and what do you think they put in all those sausages, pate's etc. You'd pretty much have to be a vegetarian to escape that, or eat really expensive meat although even then you'll stumble on hormone enriched meat.

So again I have no idea why is McDonalds so special? True it does not have nutritional value, but I consider more like eating chips or some other snack rather than a true meal. About people who go to eat there every day, well that's their problem. I doubt their diet would be much better if there weren't for McDonalds.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tulac")</div>They rape the third world a little bit too.
Then they pump enough money into charities to get their name on it before never thinking of it again.

Crap food isn't a big deal, but you'd think that much collective evil could muster the resources to provide a decent burger.

You guys get stuck with McDonalds which I never cared for. I go to a real burger joint here or for fast food Whataburger. Much better. But really I pefer BBQ beef ribs at a place in Alvin, Tx called Joe's. Ooooweeee! :drool:

Lousy texans.
They get all the meat options. :jealous rage:

He he! :D

Whataburger takes forever around here - maybe that's because it is real meat and not just microwaved. I like McD's - once in a while. You can't eat it all the time - anybody see Fast Food Nation???
I prefer either In-n-Out, or HabitBurger. Mmmmmm......HabitBurger.
Chick-fil-A for teh win though!

HabitBurger :huh: Thats for real? I never heard of it. Where abouts are these?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Oct 4 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]314589[/snapback]</div>In Canada, the sources of beef for MacDonalds and meat counters are very different. Other nations are probably similar, except where price points differ. Meat counters get their beef from young animals that are slaughtered as soon as they stop growing enough to justify continued feeding (about five months old). MacDonalds gets its beef from dairy cows that can no longer produce milk, but are still healthy enough to walk into the slaughterhouse (nobody eats a down cow, they might not even be used for petfood), they can be over ten years old.

The old dairy cow is tougher, but actually has more flavour, and you cannot really use it for more than hamburger and/or stewing beef. Commercial beef differs from veal only by a number of weeks and enough iron to prevent anemia.

I do not know if you can find these groups outside of the Americas (they came here to escape religious persecution), but the Amish, Mennonites, and other really conservative groups produce organically raised meat for only a small premium over the supermarket price.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Oct 5 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]314813[/snapback]</div>They rape the third world a little bit too.
Then they pump enough money into charities to get their name on it before never thinking of it again.

Crap food isn't a big deal, but you'd think that much collective evil could muster the resources to provide a decent burger.
[/b][/quote]

That was Burger King. They bought free range beef from Brazil that was grazed on cleared rainforest. However, as rainforests have usually taken nearly everything out of the soil (they are, naturally, very big on recycling), the pastures quickly become unable to support much grazing, so more rainforest has to be cleared.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("rlbell")</div>It's both really <_<

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(thebes @ Oct 8 2007, 04:25 PM) [snapback]315291[/snapback]</div>USA - California, Goleta/Santa Barbara area. If you're ever in the area, go there. You won't
be disappointed.

Chick-fil-A is still my favorite though.

While we're on the topic of McD's and such - maybe some of you have seen Legend of Zelda : Lampshade? Another copyright-infringing game - who knows how long it'll be around so it's pretty fun for a flashgame I think.

http://www.arcadebliss.com/legend-of...-lampshade.htm

Actually, it's ridiculous to use Rainforest land to begin with. Rainforest soil is pretty barren in the first place. That's why the trees there have those big fan-like roots, to utilize as much of the nutrients from the topsoil and fallen leaf mulch as possible. It looks green and luscious, but in reality the soil isn't.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cazgotsaved @ Oct 9 2007, 06:06 PM) [snapback]315424[/snapback]</div>"I'll have a burger and a sprite." LOL ...Is this a pun or did he forget/was he too lazy to put that soft drink in? :unsure:

McD's does serve Sprite....but you never know with corporate humor....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Lulu_Jane")</div>There are two possible answers, not exclusive:
1. It's cheap
2. Some super-villain plot to take over or destroy the world by inducing oxygen-starved stupidity, possibly so it's easier to convince us that their burgers are good examples of burgers.

3. There is supply, and demand. For demand, see Chumloofah's 1. For supply, there are people in tropical countries that need to make their livings and it's too bad for them that they weren't born in Ukraine.

Yes I know that turning those peasants into professional beggars receiving cash from their governments NGOs etc. would be a "solution" (they may even be easily convinced to be willing). But it would be a hypocritical one unless you bulldoze the whole western civilization and repopulate it with its native Eurosiberian and Mediterranean forests. And then you won't have cash to pay the Brazilian peasants, duh, too bad.

I kind of have an issue with that statement, but I suppose it would be wildly off topic, require a new thread, and probably end in bloodshed, so suffice it to say I believe that is both an exaggeration and massive over-simplification of the role in developing nations that NGO's can and do play.

Anyways, back to the topic, I don't like McDonalds, it makes me bloaty :)

It's been like, decades, since I ate at McDonald's for the last time. I can count the times I've EVER eaten there with the fingers in ONE of my hands. I'm quite sure I could, if I remembered anyway.

