User talk:Wejer

Feel free to leave a message. Wejer   15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also feel free to read the archives to the right. They have lots of discussions that should keep you busy thinking for hours! 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

STICKY: Forum rules
Hello, and welcome to the forum!

I have volunteered to provide my talk page as a discussion ground for politics and philosophy. With Dtm142's permission, I have been granted that privelege, as sanctioned under Forum rule No. 1. Feel free to discuss any topic you like, as long as you are being civil about it!

However, there are some guide lines existant. They are not compulsory to follow, however they will make the debating climate so much the better:


 * No personal attacks - even for the sake of winning an argument.
 * Keep an open mind - remember, you have two ears but only one mouth.
 * Avoid logical fallacies - and read this!

Thank you for your support. Enjoy your stay! Wejer   16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

STICKY: Political Compass Test
Would you like to know where you stand in the deep bog known as politics? Are you a libertarian, or an authoratarian? Are you a communist, or a capitalist? Or perhaps you are a little of everything?

Take the Political Compass test, and find out today! Take the test here! Wejer    16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling:
What is your opinion on both Gitmo shutting down and the Obama stimulus plan? 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Generally, I am not very fond of any type of fiscal budget policies employed keyneysians and the like. IIRC, that 'stimulus plan' Obama is trying to introduce is somewhere in the range of ~700.000 million dollars. Where are he supposed to get that money from? Naturally, the taxpayers will have to cough it up, and the US moves even deeper into national debt.

I have to admit though that not all the parts of the package are bad. The income taxes he plans to lower for the middle-income americans is much needed, and will help a great deal. What I am most against is him trying to nationalize the banks and buy up their shares. If I were in his situation, I would not cover up for anyone else's mistakes, because that is exactly what happened to the big banks: they screwed up their finances. He is simply throwing good money after bad in trying to nationalize them banks, and the bank directors reap all the benefits, naturally.

To prevent another financial disaster we must make sure that any kind of bank oligopoly are freely exposed to the free market forces. If we manage to have tens of thousands different, smaller banks, then if a couple of them collapse, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Right now, if the 'big ones' screw it, the population as a whole suffers. The vicious circle of financial collapses will thus go on until we do something about it. The first step is to say no to the stimulus package.

Not all is lost however. The president is doing well in shutting down that hell-hole known as Gitmo. I hope those poor people will have a fair and honest trial, and be paid compensation for the suffering they have endured at the hands of George W. Bush. Wejer   20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ADD-ON: I somehow had the hunch I did not have the whole picture of this financial crisis, and I was right. The root of the problem seems to be the Community reinvestment act, started as early as 1977 by former President Jimmy Carter and later added-on by former President Bill Clinton. The law makes it possible for the state to force banks into allowing high-risk mortage loans (subprime loans). Coincidently, this was exactly why the banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (among others) had to shut down, because they in turn could not force their customers to repay their loans in turn (they were low-income citizens after all). And when several big banks go down in an oligopoly-setting, you have yourself a finacial crisis.
 * However, regardless of the blame, the solution should remain the same: say no to the planned economy, by saying no to the stimulus package! [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Political Compass
I spent nearly an hour making replies to a bunch of questions that you (Wejer) and I (Kudos 2 U) disagree on, based on your user page. However, I hit back too many times when looking at your userpage and when I came back to my typing screen, it was completely blank so I had to start over. After nearly and hour of screaming and destroying doors, I decided to rewrite three out of the 30 or so responses I had.

1. The first is on the marijuana question. I believe that personal use should not be deemed criminal; in fact, I believe that marijuana should be legalized, taxed, and regulated. Right now, it's deemed an "unlawful substance" in the U.S. However, if it were to be legalized and such, it might help our nearly dead economy. It would certainly help more than sending the money overseas as we are currently doing. The "war on drugs" (which includes marijuana), frankly, isn't working; quite the contrary, it's actually just depleting our money with seemingly no added benefit as the largest portion of drug dealing is still going on, and most of it isn't marijuana.

2. The second is that "the rich are taxed too highly". I believe they are taxed fairly; not too high, not too low. I believe this because the poorer brackets of incomes are taxed roughly 20% of their net income. However, the rich are taxed about 40% of their net income. Poor people spend most of their income just living, but rich people have a lot of extra income; they can afford higher taxes. The rich benefit from the taxes too, as what goes to the fire departments and police stations protects the rich from the poorer people rising up and taking things from the rich. Of course, these officials are obligated to help the poor, too.

3. The third and final point is about the "the freer the market, the freer the people". While I would like to believe this, the fact is that if the market is totally free it is totally open to abuse and manipulation, which, in many ways, is like the market today. We simply cannot trust people in a free market to follow a code of ethics. If we regulate this we can try to stop abuse and manipulation (of extreme levels) from happening.

