MTG Salvation

If we define greed as desire in excess then it cannot be good. Anything in excess is bad. There is nothing to debate. If we define it merely as desire it cannot be bad - for hunger is a necessary desire. It must be tempered by law and common sense but it cannot be bad.

The only worthwile thing to debate is if we define greed as, "the desire for more than you have". This is a more interesting subject, because the desire to improve your current situation does tred on some sticky moral ground and is harder to determine if ti is a benevolent force or not. That's worth wondering about. Let's talk about that.

A russian farmer finds a bottle one day and when he uncorks it a Genie appears. The genie says it will grant any one wish for the farmer but the farmer's neighbor will get twice as much of whatever he wishes for. Now, the farmer hates no one more in life than his neighbor. He thinks for a long while before finally announcing, "I wish to be blinded in one eye".

***************

The farmer could have had anything he wanted, anything - but he decided to maim himself because he couldn't stand the thought of his neighbor getting more. The same problem is found in business. A person I know talked about a young manager who came into his office and demanded a pay raise. My friend's father asked his employee how much he was making and the young man said, "three hundred thousand a year". Then my friend's father asked him how much he had expected to make by this time while he was still in college and the man slowly replied, "Only a hundred thousand". My friend's father spread his hands and asked the young manager what he had to complain about. The young man shifted and protested that some of his peers were making three hundred and ten thousand and they didn't do any more work than him.

Why is it good for the rich to loose all their money so everyone can be equal? Entreprenuers, brilliant doctors and scientists, these people increase our standard of living and are richly rewarded. Some are crooks but that's what e\we have laws for.

If we embrace economic collapse just to spite those more fortunate than us we're no better than the farmer who gave up his eye.

Yeah, economic collapse bad. Very bad. Why? Same reason we don't like paying these banks billions of taxpayer dollars... It'll make us poorer. If solving the banks' problems were free and easy we'd say, "turn the other cheek" and no one would be writing death threats to AIG.

One thing is that the government did wrong was back in 2001, when they lowered the interest rate they charge banks to 1%. That was a mistake, because it was below the level of inflation. When the money you borrow makes you more than you pay, even if it just sits in your pockets doing nothing at all, people are going to make all the loans they can. In desperation they cooked up these freakish CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) among other things - which were basically false securities based upon no real assets.

Just to clarify Cyan, what do you refer to exactly when you say, "partial socialism".

One story does not essential truth make.

If we define greed as simply desire, it's obviously a necessary force for humanity. People need to want something in order to pursue it. Desire is what makes people care. Teachers often say that the students who drop out just don't have, "The Desire to Learn". Things rarely go well for these people.

If the only argument against greed is that it's bad in excess... Well, isn't anything? Isn't excess by definition a degative thing? Hunger is necessary for survival, but excessive hunger leads to gluttony. Exercise is beneficial but excessive exercise destroys muscles and causes injuries. Excess is, by definition, too much. Too much is bad because it's, well, too much =).

Thankyou Death's Vampire - I've been saying that for a while now. Now we're basically focusing on whether religion is a good force in and of itself, whether or not god exists.

Hi there Panda. Yes, all thought processes require assumptions but not baseless assumptions. Assumptions must be reached by a logical thought process - not plucked out of the void as in my example or pretty much any religion. That's my point. And the fact that you cite my example to show that a logical train of thought can be build upon a baseless assumption... The whole point of a logical trian of thought is that the END makes sense! So no, it doesn't work.

Also, all assumptions must be challenged and verified in order to make sure they work. This is true for the laws of science as well. Your statements are not only inapplicable but fundamentally flawed.

Irish Pirate... I don't know if you're joking or not, but evidence of suffering isn't evidence of a god. That's like saying if I'm angry and a piano falls on my cat that being angry makes a piano fall on my cat. There's pain in the world. That doesn't mean there's a god - since that pain can be expained by natural forces. Just as Panda said earlier, jsut because sugar dissolves in water doesn't mean the sugar faerie did it. The dissolution can be explained by normal forces. If the sky starts raining frogs then I'll look for a supernatural cause.

Also, only the TRUE word of god is supposed to be unquestionable. People argue over what the true word of god is. And someone who only does the nice things his religion tells him to do isn't really following the established religion at all: since he applies his own personal moral or rational compass to every supposed word of god. This is good. Then only the few scraps of baseless beliefs are dangerous, but likely not overly harmful.

Alright, first off I want to apologize. I was confused and frustrated when I wrote my last post and I'm sorry if you were insulted.