Just for the record. :ph34r:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 11 2007, 04:14 AM) [snapback]315624[/snapback]</div>Civilisations that featured poor people somehow got by for thousands of years before mcdonalds came along to help.
And by help I mean use as cheap labour.

I just remembered a passage from Douglas Adams (at the restaurant at the edge of the universe), where an animal comes up to the table and recommends which parts of it are the tastiest...

Arthur was disgusted by the idea of an animal offering itself to be slaughtered and eaten, but Ford asks him if he'd prefer to eat an animal that doesn't want to be slaughtered.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 11 2007, 03:14 AM) [snapback]315624[/snapback]</div>The solution to the problem of disappearing wildland is to use improved methods of agriculture. As agricultural methods improve, market forces limit production only to the best land. Marginal land is taken out of production, as it is too expensive to wrest a crop out of it. European subsidies skew the process by encouraging farmers to keep producing from marginal land (or why famine is entirely a distribution, not supply problem, as we already grow more food than we can attempt to eat).

If energy was really cheap, as it would be after a thorough program of "Atoms for Peace" made nuclear power available to everyone, every village would produce food hydroponically. Outside of certain areas, fields would become a protected ecosystem.

A republican right? :whistling:

Seems to me you put way too much trust in the spirit of the free market (especially since there's no such thing).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("sebatianos")</div>So true :D
Oh, and based on the acknowledged fact that there's more than enough food being grown right now, famine would be a problem with the market forces that control distribution rather than distribution as a concept.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Oct 13 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]315956[/snapback]</div>Good sophism, but. Where does famine exist, in countries with market-oriented economy? Like North Korea and Zimbabwe (1st African crops exporter before the land nationalization), right?

Let's lynch him!!! :titan: I'll bring the implements. :butcher:
:bleh:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 13 2007, 01:26 PM) [snapback]315962[/snapback]</div>Ethiophia, Sudan, Bangladesh etc. \o/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Japofran")</div>The markets use some countries for supply, others for distribution and ignores a rare few.
The ones that have enough wealth to be worth distributing to are fine.
The ethereal market forces control almost food in the world.
It stands to reason that famine exists because the market can't be trusted to do what's best, only what's most profitable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Oct 14 2007, 12:08 AM) [snapback]316000[/snapback]</div>You mean those countries are market-oriented in your opinion, or the other way around? All are members of the non-aligned movement (just like North Korea and Zimbabwe), etc.

So? Croatia is a country that's a part of the non-alignment movement as well, but it's very market oriented...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 14 2007, 02:09 AM) [snapback]316007[/snapback]</div>Are they communist, socialist? No.

Besides chumloofah said it well, market economy doesn't decide what's good for us but what's most profitable.
For instance some countries with famine export their food because it's more profitable than to sell it to the domestic market which has lower standard. The same is with oil in Nigeria and there are plenty of other examples of market oriented economies not functioning. Free market died in the 20th century and with a good reason it did.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Oct 14 2007, 09:31 PM) [snapback]316110[/snapback]</div>You should inform yourself better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Economy

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...os/et.html#Econ

Nobody said the free market wasn't good for business, Japofran.
It's got it's uses, but letting business do whatever business wants may not be the best way to make the world a better place.

Japofran you didn't get my point and there are many more examples and while I was wrong with Ethiopia there is still Sudan and many other countries and you know it. Stop nitpicking.

Free market is generally a bad system and you can't disprove that, government control is at least partially needed.

I'm not nitpicking, Sudan does not have a free economy, nor does Bangladesh. Nor does any country that's poor.

Oh the logical fallacy. So you're saying is that those countries would be rich if they would have had free economy? You are saying that free economy is the one that causes bliss?

Yes, I'm saying that those countries would be prosperous if they had enjoyed a reasonably free economy for the last decades. (It was you though who equalled material prosperity and bliss.)

Hmm... With Government control of the market, all competition is removed. This creates a situation where the product being made does not have to be of high quality, or low price to entice the buyer. Also, in most poor countries that have government controlling the market, you have to move mountains to get a license to sell stuff. This takes away the entrepreneurs that really are the backbone of an economy. As you might have seen, I think that government and the market should be two very separate things...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 14 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]316136[/snapback]</div>But you miss the point of what FREE MARKET acctually is!

FREE MARKET is a market where the people who come in with the MONEY are FREE to TAKE everything they want. And since we're talking about POOR countries, they won't be able to take ANYTHING, because they allowed WEST countries to TAKE everything.

And if/when the third world countries stop being poor and supply cheap labour, cheap products and export cheap food, the western free market will colapse.

