h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I read it’s terrible being the child of a successful, famous person:
that lethal admixture of copious money sloshing around, and low
self esteem from living in the shadow of a one-off genius. Nowhere
to go but down, deflating like a waterbed full of needle holes .
Anyway, My secret private
agency would take the rich and famous
and totally repackage them as poor non-entities, in mediocre
housing estates, sort of like like in witness protection.. Like
superhero alter-egos Dad/ mum would set off every day dressed as a
health care assistants on zero hours, trudging to the bus stop before
being whisked off in a limo to recording studio, football stadium etc,
there to remove and/or tack on his/ her prosthetic face, or what
have you. The children meanwhile grow up with a better start in life
at state school, only averagely unhappy, no money for drugs, no
paparazzi in the garden, and later satisfied with a banal career.
foreseeable Problems: the celebrity would have to rent a second
family for ‘at home with the Kardashian’ malarkey.
But maybe this agency already exists? - I suppose we wouldn’t
know
http://money.cnn.co...-numbers/index.html
0.0005% tax = ultra greedy Apple [xenzag, Nov 09 2017]
[link]
|
| |
People like Bono already do this. ie pretend to be humble
Joes (or Micks in his case) while they squirrel away multi
millions in tax havens. There are other more extreme
versions. Trump, for example, pretends to be a human
being, whilst actually being a pile of cleverly animated cow
shite. |
|
| |
// actually being a pile of cleverly animated cow shite. // |
|
| |
No, he's definitely not a Democrat. |
|
| |
It could be dog shite, after all. Cows are quite benign and
Trump is anything but benign. |
|
| |
// It could be dog shite, // |
|
| |
Now if you'd said cat shit, we'd have known straight away you
meant Tony Blair ... |
|
| |
//they squirrel away multi millions in tax havens// |
|
| |
I just had as vision of a squirrel being audited. It looks tense, but
that's just because it’s a squirrel. |
|
| |
Is it possible you're going nuts ? |
|
| |
Oh, and [DDRopDeadly], I didn't see you come in; welcome to the
half-bakery. |
|
| |
Two years ago, because of being registered to a font door of a property in Ireland as a tax dodge, Apple paid 0.003% tax on nearly a trillion dollars profit. If that's not greed, what is? |
|
| |
// If that's not greed, what is? // |
|
| |
Apple exists to make money for its shareholders. It does not exist to be a cash cow for the jabbering chimps who are elected to public office. |
|
| |
Governments steal money from their citizens and enterprises and inevitably squander it, delivering an atrocious quality of service at an exorbitant price. |
|
| |
No-one should pay anything to any government if they can possibly avoid it. All you're doing is keeping greedy, venal, corrupt, amoral politicans in foie gras and champagne. |
|
| |
You may want to live in a greedy, cruel, selfish, dog eat dog
world, but I don't. I believe in fairness and sharing and
equality. I know they're old values that have little place in
the world of the likes of Trump and Apple, but acquiring
more and more wealth is bound to generate more and more
inequality and unhappiness, and there's enough of that
already. |
|
| |
In all probability, no-one does. But the universe wasn't ever like that, isn't like that, and never ever will be like that. |
|
| |
The universe is a deterministic (if chaotic, in the mathematical sense) system operating according to an immutable set of physical laws. It is cold, soulless, relentless, and utterly implacable. |
|
| |
If you want the universe to be different - even your tiny corner of it - then you need to see it as it really is*. Wake up and smell the napalm. |
|
| |
// I believe in fairness and sharing and equality. // |
|
| |
... and the Tooth Fairy, and ley lines, and dowsing, and reiki ? |
|
| |
Belief is of no value. If you want things to work in the real world, then your ideas must be evidence-based, reproducible, and consistent. Facts ... what are the facts ? Freedom is irrelevant, self determination is irrelevant. You will be Assimilated. You must comply. Resistance is Futile. |
|
| |
*Of course, this will most likely cause you to go completely insane (if you weren't already) |
|
| |
The water (patient teacher) wears away the stone. (slow
learner) |
|
| |
"Experience is the harshest teacher, because it gives the test first and the lesson afterwards...." |
|
| |
//dowsing// My father was in the Royal Engineers and was
part of Montgomery's famed 8th Army Desert Rats who
destroyed
Rommel's Afrika Corps in the Western Desert in world war
2.