As to the dictionary war, it's plain that we were using different words for similar things. I'm not the first to use, "thinking" this way - as the popular term, "unthinking masses" does not imply a literal state but rather is a hyperbolic reference to illustrate a concept. Example: That car is cool =)! Not all conversation need be perfectly literal.

I chose not to use, "naturalism" because it's a strict disbelief in god or spiritual forces (fun fact: it's also a theatre form). This doesn't work for me, because it starts with an assumption: that there is no god. The logic I speak of allows no such assumptions, whether religious or atheistic in nature.

Also, to assert that there is no god is ridiculous. It's impossible to know for sure, for god could be hiding. Logic can lead us to the point where we doubt that god exists but it can't disprove god. This is why I avoid naturalism.

Second, your definition of theology doesn't work for reasoning. You can't base a logical process of thought (that's what I'm calling the now out-lawed, "thinking) upon baseless assumptions! That's why it's not logical and doesn't count.

Example
Assumption: Faeries die whenever a child says he doesn't believe in them
Process: If this is so, a child's spoken thought has power while an unspoken does not. This implies that an intelligent being is observing children's words in all languages and issuing out their death sentences. Additionally, adults have no influence over the fate of faeries - therefore it must be something in the child's physical chemistry that allots them this special power.

The above is very logical. Provided the assumption is true. Which it probably isn't.

You don't get to start a series of thought off of a baseless assumption and call it science.

------------------------------------------------

And about the safe cities discussion? You can't cite a city's safety as an example of religion as a tool of law and order and then provide other factors (police, civic programs) to explain away other safe cities. In this case, religion would seem to be the irrelevant factor - not the determining one.

Panda, I don't even know where to begin. First off, just breaking down the name for theology into a compound that means God and Logic doesn't say anything! I mean, Fox says they're fair and balanced. Scientology literally means, "knowing how to" and is comprised of a balance of science and ology (the study of). And yet... it's not exactly a science. Operation Infinite Justice anyone?

People can generally tell nonsense when they see it.

Whoozaonthewhatnow?!?... You know, maybe I should just leave it at that. But seriously, Holocaust? Suicide Bombers? Racism in General?

All the volumes of religious literature, and the breathtaking architecture of cathedrals and mosques, are clearly the product of not thinking.

God didn't hand down architecture plans in the bible, old testament, koran, whatever. People had to figure them out. That has nothing to do with the idea of religious beliefs, its just something man put his mind to in an effort to please the pope. Religion isn't necessary to get people to invent things. Look at the empire state building. People build things for the leaders of the time. Maybe some, if not most, of the workers were religious. Maybe some were slaves.

Either way, this point is hardly a point at all. Let's use your favorite argument. Are you saying that man wouldn't have dreamed up books or architecture without religion? I know what you're about to say so let me save you a post. You're about to say that these were evidence of faith not impeding logic. I don't agree. I think we'd have had a lot more inventions if people didn't spend their few free hours kneeling in prayer reading the book of Genesis.

Faith is, by definition, "belief not based on proof." It is not "belief not based on thought," which is any case a nonsense clause, since belief is a sort of thought and you can't very well have "thought not based on thought."

Sigh... Once again we agree and you don't seem to see it. I don't really get it, we've done this several times in a row now. Admittedly, I've been a little confusing in some of my previous posts but this... I just don't see how you could have assumed I was refering to all neuro activity when I mentioned, "thinking". I mean, you're brain is ALWAYS doing something unless you're allready dead.

Okay, I'll clarify. I was using the word "think" to refer to, "a system of reasoning that stems from logical inferences made upon a sound base of verifiable facts and their demonstrable correlations". But, as that's quite a mouthfull, I cut it down to just, "thinking".

And since, as you say, faith is belief that is not based on proof... It invalidates what I call, "thinking". Call it just logic if you will.

So, no one has yet disagreed with me on my last post? Can we assume that the premise expoused in it is agreed on? If so, hooray! We can move along in the discussion.

Quote from Highroller

I feel like you and other people in this thread are making shadow puppets and attacking them rather than actually attacking the thing itself.

Highroller, after trolling through several of your last posts I'm still no closer to finding out what your opinions actually are. Can you clarify?

Hey Sanin, why can't the banks price the mortgages at the Market value of the house, building, land zone, asset or whatever? I've gone through similar transactions and I can't understand it. Just because the cahflow is bad, there are still real assets attached - even if the mortgage payments are zero. Actually, my proposal assumes a worst-case scenario where ALL the mortgage payments are zero (and it still seems to function).

Is there something I'm missing here? Wouldn't be the first time =).