And about COMMUNISM in Ethiopia - don't make me laugh. There was only a handfull of countries that even got close to being communist - and not a single one was. They were only dictator regimes which called themselves something instead of another thing and since they were sponsored by USSR to begin with, they called themsevles communist, even if they didn't even know what that means.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Sebatianos")</div>Which is exactly what happens. <_<

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Oct 15 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]316194[/snapback]</div>Only if the owners wish to sell. Free market is about mutually agreed deals, and that's the only possible objective definition of mutually profitting deal. It may seem unfair (subjective judgement) to you when the two contractual parts have very different wealth, but at least don't twist the meaning of a mutually agreed deal into a robbery. Poor people wouldn't get very far without dealing with rich people on necessarily unequal terms, even if only to get a job, to get loans for their small endeavours, etc. Of course poor people will prefer fresh cash from the state, but going down that road is building a system that will eventually colapse.

Most people even say that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, it's the same to me what words you use, and I never asserted that Ethiopia is or was Communist, I only quoted facts about its economy and it's been you who discussed whether that qualifies as Communism or not; the Wikipedia qualifies it as Socialism. Just the same I could argue that only a handful of countries got even close to being fully capitalist, and not a single one was; and I would be totally right.

In the case of Ethiopia, the core problem is that only the state can own land. So nobody will get rich out of it and so no private entrepreneur will be able to finance industrial enterprises. That would only be possible if somebody had an enormous amount of land leased from the state, and small landholders can't achieve it even taking risks because they can't use any land as collateral for loans because they don't own any. Of course in a totally Socialist economy it's up to the state to create the industry, and for that the Ethiopian system relies on taxing exhausted peasants whose government has leased them just enough land so that all have the same amount, hardly enough to survive when there's no drought, in a country where droughts happen every other year. Not to mention the issue of efficiency in public monopolistic management and corruption in single-party governments. Of course foreign aid will come when the system has worked its magic and living conditions are desperate, just enough aid to alleviate the conditions and fallaciously misproving that the system can work with a little help.

It's actually fairly straight forward, two plus two equals four. You can take yourself as far from the ground facts as you wish until Socialist economy starts to make sense. The same happened in Zimbabwe, it was fairly socialist but free trade wasn't so strangled that agriculture couldn't work while Mugabe had fun with his World Socialism and Non-Aligned games. But one day he decided to carry out a land reform, and all hell broke loose. Zimbabwe was the first African crops exporter and now millions would starve without foreign aid.
__________

I'm not starting an endless discussion about the terms of the discussion so that the real discussion never actually starts. I was talking about state control, call it Socialism (like the dictionary), call it Xism if you wish. I've been before in discussions both about the terms and about the concepts, look in Abandonia Reloaded's archive for them. I don't want to repeat what I have already repeated, and I guess Tulac would have posted further if he wasn't so tired as me. So look in AR if you want to know further what I think, but I'm dropping this NOW. :)

Well the point is of some matter in this case, because the actual communism should be a state controlled regime, where the state always looks out for the best interest for the people. If this would be achieved you'd get a completely controlled market, but the one that in theory would help people. It never happened (and no Stalin was about as far from communism as Hitler was from from exercising Zen Taoism). The closest you got to communism would be the after WW2 years in Britain with the labor party in charge.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 15 2007, 04:55 PM) [snapback]316257[/snapback]</div>If they don't want to sell, or want to sell at wrong prices, or want to sell to somebody else but not you (and they don't have a big enough army to back it up) then you send an army there, to "free" their market.

In many cases the mutually agreed deals made on the free market are robbery.
If there's a situation where a business man can bend somebody over a barrel and shaft all his money out of him legally, you can bet there'll be a business man or two around to do it.
Banks are pretty good at this, but (and I'm damn grateful that we have even this) they're held in line, to some extent, by the law.
This allows some people already bent over barrels to stand up and get away.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Oct 15 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]316276[/snapback]</div>I agree, a pure communism/socialist state has never truly existed.

Also, the big elephant in the corner is the fact that the majority of communist state officials/organizations descend into corruption, so the good of the people is often forgotten. If anyone can find a good example where this didn't happen, I will eat my hat* :D

*Nobody bring up China, I know they're trying as of the last few months, but I don't need to eat my hat for awhile at least, although in this case I'd love to :)

China is more capitalistic lately, I mean they have their own stock exchange.

Maybe, just *maybe*, it doesn't matter what system a country is on, maybe it will corrupt in time.

Look around with a critical eye, look at the history of mankind, all systems corrupt.

Even democracy, it seems that the political 'dynasties' establishes themselves, even in a democratic system.

Oh man o man o manometer WTF am I doing in this topic?

* runs away ......

America (USA) has had one of the longest-running governments ever (uninterrupted) and is still corrupt, but not to the point where there needs to be a radical change......yet. Founded on Christian principles/religion and mixed with some of the greatest minds of the time, it created one of the most powerful and influential cultures in the history of mankind - but even now the corruption has reached all the way to the highest levels. Even with checks and balances, corrupt men (and women :D ) will find their way to positions of authority where they can live out their desires for wealth and power.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Sad but true - and in the case of government, it usually becomes so powerful it is hard to overthrow, especially in the age of technology where the average citizen does not have the resources or organization to combat corruption at the highest levels.