Part of the unit's job my dad was in was finding water, then
drilling wells to extract it. The method used by the
engineers was to find the water was dowsing rods. Not
everyone could use them, but my dad could, and he said
they never failed. Rem this is the British Army at war, so
they couldn't and didn't fuck around. Your 'real' predictable,
boring world does not exist, but the much more exciting
quantum world does. |
|
| |
// Your 'real' predictable, boring world does not exist, but the much more exciting quantum world does. // |
|
| |
Neither exist. There is no deep reality. Reality is created by observation ... |
|
| |
//The method used by the engineers was to find the water was dowsing rods.// |
|
| |
No, the method used by the engineers to find the water was drilling. If you drill deep enough, you will find water. However, saying "we just keep drilling until we find water" is not a reliable way to maintain employment. |
|
| |
Are you sure about that part? |
|
| |
Shucks ... we had kept quiet about that ... we were saving it for later to use in a vicious, premeditated and hurtful ad hominem attack on [xen] ... |
|
| |
And now you've spoilt it. Thanks. |
|
| |
//Belief is of no value// |
|
| |
But, on the other hand, value only exists because of belief. For
example, food has a market value because of the widespread
belief that life is still worth living. However, though widespread,
that belief is still only a belief. Some people come to adopt a
different belief, and are then no longer in the market for food. For
example. |
|
| |
By definition, 'Belief' is holding an opinion in the absence of objective evidence. |
|
| |
"Life is worth living" is capable of rational deconstruction, by weighing positive versus negative stimuli. When negative stimuli significantly outweigh positive, then it may be rational to assert that life is not worth living. The assertion is amenable to rational debate. |
|
| |
However, "I believe in ghosts" can be neither proved or disproved in the current state of knowledge. There is ample anecdotal evidence for ghosts, and a belief in them is not irrational, simply not justifiable by hard evidence. |
|
| |
On the other hand, the fact that everyone who believes in ghosts is what psychologists classify as "pretty whacko" does tend to imply (by quondam ipso ergo nergum ipso) that ghosts are not, in fact, a thing. |
|
| |
Then I think we might be working to different definitions. |
|
| |
Nevertheless, even with your definition, you still need some
definition of "positive" and "negative" stimuli. Of course, "positive"
and "negative" sound objective, because they are the same words
that we use to define regions of the number line and electric
charges. However, when you try to use them to define other
things, I think you'll find they're just "good" and "evil", hastily
dressed up in ill-fitting lab coats. |
|
| |
Lab coats ? No, surely not ... some sort of smart uniform, with
shiny jackboots, and silver insignia ... |
|
| |
In the same way that it is impossible to have a phobia of
venomous snakes (because it is an entirely rational fear), it is not
necessary to believe in, for example, hairbrushes; hairbrushes
exist, and can be demonstrated to exist, whether they are
believed in or not. They are a thing. |
|
| |
Once the existence of a hairbrush has been demonstrated by
direct observation, disbelief in their existence is irrational. |
|
| |
Given that there are people who sincerely believe that two polar
bears travelled from the Arctic to the Middle East to climb
meekly on board a huge wooden boat packed with prey species,
ghosts seem rational by comparison. |
|
| |
The appropriate stance would appear to be open-minded
scepticism, on the basis that ghosts may indeed exist, but hard
evidence has yet to be produced. |
|
| |
The fact that ghosts have no explanation within current physical
models is irrelevant, as these are hypotheses subject to
challenge. The better they stand up to challenges, the more valid
they appear. |
|
| |
But simply because a theory successfully explains the known
facts does not mean it is entirely correct,something that Einstein
was at pains to point out.A good model allowing verifiable
predictions to be made is just that- a model. |
|
| |
//The fact that ghosts have no explanation within current physical models is irrelevant// |
|
| |
Supposing that all of the above is true, still none of it brings you