06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hello, Kudos 2 U, and welcome back!


 * "I spent nearly an hour making replies to a bunch of questions that you (Wejer) and I (Kudos 2 U) disagree on, based on your user page. However, I hit back too many times when looking at your userpage and when I came back to my typing screen, it was completely blank so I had to start over."

I have experienced that situation myself, it sucks to no end. I recommend that you write your messages in NotePad or Microsoft Word or similar programs, it sure helped me.


 * "After nearly and hour of screaming and destroying doors, I decided to rewrite three out of the 30 or so responses I had."

Let me know when you feel up for the task of bringing up the other points of disagreement.


 * "The first is on the marijuana question. I believe that personal use should not be deemed criminal; in fact, I believe that marijuana should be legalized, taxed, and regulated."

Taxes are good in this situation, but I am not entirely sure if that is the best way to tackle it (although if they are not the best thing, they are certainly the next best).


 * "Right now, it's deemed an "unlawful substance" in the U.S."

It is forbidden in almost every european democracy as well, with the exception of the Netherlands.


 * "However, if it were to be legalized and such, it might help our nearly dead economy."

I don't think consuming toxic substances will help any economy. If the drug is to be legalized, it should be because the costs for keeping it in check is greater than the damage the drug does on the economy. The police work should essentially be to avoid the petty cases and crank down on the big ones, such as organized crime, in order to cut unnecessary policing costs.


 * "It would certainly help more than sending the money overseas as we are currently doing."

It sounds like you have a trouble with other countries prospering, while in relity it does not hurt you in anyway, quite the contrary: the free market gets better, the bigger it gets.


 * "The "war on drugs" (which includes marijuana), frankly, isn't working; quite the contrary, it's actually just depleting our money with seemingly no added benefit as the largest portion of drug dealing is still going on, and most of it isn't marijuana."

That is your subjective opinion I am sure. Do you have any facts/logic to back it up?


 * "The second is that "the rich are taxed too highly". I believe they are taxed fairly; not too high, not too low. I believe this because the poorer brackets of incomes are taxed roughly 20% of their net income. However, the rich are taxed about 40% of their net income. Poor people spend most of their income just living, but rich people have a lot of extra income; they can afford higher taxes. The rich benefit from the taxes too, as what goes to the fire departments and police stations protects the rich from the poorer people rising up and taking things from the rich. Of course, these officials are obligated to help the poor, too."

Well, yes, it is true that rich people can "afford" higher taxes, but that does not automatically mean that we 'should' tax them higher. Frankly, if everyone had the same wage, who would want to achieve excellence? If you do not get fully rewarded for your achievenents, you are not likely to work harder, or get a 'better' education. If people stop working hard, being creative, or doing 'the right thing', we are not likely to get a very productive economy.


 * "The third and final point is about the "the freer the market, the freer the people". While I would like to believe this, the fact is that if the market is totally free it is totally open to abuse and manipulation, which, in many ways, is like the market today. We simply cannot trust people in a free market to follow a code of ethics. If we regulate this we can try to stop abuse and manipulation (of extreme levels) from happening."

That is an interesting aspect I have not heard much before. However, you don't need to worry about it too much. Any business who accumulate a bad reputation among its customers will have trouble staying ahead in competition. And if a company cannot stay ahead in the competition, they will lose profits. And most of the time, companies try to avoid losing profits... which is why (most of them) try to follow a "code of ethics" that is acceptable among their customers.

Looking forward to your response (and perhaps more issues to discuss?).

Regards, 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for my response.


 * I don't think consuming toxic substances will help any economy. If the drug is to be legalized, it should be because the costs for keeping it in check is greater than the damage the drug does on the economy. The police work should essentially be to avoid the petty cases and crank down on the big ones, such as organized crime, in order to cut unnecessary policing costs.

How exactly is marijuana toxic? I know there have been studies about how it can cause lung cancer, but that has been proven false. (source source two) In fact, there has been at least one study that's shown that smoking marijuana can help those with lung cancer (source), so I disagree with it being toxic. However, there have also been studies about marijuana causing brain cell damage, but at this time the results are too hard to go by.

I don't think the drug would do much damage on the economy; in fact, I believe it would help it considerably seeing as so many people in the United States already smoke it and there's no real way to stop all of them. What about medical marijuana? That's already semi-legalized. Why not make it all legal?

I have no trouble with other countries prospering, I just think that our first goal should be to help our economy so we can better help these other countries. Depleting our money and our resources that we cannot spare to another country is just asinine as it will cause the same problem. It doesn't help the free market unless everyone prospers.