Look at communism. Isn't the goal of communism supposed to be that when everything becomes even-handed, the people in authority hand that authority over to the people, so that the people can distribute wealth/power, and govern themselves? Name one country that has EVER done that.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.� - Winston Churchill

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Oct 16 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]316453[/snapback]</div>This is true. I just think that a communist structure fosters corruption in a way that democracy (in theory) does not.

That said, you're right, it's all open for mucking up.

Offtopic: I love Winston Churchill's little chestnuts. My favourite is "a fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the topic." :)

BTW Japofran what do you say about the latest subprime mortgage crisis? Is it not a good evidence that free market can't function by itself, because clearly without the intervention of central banks it would cause much more problems and possibly an economical crisis.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Oct 17 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]316504[/snapback]</div>So you felt like discussing after all, eh? :P Well I'll answer you, but consider these my final words (urgh) on the matter (feel free to counterpost them however, only that I won't answer again here). Besides I'm not that informed about the specific case of the latest so-called "crisis", so this will be more generically about monetary systems, what we already touched in our discussion about the Crash of 1929 in Reloaded.

So, if I didn't get it wrong the problem is that there are a lot of loans that can't be paid. What's the problem? That some of the banks that extended the loans may go bankrupt.

Who acted wrong in the first place? First the customers who got into debt beyond their capacity. And most importantly the banks that granted loans that have been proved too risky, so they should have denied it in the first place.

What would happen if the Federal Reserve (Fed) had looked elsewhere? First as far as the customers go, pretty much nothing. Of course the banks would seize their new houses, but the customers wouldn't have got so expensive ones in the first place if they hadn't found an unwise bank.

Secondly as far as the banks go, if the Fed had done nothing, many of them would have gone bankrupt, even after seizing the houses. (A mortgage loan uses to be profitable for the bank only if the customer pays, a bank loses money every time it has to seize and resell a house.) The banking system wouldn't ruin as a whole despite the commotion, on the contrary it would get healthier after the inept banks get out of business and more sensible banks take their place (some already existing ones, some new ones). This cruel phenomenon of bad business getting out of the way is called competition, and yes it's an integral part of capitalism

So the only beneficiary of the Fed's actions are the banks (considered evil by the lefties as far as I know), and not only that, the inept banks, so the sensible banks are actually comparatively handicapped. Notice that even with Fed action, those inept banks will have to seize the houses all the same since the customers still can't pay.

So, my answer to the question, "does the Fed do any good?", is, "no, on the contrary". Now another question, "do these measures have any undesired effect"? The answer is yes, and there's no doubt about it and the Fed knows it all to well, and this knowledge is the only reason why they aren't "resolving problems" all the time. The effect will be an overall price rise (inflation), and the public will most certainly notice this.

The Fed's solution for this they chose to call "crisis" is the same solution as ever, the only they know, namely printing notes and calling them money. Then they lend that devalued money to the banks in need (not to the good banks but to the bad ones who need it to survive, and who knows if they'll go bankrupt all the same eventually, or need more money after a while). With more supply of money into the system its value goes down (relative to money evething else's value goes up, hence inflation or price rise).

<div align="center">http://www.imgplace.com/directory/di...1192712590.gif</div>

(Notice that point where the trend in the graphic really goes wild? That's Nixon's presidency. It was Nixon who dealt the final death stroke to the gold standard, which had been mostly discarded before but not completely.)

So let's recapitulate. The only ones benefitting from the Fed's action are the banks. Not just any banks however, only the inept banks that ought to disappear. Competition is impeded. A message is sent that every time some big business get in trouble the Fed will come to the rescue printing notes, even if that harms the whole economy and specially the most humble people. Prices rise and that's bad for everyone but the ones who will suffer it most dearly will be the humble people who will be further strained to purchase the basics.

No problem about the humble people, let's take them out of the productive system and turn the into professional beggars living on government subsidies, they'll be grateful. Okay but where do we get money for that? No problem, we can print notes and call them money. Yay. Etcetera.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("cazgotsaved")</div>Pretty sure at least one of them founding fathers (george washington, i think) said he didn't want no god damn party politics.
It pretty much undermines the selling points of democracy to the point where we're all forced to vote for one or other powerful organisation that can do whatever the hell it likes once it's in.
Whoopee!

If there was a viable 3rd party at the moment, I would definitely "throw my vote away" on it - I'm sick of immoral dems and greedy reps

edit - this what you're talking about?
http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/01/29/washington...the-vernacular/

It's not so much the two party system as parties in general that suck ever so much.
It's worse with just two, of course.
The concept behind democracy, in it's pure form, is that the people vote for individuals they feel will represent their interests in assembly/senate/whatever.
By assembling into parties as is the trend, a few ambitious boys and girls gain control over the majority of elected representatives.
An individual can't compete with an organised, unified group so is forced to engage in party politics himself if he wants to have any chance of exerting any influence.
As a result of this, his influence is added to the pool of influence that pushes forward the party agenda, losing everything of it's original purpose except by dumb luck or coincidence.
Party politics means compromising your ideals and beliefs in the hope that you might be able to hang on to them.
That Washington cat (as much as I distrust the american slant on american history that says the guy's a hero :bleh: ) had his finger on the pulse when it came down it.

