Click to expand
Rank #209 on CommentsLevel 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
OfflineSend mail to okamiterasu Block okamiterasu Invite okamiterasu to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Video Games Played:||don't|
|Date Signed Up:||8/23/2013|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#3367|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#206|
|Content Thumbs:||891 total, 1037 , 146|
|Comment Thumbs:||28377 total, 29978 , 1601|
|Content Level Progress:|| 70% (7/10) |
Level 84 Content: Srs Business → Level 85 Content: Srs Business
|Comment Level Progress:|| 16.4% (164/1000) |
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
|Times Content Favorited:||17 times|
|Total Comments Made:||2971|
latest user's comments
|#28 - at least it's not naruto, which has had literally zero plot de…||04/16/2015 on In a Emergency||+2|
|#38 - her eyes grew a whole nother glare spot||04/15/2015 on Japan||+3|
|#5 - Picture||04/14/2015 on Truth about Smolensk||-1|
|#31 - or be not a pleb and use a single bluray||04/14/2015 on GTA V||-2|
|#15 - 2008 memes were set up us the bomb||04/14/2015 on maymays||+1|
|#42 - how do commas||04/14/2015 on good guy||0|
|#36 - kebab's only weakness [+] (1 new reply)||04/13/2015 on A one-man army||+8|
|#42 - He was good in that he didn't do too much damage while keeping… [+] (49 new replies)||04/13/2015 on bait quality: uchihalover||-5|
#46 - lean (04/13/2015) [-]
Yeah I really didn't like Romney, and I am conservative in most respects. I wish Obama would just stop "broadening the scope of his power" and try to work with congress instead of working around congress. I know that there is a lack of compromising, but that goes both ways. His approval rating isn't much better than Bush's was at this point in his term. I really really want there to be term limits for congress as well. Get these old ass dicks the fuck out. They look like they lost touch a few decades ago, guys like McCain and Reid.
#50 - lean (04/13/2015) [-]
Couldn't possibly be because they disagree with it. Has nothing to do with his vetoing of all republican sponsored bills, even bipartisan ones. I would just like to know how he knows better than congress and all of us what is best for the country? Very few other Presidents have so refused to work through the political process, and the lack of compromise is detrimental to the health of the nation. Large bills like Obamacare are supposed to be deliberated for a long time, and the political process is a slow one by design. It saves in the long run the misapplication and mistakes that have so plagued it. No one believes the Affordable Care Act was a success.
#55 - mountainyard (04/13/2015) [-]
To be honest I don't know all that much about the american political system, but I know I disagree with most of it; corporationism, lobbyism, most politicians being businessmen and lawyers.
Then again I disagree with most politics in the world and I really dislike capitalism..
#67 - lean (04/13/2015) [-]
Capitalism doesn't work the way it is meant to mostly because of government interference. Government, as you have pointed out, is primarily corporatism and lobbyism. For some reason the US decided politics was going to be a career now.
There are some people trying to make it less fucked up, but it's hard to be heard with corporate funding going towards censorship of anything that isn't the progressive ideal.
What system would you advocate over capitalism?
#85 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
Balanced capitalism, where neither government nor coroporations have too much power.
Give corporations rope, and if they decide to hang themselves, then regulate the shit out of them.
For example, we didn't have polution regulations lot longer than rest of the world. So our corporations started dropping toxics into groundwater and poisoning the people.
So now they are regulated. and should be.
Do we have too many regulations now? Yes. And there should be a revision. But if banks and corporations show they have no self restraint, then government must restrain them to protect those people that can't protect themselves.
As far as political system, I think the problem is that today's countries are too fucking big. We are so big that to those that should be our leaders people became just statistics.
We need a system that is far more local, with leaders far more known to people and people to them.
What we need is a city state confederation. And no, I don't mean like in civil war. Confederation wasn't confederation. It was actually very strong and centralized federation.
For example USA should be a confederation of hundreds if not thousands of city states, with some basic laws over them. With common military, market, money and foreign policy, with free movement of people and rest up to city states. Then the leaders would be actually responsible to people who know them.
#120 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
Even states are too big man.
Texas is an empire on its own. California has nearly 40 million people. Even mediumish state like Michigan has 100.000 square miles.
Its too fucking big. Europe is even worse. While not as big, far more populated per square mile.
Also, except for terms there should be funding limits. PACs really really shouldn't be legal, its just buying influence on massive scale. Only people who don't see it as corruption of our democracy are those that are benefiting from it.