Rich people are not being punished by paying higher taxes. They are sending in money to the economy which will make them and everyone else richer. They pay the taxes at a slightly higher rate than people with poorer incomes who cannot afford to pay them. People with less money won't be able to survive without that money and will destroy the economy.

It's not that these companies don't seem to have a code of ethics that they follow to maintain happy customers. Most of them do. But it's what the customers don't know that destroys the free market. We can't trust them to do what is necessary for everyone else and not just themselves; they must be regulated. Even with regulations companies still slip through which is why we need even tighter laws. Although these may seem to impede the free market, they actually protect us from companies that are not what they seem.

I look forward to reading your response. 00:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Don't worry about time lapse too much, I have occupied myself quite sufficiently.

About the marijuana: if we cannot agree on marijuana's toxicity then I don't think any further debate is very productive, since we will be drawing different conclusions based on lack of different sorts of evidence. I suggest we talk about something else.

I think that your statement, quote: "rich people are not being punished by paying higher taxes" end quote, is false. Any step taken towards 'taxating' the personal wealth of rich people will only lead to there being even less rich people. As I questioned earlier in my previous response: "if everyone had the same wage, who would want to achieve excellence?". And yes, I think getting rich is a way of achieving excellence. Rich people are the ones that create jobs and put new inventions into action. If you think the right thing to do is to banish personal wealth, then do not be surprised if the end result is economic decline and recession, if not outright collapse.

What question we should ask ourselves is actually: why have taxes at all? What right does the state have to rob each individual of their personal belongings? For the greater good? Because the end justifies the means?

Taxes is has its roots in declaring that individuals does not have the right to their own personal property, and that the state may at any time seize this property in order to further their own ends. This is the idea of collectivism -- or communism, whatever your choice of words.

You state, quote: "We can't trust [companies] to do what is necessary for everyone else and not just themselves" end quote. I agree with this. Expecting that profit-seeking companies would run their business solely on charity work is almost laughable. I instead advocate each individual's right to being selfish, in accordance to the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Simply: if a person did not thought about their own well-being, he would die. If not a single person in this world thought about their own well-being, then the whole of the human race would go extinct. Applied to economics or social issues, the result will be the same of this "other-ism" you speak of. If this is your goal, then you shall continue being an altruist.

It seems that your greatest concern is that the customers will be getting cheated out of a deal. However, there is already a law against cheating and scamming: it is called fraud. If any company chooses to lie their customers in their faces, then they have taken the chance of getting persecuted because of this offence. As I said before: further regulation is not needed, we have all the legal tools we need already.

Also looking forward to your next response. 07:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Hey Wejer, I just finished reading the newspaper, and as always there's a nice big article about Obama on the front page. This time it was talking about how he's now funding embryonic stem cell research with government money. Although you could probably guess my position on this, I'm very curious to know your thoughts on this before I dive into my own views :).

After you're done with that, I'm also curious to know what your thoughts are on this (please see section 3). Would it affect your views?

Thank you for your time :) - 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will look at this in when I am less busy and hopefully give you an adequate reply . 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling this will cause another "Is every life equal?"-controversy, but here we go... My hunch is that we are both slightly unhappy with the current desiscion of President Obama, albeit for different reasons. Myself because I think that individuals should not be forced to fund research they don't support, and you Rendova because you think Stem cell research violates the christian god's commandment of "thou shalt not kill" (or similar). If the method you proposed becomes economically viable, then I guess this could possibly soften certain christians who right now oppose stem cell research on religious grounds. I would be delighted on hearing your personal views on this. Also, if you think my reasoning or logic is faulty please let me know. 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My biggest problem is, as you correctly assumed, that I believe embryonic stem cell research is wrong on a life-is-sacred basis. Even if I were not Christian and found myself in favor of using human embryos for research, I would still disapprove of the government funding the research. It already doesn't fund anything (or at least doesn't fund much) in those fields, and now they're opening a can of worms that'll just be another thing to put back together and can up at a later time. This is especially bad right now when there are so many better places the money could go. Like into a federal savings program, to get us out of this blasted debt.