Democracy is just an illusion made by those who are in power in order to make people think they are safe or that they could somehow affect their lives and situation. If voting worked, someone at the top of the pyramid would have stopped it already.

They laugh at my opinion just to make me look childish anarchist, to bulk their stauts at the society and show how responsible and reasonable people they are.

Anarchy and total individualism is the real freedom, but many - like me - rather get opressed because it's much more comfortable. It still doesn't mean I hate "them".

Just like some dude at ancient world said, "People don't really want freedom, but a good master". Btw, if someone knows this quote exactly and who said it, please note to me, thanks.

- Morrin, the sleeping anarchist

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 19 2007, 07:23 AM) [snapback]316679[/snapback]</div>Agreed on that one, but in an anarchy, chances are that someone might harm you "just for the kicks" are higher due to no police, you might not get help for your disease and so on. I'm more comfortable in the fact that at least we have some protection, and I sure wouldn't trade it just for some more freedom that wouldn't ultimately help people.

I'm not saying that people should give up freedom for security, but, as already said, "Democracy ain't perfect, but so far it's the best one we've got."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tervez @ Oct 19 2007, 08:39 AM) [snapback]316695[/snapback]</div>Agreed on that one, but in an anarchy, chances are that someone might harm you "just for the kicks" are higher due to no police, you might not get help for your disease and so on. I'm more comfortable in the fact that at least we have some protection, and I sure wouldn't trade it just for some more freedom that wouldn't ultimately help people.

I'm not saying that people should give up freedom for security, but, as already said, "Democracy ain't perfect, but so far it's the best one we've got."
[/b][/quote]

Exactly! As I said, living in controlled society is much more comfortable. :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Tervez")</div>Remember that the definition of democracy has been subtly evolving for quite some time.
A purist might argue that that would make it something different, but believing that would upset people.

Not to be gross in any way, but in an "anarchist" society, there would be no police detective work, so if I slipped into your house at night, slit your throat, and raped your wife and daughter, as long as nobody saw me do it, nobody would come after me, and there's be no one to perform forensics, so I would probably get away with it.
I vote no on anarchy. It's a system that doesn't work, much like the libertarian party here in the States - good idea, but not practical or logical if you think it through.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 18 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]316617[/snapback]</div>Close, but not exact. The Central banks can do three things: 1) increase the amount of money in the system by lending money, 2) decrease the amount of money in the system by selling treasury bills, 3) adjust the interest rate, which will provide incentives for either (1) or (2). Thanks to the marvels of ledger books and computers, most money never actually get printed as notes.

The business of a chartered bank is lending money. The assets of a chartered bank are not the savings deposited by all of its customers, those are liabilities. Their assets are the debts owed to them. Banks generate profit by enticing depositors to give them money and then lending that money to someone who has a use for money, but not the cash. The profit is the difference between the savings rate and the loan rate. One of the nastiest things that can happen to a bank is for too many depositors to demand the return of their money, before the borrowers have paid it back (If a bank is perceived as financially troubled, a stampede of worried depositors will kill even the healthiest bank, dead).

The subprime mortgage crisis in the US is the result of the real estate bubble bursting. Speculators were snapping up houses for no money down, insanely low initial mortgage rate, but the rate accelerated to insanely high. As long as none of these speculators had to hold onto any property for long, everybody made out like bandits. The problem came when people stopped buying the homes the speculators were selling, at the prices the speculators hoped to get. The first speculators to feel the squeeze and start to unload properties for what they can start a downward spiral in prices. The banks come into the picture when the speculators cannot fully repay their loans (it may be possible that if the speculator cannot discharge the mortgage, he cannot sell the property).

The banks end up with the hobbes choice of dealing with someone who cannot service their debt, or foreclose on a property that they cannot sell to cover the debt. The one thing the bank cannot do during the turmoil is lend money it does not have to even a credit-worthy borrower.

The purpose of the central bank lowering interest rates at these times is to allow troubled banks to borrow money at a low rate, that they can lend at a higher rate, to keep operating. That is The Important Thing ™-- that the banks keep operating. That is the whole point of central banks. So long as people continue to use banks, the economy works. Money "in" banks circulates from bank to bank from employer accounts to employee accounts to merchant accounts to other employee accounts, and so on. The Great Depression yields a multitude of examples of what happens when mattresses replace banks as the preferred place to deposit money.

The consequences of a loss of confidence in the banks is too horrible to think about.

The best thing to do is fill an island up with small animals and airdrop fruits and vegetables so that they can overpopulate and then they all die and we can pull the island of small dead animals towards the shore and make a big rug that's nice and warm and everyone's happy.