from fact to value. Hint: nothing does; this is a well-explored
territory in analytical philosophy. Carry on. We'll watch. |
|
| |
//Once the existence of a hairbrush has been demonstrated
by direct observation, disbelief in their existence is
irrational.//You can directly observe Uri Geller making
spoons bend by themselves. I'm sure he could make similar
phenomena be subject to direct observation including that
of hairbrushes. |
|
| |
A hairbrush is an observable phenomenon independent of any human agency. You can even make your own hairbrush, and compare it with other items of type "hairbrush". |
|
| |
But Mr Geller is not a hairbrush*. You cannot make your own Mr Geller. If spoon-bending by mind power were a thing, others would be able to do it too. You might be able to do it. Most people can break matchsticks with their fingers. It is a reproducible and consistent phenomenon. |
|
| |
You define everything by nature of it "being observable". I
don't. The very act of observation changes that which is
being observed. Living things you look at (for example),
probably die shortly afterwards. You might consider this to
be a compliment. |
|
| |
If something cannot be observed (interacted with) then it does not exist. |
|
| |
Some fundamental particles are weakly interacting. Dark matter is postulated, and should be detectable by gravitational effects; it can only be observed indirectly. |
|
| |
//If something cannot be observed (interacted with) then it does not exist// Now you enter the philosophical world, and must offer up a continuous string of definitions, all of which are contested. According to your logic, gravity didn't exist before there was anyone to observe it. You might want to read the wiki entry on "reality" to see how many definitions of that word are described. "Yours" would seem to fall into what is referred to as "Scientific realism". You could take a look at David Kellogg Lewis and see where that goes... |
|
| |
Bishop Berkeley says hello. |
|
| |
//We should be basing science on truth// Ha - who decides
on what truth is? The Pope? That which is called truth today
is called untrue tomorrow, so that term is relativistic along
with everything else. As regards your lottery tickets, they
exist as winners and losers in a multistate universe. |
|
| |
// That which is called truth today is called untrue tomorrow, so that term is relativistic along with everything else. // |
|
| |
For a given value of "true", yes. |
|
| |
Newton's laws are still valid on a macroscopic scale, even though they have been augmented by quantum mechanics. So they're still true - as far as they go. |
|
| |
Some theories have been discredited, or rather, replaced with ones that better fit the data. Plate tectonics works well for describing earthquakes and volcanos. The phlogiston theory of heat has long since been superseded. |
|
| |
"Scientific realism" ? Yeah, we'll own to that ... |
|
| |
Truth or lies are a human condition. |
|
| |
Lies are a human construct. |
|
| |
"True" and "False" are different. They represent logic states. "False" in this context is not pejorative; it is simply the opposite of "True". |
|
| |
It's unfortunate that "False" has negative connotations in day to day language. |
|
| |
All values are human constructs. That's why they are described using language. There simply are no total absolutes. Look closer at anything and a fuzzy edge emerges. A binary world is easier to comprehend so that's why we use words like truth and false. I'm off to play the lottery. I win it every week. |
|
| |
Oh dear. Should I explain? |
|
| |
I would like to be the first human to utter the phrase "What we need here is a philosopher." |
|
| |
You are channelng the spirit of Douglas Adams, and we claim our five pounds. |
|
| |
See how easy this was? All that had to be done was delve into
philosophy and everyone sounds like total wasters. Simply get
the famous person to start pontificating on the meaning of
truth, and no child will ever believe they're actually successful
or famous. |
|
| |
I just read this and felt I missed the party. :( |
|
| |
Anyways, all I have to offer is that there is not just True or False. Sometimes there is None, and that is something that can take you down a path nothing else is able to. |
|
| |
But back to the original idea, the simple truth is, you get frisky with a country maiden on your way to Lebanon. She deals with the aftermath, and you continue back to Paris. |
|
| |