t4r

$2,000


Before the Brits post, please direct yourselves here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=money+converter

t4r

Seriously tho why is he unjustly banned?

t4r

T4r hurry I need to know quick

Specifically I would call it a conservative technocracy or possibly a modern free market technocracy and it's all based on efficiency and elimination of corruption. If it were based on central power, it would not be a free market technocracy. So before I list my arguments, I'm going to briefly explain what version of technocracy I'm advocating. Essentially there would be no democracy and no politicians in this kind of government. If you work in the government you have a single task (as opposed to a politician who must be educated on all fronts) and you are, of course, hired not elected. However corporations are still led by the private sector because it is empirically true that command economies don't function as well as free market economies.

My arguments:

• Democracy doesn't exist and is very hard to achieve. I'm going to speak in reference to American democracy for this thread but it should blend well with other democratic countries as well. Essentially we believe that the people have power, but we don't really. We believe we have the power to elect politicians, but the politicians are not looking out for our best interests. Society has evolved in which the most ruthless and convincing are elected rather than the most capable and committed. This is because the powerful just have too much influence over society. And so, those elected into power benefit the powerful people first and the common people second. You can look to the very common occurrence of buying politicians as a reference to my argument.
• Even if we could attain democracy, it's not something we would want. Say the powerful no longer have the enormous influence over society as they do today, would we really be in a better position? The common people may be able to vote for politicians who look after their best interests but the people don't know what their best interests are. The masses aren't bright and they're not going to elect in the right people for the job. You can argue that democracy would work if the people were smart, but for now that's just not a realistic scenario. Though I would love to be proven wrong on this point.
• Technocracy reduces corruption. I'm not saying that corruption would be completely eliminated, but it would be far less potent than what we have today. This is because in a technocracy workers are hired for a single task. In a democracy, politicians must be educated on all subjects. The theory is that if you only have one responsibility, you are less likely to fuck up and sell out. Politicians aren't going to care about every issue and if a powerful individual asks them to reconsider their opinion on something they don't care much for, they're far more likely to do it. Limiting one's responsibilities increases their chance of succeeding and doing well, that is the underlying point.
• There are objectively more efficient, more ethical solutions than others. It is believed that all possible solutions are equally considerable and that we should let the majority decide which they like best. But if our main goal is human flourishing, as most people would agree is what we ought to achieve, then it is better to let expert individuals figure out the right answers and the wrong answers as well as the righter answers and the wronger answers to all problems we come across. This decision making must be left up to experts, not the masses. Of course the masses should be able to bear witness to these decisions and freely speak their minds upon them, but it just isn't possible or preferable to give them the power to make the decisions themselves.

I may be missing some arguments but these are all I can remember during the time I've spent writing this (I did not intend this to become an essay, my apologies). If you have any questions, counter-arguments, logical fallacies to point out, weak points in my arguments to comment upon, feel free to do so. I'm clearly not the kind of person who sticks to any idea so don't feel there's any reason not to bother to give me criticism. I'm also (hypocritically) not an expert myself nor do I have any idea how to transition into a technocratic government, but I'll try my best to tackle these questions if they come up.

tl;dr: The first sentences of each argument are meant to sum up that argument. At the very least read those and skim over the introduction.

Do you think they're being legitimate or are they bullshitting? I was watching The Most Extreme show from Animal Planet and they mentioned that 20% of people who are resuscitated claim to have experienced sensation while dead (e.g. feeling of peacefulness, bright light, etc.). The issue is that so many of the claims are often infused with religious beliefs. But because 20% is such a high number, it has scientists wondering about what's happening in an otherwise inactive brain after death.

Personally I think that if they're not lying, they're probably confused about when they experienced their sensation or thoughts. I just find it doubtful anything should be happening in the brain when they're dead. Obviously after these people were resuscitated they still had all their old memories so that does give some hint that there's some mechanism to prevent 'conscious decay'. That or there just wasn't enough time for anything to break down (most people who are successfully resuscitated are only dead for a short amount of time). But as far as being able to think and feel after death? I highly doubt it.

t4r

Put your list in spoilers so you don't ruin it for anyone


I got 21/26 before I gave up

Just leave. You don't need to spontaneously attack me with all these boring insults about how supposedly no one likes me or how everyone in your circle jerk is committed against me. It's just autism central and a waste of your time. If you want to really hit me hard, tell me about how awesome you're doing in your career or in college. I easily get jealous over that kind of stuff. For those of you who aren't losers, I'm giving you a real chance to actually properly insult me, as long as it ends your incessant spam any where I post I'll be satisfied.

We're getting a lot more people now that Kiyo is gone, so please don't scare them off with your constant negatively. Kiyo was negative and that didn't do her much good.

And while I won't be reporting your posts, you shouldn't bet that others won't. Go along and play nice now.

At least according to the stats that is

A lot of good shit happened today, let's not remember those who gave their accounts to give us all enjoyment.

From SecondClass' fear of JTK, to Sentra's (fake) suicide, to Kiyo's demotion and nuke of her own account, all that in one day.

Since there seems to be an opening and all

I mean that's honestly kind of dumb. What kind of perv should be looking at a bunch of little boys' penors? Total fucking waste of time if you ask me.