Now, Blood-Pigggy, That's exactly what aliens have done with our Earth.
They are in the 'wait so that they can overpopulate and then they all die' phase.
When we have exterminated eachother they will come back.

We have just solved the mystery of LOST. Feel proud?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cazgotsaved @ Oct 19 2007, 10:07 PM) [snapback]316751[/snapback]</div>People have lived in anarchic societies for thousands of years, nomads for example.

The original idea of anarchy wasn't to kill and rape everyone and everything on sight. Idea of anarchism was to form communities where common sense was the judge of thins than byrocracy and laws.

We live a life where mother of famliy gets 20 000 dollar fine for having a piracy program on her PC hard drive that she never used or where drug users are more hunted than drug plant farmers. Rapists can get off with few years where their victims have scars in their souls forever.

Don't turn it so black & white.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 21 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]316883[/snapback]</div>Name one anarchic nomad group.

All nomads that I have heard of are not anarchic societies. They tend to be one of geritocracies (rule by elders), patri-/matri- archies (rule by the head of the extended tribal family), or monarchies.

A problem with the philosophic construct of a functioning anarchy is a workable way of dealing with people who refuse to accept the community's sense of right and wrong. All it takes is one sociopath to build up a personality cult, and the anarchic society becomes a tyranny.

The utility of any model society is pretty much defined by its ability to function despite the addition of wicked members.

Do you define anarchy in an unconventional way?

You know, you actually are right about nomads now that I think about it.. except for maybe modern gypsies. Additionally they are murderers, bootleggers and thieves.

I don't think there's more point to try to explain the idea of anarchism. Im tired of talking, I hate it.
I guess I just would like to have opportinity to blow the congress house down to make politicians work for atleast one minute.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 22 2007, 05:40 AM) [snapback]316917[/snapback]</div>
:blink:


You're joking, right?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Oct 22 2007, 06:47 AM) [snapback]316918[/snapback]</div>
:blink:


You're joking, right?
[/b][/quote]

If I remember it right, you lived in singapore or somewhere around there? Im not sure if you have them there or if you have ever dealt with them, but here they are nusance.
Im not going to pretend a yes yes man who loves every culture and every single people on earth. Ok, there are some rromas here who actually do work, but most of them are just leeches of the society in addition to the list I made above.

Just watch snatch.
I've never seen a gypsy so pretty.
And for the love of all that's decent craftsmanship, don't let the buggers tarmac your drive!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 22 2007, 07:46 AM) [snapback]316923[/snapback]</div>
:blink:


You're joking, right?
[/b][/quote]

If I remember it right, you lived in singapore or somewhere around there? Im not sure if you have them there or if you have ever dealt with them, but here they are nusance.
Im not going to pretend a yes yes man who loves every culture and every single people on earth. Ok, there are some rromas here who actually do work, but most of them are just leeches of the society in addition to the list I made above.
[/b][/quote]

My Grandfather (father's side) has Romany family.

Anyways, I've just always been surprised about how vicious Europeans are in their dislike for the group, not the fact that they dislike them. (If that makes sense.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Oct 22 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]316927[/snapback]</div>SOME Europeans (... corrected).
You make the same mistake as Morrin, Lulu, SOME of them, far from all.
Please don't count me in with those idiots, THX.

Fair enough, let me put it this way -

Those who I have heard express a dislike, have done so very intensely.

The vehemence has always kind of shocked me, that's all.

Speaking of it, one rroma guy came to the copyshop where I work. He said that he want's a copies of the big bunch of papers. I said that it might take about half hour, so if you come in hour they will be certainly finished.

I usually don't check out what the papers say, but the police logo took my attention. The whole god damn pile of papers - and I swear it was two centimeters thick - was about law issues, sues from various people, documents about sitting in jail etc. When he fetched the papers, he said he would like a little discount. It wasn't much so I said it's okay.. I rather do that than get stabbed (a slight sarcasm here).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 22 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]316941[/snapback]</div>Speaking of it, I also know (and know them really good) several Roma families, hard workers, nice people, and yes, they love their children too.
Know other Romas too, worthless fathers and mothers, lazy, no-goods......

I also know people as 'us', good families, hard workers , blablabla........
Know also other people as 'us', worthless fathers and mothers, lazy, no-goods ......

(a slight sarcasm here) So if I go with you, Romas are no good, but also people as 'us' (Ã*nd fuc*ing YOU, Morrin) are no good.

Conclusion, Morrin is a no good lousy social leecher and a criminal, CAUSE I know 'some' people as the Morrin kind that are no good.

Feeling swell Morrin?

I haven't really seen any Romas do anything bad or good personally, and as anyone knows, only the bad stuff gets on the news, so I can't really say anything about them.

Yes, there are leechers and people like that, but I don't treat Romas any better or worse than other people, unless they proof themselves to be bad people.