#104 - gladiumspiritus (04/13/2015) [-]
>Balanced capitalism, where neither government nor coroporations have too much power.
That's just capitalism. Corporations, or businesses in general should have little to no regulation. It's a free market, treat it like one. Don't give any tax breaks or tax dollars to any private businesses. Let private interests succeed or fail based upon their own merits, not from government funding or excessive taxation and regulation.
No control. laissez faire capitalism for the freest market, controlled by the choices of the people. Economic democracy faggots. The only place where democracy effectively works.
#135 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
Ah yes, free market capitalism. The silver bullet for all of America's economic and social problems. If we were to just remove the government and supplement it with corporate entities, then we would enter a golden era of prosperity. Just look at standard oil and at&t. The free market determined them to be worthy of their market dominance, but then the evil consumers and small business owners conspired with the pure evil that is democracy and had them struck down.
#113 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
So you are ok if bunch of people gets cancer because its cheaper for corporation to poison the groundwater then properly take care of chemicals?
You are ok with banks trading with your 401k and if they lose it and go bust, well tough for you.
You are ok with lifetime limits on your health care? I mean if its too expensive to treat your cancer, they can just stop. Sorry, but you had a good run.
You seriously think that there is no need to control the power of the corporations because "market will take care of it"
yeah, because when people found out that Nike is having 5 year old slaves make shoes they stopped buying Nike shoes... oh wait, that same year was record profits for Nike, and their market share grew...
#174 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
I've written bunch of points on why regulation is good and necessary. I've even pointed out that market will not necessarily punish those that act abhorrently.
You have done nothing to refute those points, but call me strawman. I wasn't strawmaning, I was making an actual point to why regulation exists and should exist.
#195 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
Toxic chemical dumping:
Removal of Glass Steagall act allows trade banks to use money from commercial banks to trade. Beyond the amounts they are insured. If they gamble and lose the money, you are fucked
Until afordable care act, lifetime limits on sending on healthcare were standard provision in every healthcare insurance. it was only made illegal last year.
Nike stock prices, click max and look at how Nike stocks went up after 1995 when the big scandal about child labor broke out.
#217 - gladiumspiritus (04/13/2015) [-]
Companies that clean water sources.
By the way, maybe you should take a look at your local stormwater system, you'll find that it is mainly private entities keeping your roads repaired, water clean, streets free of flooding and even the sewage from finding it's way into your yard.
Why healthcare is so expensive, surprise! It's because of government interference.
I wonder which country leads the world in heathcare innovation, *GASP* it's the US and private interests.
Also, the "companies can't have freedom because they will do bad things" argument is stupid. People are going to do bad things regardless of whether or not they are regulated. Child labor was already illegal in the US, they outsourced to a place where their were none. All this demonstrates was that people are unethical and do bad things. Including Nike.
#239 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
Which didn't do anything to reply to my point at all.
Yes, private companies clean water. Because government pays them to. That's how they make money. That has nothing to do with companies that save money by dumping toxic chemicals. And btw, even when caught, clean up (which is never 100%) and fines actually costs them less than doing it right. Which is why so many still do it.
So regulation, people going and checking if chemicals are properly disposed of. Because I don't care if company will pay the fine, if i already have throat cancer. I'd rather soemone stop them before they dump it.
USA has least government interference in health care in the developed world, by farm by VERY far. And it also has highest cost in the world, by far. Are you trying to tell me that's a coincidence?
And also, not answering my point. Do you feel comfortable letting health insurance companies have power to deny you health care if you cost them too much? Because up to last year they could have. Legally.
Again, what does pharmaceutical company dominance has to do with health care providing to individuals? Yes, they are private companies that are trying to make money by researching new drugs. That's their job.
I'm not arguing that they "Will do bad things" I'm saying that they HAVE done bad things, so they are now regulated over it.
And i'm saying that market will not punish them for doing bad things, because people don't care as long as it doesn't happen to them.
Wallmart could be running a drug cartel, as long as its not affecting shoppers personally, and prices stay low, it will stay full.
#593 - gladiumspiritus (04/14/2015) [-]
People pay through the government systems, things that they vote for to be repaired and cities contract private interest companies to do the jobs. These companies exist because there is a market need that would have existed regardless of whether or not the government was in place for it. To clarify, the companies that do get caught are fined and in most places, if it is a reoccurring event, can lead to arrests. It all depends on the law structure of the city. That doesn't present itself as a need for more government regulation, just the reality of people will do shitty things.