Quote from Dr.KnowMaD

Not to get back of topic (too late), but if anyone wants a good source for the political strategies used to gain a mass following read Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler.

Thankyou for agreeing with me!

My whole point in this argument has been that suspending rational thought in favor of blind belief in something someone tells you is true (but has no logic to support their position) is harmful! Whether the person is a parent, a statesman, an activist or a priest - not thinking is bad.

And relgion encourages not thinking.

It does. That can't be denied. Faith is by definition not thinking, just believing. "Thou shall not put your god to the test".

An excellent point (about the questionable value of the securities). But that's not completely true. No one can tell if the MORTGAGES will ever get paid back. The houses at the end of the line are real assets with real market value. Those are what I'm refering to.

Also, not every single mortgage is in this kind of jeapordy. A lot of them can be valued propeprly - they're just not enough to save the banks. Some of the banks are allready selling off a few pieces like I suggest - though nowhere near enough.

The only suggestion I've heard in Washington is to sell the enitre bank in one package after they're fixed. Has someone else suggested breaking the contracts up like this? If so, can you post a link?

Also - to move along with my analogy - my suggestion would not only portion out the banks assets; it would also require the newly formed bank to go under better mnagement practices. However, the advantage of my suggestion over letting the banks collapse or demanding restructuring while we support them is that it shields the rest of the economy from the banks' failure. Continuing with my analogy: it's like wrapping the burning house in fire-proof cloth so the fire can't spread and then putting out the fire to commence rebuilding.

Everyone seems to be trying to shift the blame. The conflict in israel-palestine conflict is caused for many reasons. Some religious. Some political. We don't go to war with canada because its stupid - not because we like their religion.

Also, the statement that half of the religious wars in humanity have actually been political wars... Well, besides the fact that the statement implies that half of the political wars could easily be religious wars and thus nullifying your point - think about what that means.

Leaders used religious differences as an excuse to get their subjects or constituents to fight for their own private gain.

Right?

Right!

So, the blind belief in religion for religion's sake and not stopping to actually THINK about the situation is what allowed the wars to happen in the first place! That means that religion allowed this to happen.

Quite a sizeable chunk of people in this country vote for a leader predominantly because of their faith. This is a bad, bad thing. Voting for a candidate because you don't like the color of their skin is bad enough - but voting for Bush because you think he's a devout Christian? Not good! If someone told me they were voting for lincoln himself over his opponents just because they thought he was more devout, I would also protest.

Plus, the holocaust didn't have any religious differences? Whoozaonthewhatnow?!? Jews. Religion. Bad because they're jews. See?

Also, even if the holocaust WASN'T based on religious persecution - it's the same thing. A blind, unthinking, unexamined belief in authority based on no facts is what caused the horror to happen. Sound familiar?

Can religion be good? Yes. Is it humanity's only problem? No. Is it a problem? Yes - because it represents the willingness of humanity to NOT THINK and just OBEY. Even if it causes good in the short term, like voting for Lincoln over his opponents or helping a cripple, it's still bad in principle. People need to think.

Imagine your neighbor smokes in bed. You've told him time and time again that it's dangerous but he won't listen - he just keeps on smoking as he falls asleep. One night the lit cigaretter connects with the sheets and his house catches fire. Do you call the fire department and spend taxpayer money? Well, this was certainly his fault, he got what was coming to him. He did stupid stuff, so shouldn't he pay the price?

Problem is... Your house is right next door. And yes, it's made of wood.

You can't let the house burn down, no matter how much he might deserve it - otherwise a lot of innocent people are going to loose their homes.

You can't let the banking system collapse, no matter how much the bankers might deserve it - otherwise a lot of innocent people are going to loose their savings (homes too).

Something needs to be done. But I don't think bailouts are the best answer. My suggestion (top of page) is, I think, a more efficient option.

But saying that the government should spend less money doesn't MEAN anything. What should the government be spending less money on? Should it abolish hospitals or pull all money from education? Of course not!

I'm not saying that this is what you or Dr. Doom suggests. It isn't. And that's the problem. A lot of pundits call for the government to, "reign in unnecesary spending" and get applause... But what does that mean? Surely no one would ever argue FOR unnecesarry spending. What's unnecesarry? Are we spending too much on the schools? Are we spending too much on the regulation? It's easy to yell at the government to spend less, but you need to tell them exactly what the unnecessary spending is, how much to take it down and reccomend better uses for those funds.

The plan I suggest is an alternate plan. It suggests how the government can save money on bailouts without destroying the global economy. It does suggest cutting back on spending, but a specific spending with a specific solution.

So, what do people think about that idea?
So, what do people think of my idea.