Oh yes Dosraider, bring the old good generalization sh1t of yours.
That there are a lots of shitheads amongs us, it doesn't nullify the fact that there are A LOT of shitheads rromas.

edit: and Im stopping this conversation. Don't except replies from me

How about all Romas I've seen ever (and I've seen many) are no good criminals? I am no racist but I am yet to meet an honest Roma that won't be cocky, rude and try to provocue you for no reason at all.
True there may be honest Romad but they sure the hell are minority here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Oct 22 2007, 05:40 AM) [snapback]316917[/snapback]</div>Okay, now that I can agree with. ROFL

edit - hey, how come I can't say bastard or something, but muck isn't auto-edited???

edit #2 - Nevermind LOL

People sure get uptight about race.

The only thing I've learned is that an idiot is an idiot no matter where he or she comes from.

Now, who feels like a burger? :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Lulu_Jane")</div>Are you trying to imply that the thread's gone off-topic? :whistling:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Oct 22 2007, 05:29 PM) [snapback]316957[/snapback]</div>Definitely not!

However it is true that most of them are really scrapping the bottom when it comes to interpersonal relationship.

I've worked with a few families because I was the one who got assigned to teach their children Slovene (they really didn't know enough to pass elementary school) and got to know them better, but I've already met quite a few Gypsy families before that.

The thing is, that they are mostly all from the bottom of the barrel - society wise. So you can not compare an average Gypsy with an average middle class resident of a country - they'll be at least two classes lower (be it because of prejudice against them, their own incapability to get a normal job - lack of education, skills... - or something completely different). This means you could maybe compare them with the social group of people who are between homeless bums and street thieves (because on the social ladder they really are at that position). That's why the appearance is, that they all really are thieves. But that's not because they'd be a special race, but simply because they are in that kind of a social position.

This is even more noticeable in cities, where gangs form in order to give power to certain people with similar backgrounds and so even those that wouldn't otherwise behave in such a manor now have to, to be a part of the group which offers them at least some protection (I've met some who tried to get out of such groups - only one succeeded out of about a dozen who tried).

The situation does change, however, if you look at rural areas where there is only Gypsy population, or only one Gypsy family in a normal environment. Such families get either assimilated (if they are the only family) - I even know a guy who went to the same high school with me (he was a Gypsy). His brother couldn't, because he went to work - so that his younger brother could get an education. But as I said they were the only family in town.

Again the situation is changed if there is a town of only Gypsies. They will establish their own order and will try to keep what they have achieved. True, other people rarely get close to such places, fearing the different, but there never once was a problem with settlements of only Gypsies. They actually turned into normal citizens, still middle class at the most - usually lower class, but nevertheless normal law abiding citizens with their own organizations and representatives in broader local community. And the crime rate near such settlements is lower then the national average - so NO, they don't steal.
But since they live somewhat isolated, people don't see that, don't know that, don't care or understand that... they just see those gangs that roam the cities stealing, extorting, causing trouble and don't identify them as just another hoodlum gang, but as no good Gypsies - even if they are not really any better or worse then other similar groups (like drunk football fans, skinheads, neonazis, or just plain old simple gangs of thugs).

I sense that this may not end well...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Lulu_Jane")</div>Wo0t!
I'm not picking up on prejudice so much as a good, old-fashioned dislike of different cultural attitudes.
And agree or disagree, I'd say that's fair enough.
I have noticed while driving through certain areas in my bentley (with the windows rolled up) that there is a good size chunk of the commoners that share the "look after your family and to buggery with the rest" attitude that seems to be the rule with gypsy people.

:whistling:

Maybe because they're having a hard enough time looking after their family :P


Ah, good old cultural differences. Don't make me tell you about the magic Cambodian cow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Oct 23 2007, 09:20 AM) [snapback]317039[/snapback]</div>Having a rough time doesn't mean others should automatically like you.
My point is that people won't so much discriminate against gypsy blood as against a culture they don't agree with.

I'd like to hear about the magic Cambodian cow now :w00t:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Oct 23 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]317039[/snapback]</div>OH NOES ... not again the story about that cow that can fart Ludwig van Beethoven's Third Symphony (Eroica).
:yawn:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Oct 23 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]317042[/snapback]</div>OH NOES ... not again the story about that cow that can fart Ludwig van Beethoven's Third Symphony (Eroica).
:yawn:
[/b][/quote]
Got an mp3 of that somewhere, I haven't heard it yet :blah:

But yes Lulu, now you got to tell us about it.

And don't worry about the topic, it got off topic a long time ago, but we're having a somewhat civil discusion here right now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Oct 23 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]317041[/snapback]</div>Agreed, and not only that, it doesn't give you the right to try and take from people who have more. I know it's sometimes very difficult to see beyond, but:
-you are poor and need help
-rich people don't care
-you take from the people around you
-the people around you start hating
Now if you're the part of the majority, you're labeled as a thief and in for some reforms... or not. But if you're a part of a minority you can add another point...
-you are crying about them mishandling you and discriminating against you
Now you're automatically able to shift blame and justify your behavior - not to mention trying to avoid punishment.

I'm not a racist, nationalist, discriminator... but there's a big difference between people who are abusing their deprivileged position in order to get by easier.