Reasonable regulation exists in regards to water treatment and chemical disposal. There doesn't need to be anymore. Companies end up dumping in many strange areas much of the time because regulation keeps them from disposing of it in an efficient manner.
USA may have the least, but that didn't stop the regulation/inflation from fucking up the existing heath care system. Highest cost due to inflation and regulation. From government interference in the private market.
Heath insurance companies can only deny you treatment if you had a pre-existing condition (even then, this was not true for all companies). Companies were legally bound to give treatment to you if it fell within their legal obligation to do so. Anything outside of their legal requirements to follow, per contractual agreement, they didn't have to treat. If so, that makes perfect sense, companies never legally denied treatment because it "cost them too much". That is a lie.
What I'm saying is that because little regulation has existed, it has allowed our heathcare industry to flourish. Whereas insofar as the government has involved itself or fucked up on it's job (currency) and caused inflation, has stunted growth and caused an otherwise good system to become very pricey.
If people in San Marcos don't care about people in San Antonio then that is fine. No one is San Antonio should be able to make regulation that effects San Marcos. The government should never enforce a private industry to serve anyone outside of the agreement of the individual scale. Regardless, you've done nothing to address my points.
This idea that the government should be some entity that takes precedence of the individual is disgusting. A government should be by the people and for it. Seeing the rights of the individual as king.
#598 - angelusprimus (04/14/2015) [-]
My point was that those are two completely different thing. I said there are companies who do bad things, and your response was there are also ones that do good. That's like defending lawyer in a trial says "Yes, my client did rob a store, but in his defense his cousin stocks the shelves in that store so it all balances out."
the problem is, when those companies keep doing it, a lot of people gets hurt. Some get sick, some die, some develop life threatening diseases. Its not a singular occurance, it happened a lot, and its still happening. So instead of letting people get sick or die and then punishing those that did it with fines (and yes its fines, no arrests, because they always retreat under corporate umbrella and you can't arrest a corporation) government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people has both right and responsibility to enact preventative measures to keep people safe.
Who's talking about MORE regulation? What we have is perfectly fine, it just needs to be enacted more. What we don't need is to say "we don't need no stinking regulation" and remove the ones we have.
And no, companies do not dispose of waste wrongly because of regulation. USA's regulation is laxest in the developed world. It covers bare minimum for safe disposal, and a lot of people think its not even minimum. But it costs money, and executives get bigger checks if profits are higher.
I don't think you understand that health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry are two only loosely connected industries.
And no its not a lie. Just google "lifetime spending cap" and you will find out that in your contract with a health insurance there used to be a spending cap. They would say in your life time we will spend 4 million dollars on you (usually a lot more, but lets go with that) if you developed cancer that didn't kill you fast, and you had to go in treatement day after day for lets say 15 years, you could REACH that spending cap. At that point they would not spend another dime on you.
And best part, because of preexisting condition (another complete bullshit that existed ONLY in usa) you couldn't even get another insurance to pay for your treatments. If you couldn't afford to pay for it yourself, you died.
That's not a lie, that is an easily verifiable fact.
And your idea that american health care system became pricy because of government is a joke. Again, every single health care system in the WORLD is more regulated and more government run. And every single one, EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE WORLD, is cheaper. In USA too much power was given to corporations, and they did what they do best. Made money. That's why USA health care is the most expensive in the world, and has been since... forever. Not despite the loosest regulation in the world, but BECAUSE loosest regulation in the world.
And again, research pharmaceutics and health insurance are two SEPARATE industries. Pharmaceutical industry benefits from USA's highly developed research grant system and interconnection of universities and corporation research. Its a great system that works very well, and benefits both colleges, students and corporations. It has exactly jack squat with insurance industry, because its a financial industry, not research and manufacture.
I've adressed every point you made. You are the one who completely tried to change everything I wrote about, and ignored nearly every single thing i've written. You keep changing your points to serve your narrative while disregarding those that do not.
Government should not take precedence over individual. Government should morally and legally stop those individuals or entities that have power from using it against those that do not.
#74 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
People who actually understand whats required to run a country just getting on with it without the requirement for the popularity contest and showmanship of pandering to morons. We don't need a great leader with a vision of togetherness. We need a couple of nerds stuck in a cupboard min-maxing.
#84 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
'Technocracy is a term used to describe an organizational structure or system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge'
Buhhhh durr hurr? When your retardation is cured please feel free to come back and ride again.