 * I should clarify, though, that I do realize there could be many potential advances by researching stem cells. Being a very science savvy individual myself, I find that really exciting in itself. Once they start attaining stem cells by means other than the destruction of human life, I'll be a 100% supporter of stem cell research. :) 03:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good for me. Especially about the federal savings program; iirc, the United States have the highest national debt in the world. Paying some of that money back instead of spending taxpayers' money on petty projects would certainly be a step in the right direction. A step, however, that I don't think Obama will take in the near future... 09:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20090312.jpg

17:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, good one. Although this certainly tells something about President Obama, I don't think he is unique in that respect, since many politicians do the same move. Still funny though! Thank you for posting. 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm BAAACK!!!
I'd like your personal point of view on this. Personally, I am of the view that if you have to resort to blowing up someone to achieve your message, then your message has lost before you had the chance to begin. I can understand people feeling so frustrated by the lack of change in a system and wish to use violence as a 'shot across the bow'. However, Mohatmas Gandhi (did I spell that right?) did the most good by being the most non-violent about it. Martin Luther King Jr. and Martin Luther also achieved their goals (though questions about the second one) by non-violence. Your thoughts are appreciated. 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I have perceived this far, I don't think the radical islamists really have lost any of their message with their suicide bombing of Bagdhad police department. It is instead reinforcing their message that they are willing to go to drastic messures in order create their very own Islamic state, entirely free of "democracy" and similar "secular", "western", and "modernist" thinking. Using non-violence is in their minds out of the question, leaving the only options either isolated terror attacks or full-scale uprising and revolution. Because of the problems on initiating the latter, they have instead settled on slaughtering as many "unbelieving" civilians as they can. This is of course no real concern of theirs: they think that their "good intentions" outrule the disastrous consequences of their actions. For short: in their minds, the end justifies the means. 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Political Compass Test
While it is quite interesting, I find it quite repetitive, has a Red Herring or two, and has some rhetorical questions to which I cannot answer in their proper (or to say current) length. How is one to answer out of the four choices without being swallowed by such a narrow choice on distinct questions, such as: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. - Now how can you answer in the four categories? To be honest, there are conflicts in todays society that revlove around that question. I could state what my AP English teacher told us on such a question: Have you been beating your wife lately? - can you answer yes or no in two words? - That answer would be the end of many things to which are not even encompassed in the actual site. Therefor I cannot finish (or for that manner start) the Test. I know where I stand, for every test is the Error so slight, I can be completely off site with your actual standing point. But to my knowledge, I may be the only one who feels this way about this and all tests related to such choices in any test. 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the test is a bit crude in its entirety. However, I think it achieves its basic purpose of making people start actually thinking about societal organzing, and how certain policies relate to each other economically (Right/Left) or socially (Authoratarian/Libertarian). I am sorry to hear that you did not finish the test. The first time I did not know the definitions of all the statements either. I simply did the test many times... and I think this has worked fine for me. Either way, feel free to stay here and discuss any philosophical topic of your choice. 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, hi, hi there!
Hello, I was doing a search for school, then I found this page and I saw "RuneScape Wiki"... I play RuneScape, and I naturally got curious...

Anyway, I think you should (if you haven't done yet) make a very own website to show your opinion... Something like a school you never had, and I think it's a very nice way of contribution for begginers in the long and no-ending road of knowledge...

P.S. When you said "animal testing is a worthy way for the animal kingdom to serve humanity" I think it seems too... mean. But I do agree with animal testing, in parts, e.g. for health purposes... But I wouldn't use your sentence to defend my opinion (may I say our?)... I'd say that if we, humans, get old until 80 years old+ it IS because of animal testing, I'd say more things, but I think you got my point...

And by the way, I'd like to know if you agree about animal testing for esthetics purposes... just curious.

that's it,

Caroline Salles

Aaah, and I'm sorry about poor english, it's not my first language!


 * Hello Caroline Salles,


 * I am delighted that you have taken such an interest in my user page. I am also actively seeking for a larger audience. A blog would be a good way to get a bigger audience. If you have any recommendations for good blog sites, so I can get started, I would be very happy to hear about them.


 * My stance on animal testing is a reflection on my belief that each man's rational self-interest always should have highest priority. This means that the well-being, or suffering, of any animal should always be because it furthered the self-interests of human being. This includes, but are not limited to, using animals as pets, for meat, for animal testing and for aesthetic purposes. This is in stark contrast to environmentalists, who pretty much believe that man is a scourge of nature, and that the best way to reduce the "environmental footprint" is for man to lay down and die.

The following video pretty much sums up my views:

CdsMMdkhlfM


 * Naturally, needless destruction of the animal kingdom should be discouraged when the losses outweigh the benefits. But I still think that animal welfare should not should take precendance over the welfare of man, in the case that human and animal interests conflict.


 * Regards, 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There and back again :D At first, I'd like to say I really enjoyed your argument about animal testing. And then, hum, about blog sites, I heard blogger.com is a good one, but I don't really know it, as I don't have any blog sites. If you have time, you could check it out. ;)

huumm, that's it.

and aah, sorry again about poor english. :z

Caroline Salles