If you're poor and don't like it, try to better your position. Get a better education, learn a skill, try a bit harder, prove your worth - or if you're not able to, because you've reached the maximum of your possibilities (no all are born geniuses) - be contempt with what you have even if it's not a lot (if it's enough).

But let's take an average person now. He sees a guy driving a BMW and he wants such a car. Doesn't matter he can't afford it or maintain it - he wants it, because he saw other people having it. If this would motivate the person enough to work better, harder, learn something more to produce more - OK, that's positive motivation (but that rarely happens). Usually such a person would start complaining how some have a lot but he doesn't have it (that's the majority of people - unsatisfied and miserable when they think about it, also envious, but still continuing their own life). There is a group of people though, that would simply take what they want. They'd either steal the BMW, or try to get rich enough fast to get the car (and getting rich fast usually involves shady business - like smuggling, extorting, black market... - and sooner or later they're caught into the life of crime).

Now prejudice works just a bit here. It's the feeling if you're belonging to an underprivileged class you won't be able to succeed anyway, so people from such classes usually don't even try the hard but honest way first. They either give up and complain - or take the easy money way. And you can imagine which is more enjoyable (complaining and not having - or getting it by crook).

It's got nothing to do really with racism, nationalism, elitism... It's just a simple human nature. And because the most visible elements of any group are the people who deviate from the norm (either in a good or bad way) people judge the whole group by those individuals. In case of underprivileged classes - they are usually judged by thugs and thieves - because those are the two groups that interact with other classes most often (and by rule in a negative way).

Ok, here's the magical cow story, just to illustrate how silly cultural animosity can be.

Thais and Cambodians have a long history of cultural mistrust. However it originated long before the lines on the map we know today existed. Angkor Wat is often pivotal in their dislike for one another because it was sacked in the 12th century by the Chams (the traditional Khmer enemy) however, both these national identities have been absorbed into what we know today as Thailand, Vietnam and of Cambodia (Khmer to a lesser extent, but that's a different story.) To this day arguments still arise as to who "owns" this amazing complex.

So anyway, Thailand and Cambodia argue periodically, often shutting down each others embassy, or kicking out each others foreign workers. They also like to take little pot shots at each other through the press. A good example of this was when Cambodia discovered a magical cow (for want of a better description) in Phum Trapeang Chum.

Both countries have a tradition of animist beliefs in rural areas so this in itself was not uncommon. People were coming from all around to be healed by the magic cow. It was widely reported in the press, both Cambodian and to an small extent internationally. Thailand, however, decided that they couldn't allow their Cambodian brethren to have the upper hand, so soon after both the local language and english language thai press reported that the Cambodian magic cow was a fake.

Their reasoning was because a magical cow had already been discovered in rural Thailand the previous year, and everyone knows you can't have more than one magical cow :)

Sometimes mistrust or dislike of other cultures (although perhaps based on a legitimate reason) can be taken to ridiculous levels. Although personally, I reckon they should introduce the two cows to each other :D

Hatred is a terrible thing.
If the magical cows had a litter of magical calfs the world would never again know sickness.
But thanks to a few small-minded people we're all screwed.
Thanks a lot, prejudice!

I bet we must have had a magical cow at some point in our history too. It's magical power had to be the capability to output enormous quantities of extremely foul smelling dung - because we're really all in deep sh1t now (speaking locally and probably globally too :) ).

Thanks for the story, it's educational!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Oct 25 2007, 09:25 AM) [snapback]317279[/snapback]</div>Now, I'm no expert on the subject, but wouldn't one of them have to be a magical bull for that to happen?

Oh oh oh, Fruit Pie Jones is an a nitpicking mood it seems, oh oh.

Let me tell you something, the way things are going in our modern world, it wouldn't amaze me that they don't need a bull anymore.
In vitro, cloning, whatnots.
Soon they won't need males anymore.

The world is going down the drain I tell you.


BTW: the story of the farting cow was much more interesting than that 'magical cow' one.

This...
Ends up as...

:blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("dosraider")</div>Until they make a machine that can kill spiders and lay mousetraps we're still in the game.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(whatshisface @ Oct 28 2007, 12:26 AM) [snapback]317504[/snapback]</div>Who said it ended? The debate is still going strong!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Oct 28 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]317528[/snapback]</div>Until they make a machine that can kill spiders and lay mousetraps we're still in the game.
[/b][/quote]

Personally I'm more scared of them combining both machines - I know they already have them! Some spiced up genes and here we go! No more need for male (or mail for that matter).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fruit Pie Jones @ Oct 26 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]317375[/snapback]</div>Now, I'm no expert on the subject, but wouldn't one of them have to be a magical bull for that to happen?
[/b][/quote]

Duh....they're "magical" cows - they could just reproduce by being nearing the same magicalness.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cazgotsaved @ Oct 29 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]317694[/snapback]</div>Pffft! Cow magic doesn't work that way, and you know it!