#90 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
I think this will go quicker if you simply post whatever shitbrained error you think you've found. I'll then point out in more accurate ways how you're being retarded.
#100 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
I don't have neither time nor will to educate you.
So, read up on William E. Akin and technocracy movement.
But even if we forget historical examples and "briliant" social engineering ideas of technocracy proponents, its still one of the dumbest systems.
Who decides who is an expert? And which expert should be in charge. Take any issue on economy and you will get massively educated people with massively impressive resumes on at least three sides of the issue. So who would be in charge?
Have you heard about academic swamp? Its an established notion that before new, better theory (be it scientific or economic) can establish itself proponents of the older one have to retire or die out, because their accumulated prestige will drown a new theory, while their age prevents them from quickly adapting to it.
Without a self regulating mechanism technocracy would end up being a system run by old men, who refuse to admit change and try to run the world on outdated ideas.
Not to mention that historically any attempt of large scale social engineering failed horribly and caused massive suffering. Literally every single time in history.
#137 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
The selection process actually wouldn't be that hard to set up several different suitable systems with modern computational modelling tools. As an example you could get academics to program and set up various situations which would then have to be tackled by the candidates for the job. The ones who can prove their technical ability in their area would then be put into place. All you would need to offset 'old man syndrome' is to add a stipend that the selection process is done in terms - you could even keep the 4 year ones that we have now if you desired. You should always be careful about undermining scientific principles because of disagreement within the field - down that road lies the global warming and evolution denyers.
Nobody is suggesting having no regulation - by definition you would need regulation in order to set up any system. The key point is the fact that positions would be filled based on technical ability and expertise, rather than popularity contests voted on by idiots.
#204 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
Ok, those are actual good points.
There is one problem. Who develops selection tools, and who oversees it?
System that can pick a best economist would be a disaster for picking the best medical professional or best agricultural expert.
And even if we have best people there are different models on which they want to work on, that don't exactly mesh. Which economic model do we go with? Neoliberal, laissez faire, social capitalism, state run capitalism like china?
Who decides on things where demands overlap? Do civil engineers get resources they need to build roads or agriculturals for maintain the food production. both have strong reasons why them.
Sometimes most efficient thing is not really best thing. After Katrina it would have been most efficient to just move everyone, flatten new orleans and build a new city few miles up safe from floods.
Problem is that its a closed system. Experts in their field tend to get tunnel vision, which is great if there is someone to direct that tunnel and make sure it doesn't end up in a vulcano. But if you have them running themselves...
Which is why general meritocracy is better than more specific technocracy.
#110 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
'I don't have neither time nor will to educate you.'
Translation: I don't understand well enough myself but a smart guy once told me it was a bad idea. I have scraped together this case from wikipedia to pretend I have this illusive knwoledge.
'kay babes. You go do whatever and don't concern yourself with big boy business anymore.
#125 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
Sorry. I don't have neither time nor will to educate you.
#136 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
The difference is, I actually gave you sources to defend my point. Which showed that at least I read up on the issue and, if nothing else, know where to look. I've read the mission statement of Technocracy inc. I know how much of it is in the roots of Zeitgeist movement. I know what I'm talking about.
You provided nothing, at all, except literally first line from wikipedia page, to show you understand what you are talking about.
I've written exactly why I think movement like that can't work. Simple, easy points.
You ignored everything and just declared me to not know what I'm talking about.
While I've done and shown I know what I'm talking about, you have not. So don't expect me to spoon feed you, go and READ, before you keep spewing ignorance. If you think I'm wrong, either prove it, or show me sources that prove me wrong.
#141 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
Copying and pasting a few names is not citation. You've clearly never written a technical report in your life ( no your high school science classes don't count )
I've said you have no idea what you're talking about because you've demonstrated an utter lack of understanding and knowledge. No wonder you're trying to cling on to the 'let idiots have a say too' system.
#157 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
I'll start defending once you actually make a valid criticism, using your own understanding.
#149 - angelusprimus (04/13/2015) [-]
And you still are doing your best to ignore every single issue against technocracy because you don't know how to defend it.
And this isn't work, I don't have to write a technical report. I wrote simple and clear things that you can google and read up. That's all I need to do on the internet.
But its ok, I understand why you would fall for such a simple and stupid system. It allows people with very limited abilities to think of themselves smart.
If you are really unable to even google things and get basic information about something then you should really be careful about calling someone an idiot.
Also, you are still incapable of refuting a single point either me or lean made against it. So you are using this "I am too smart to talk to you" as a distraction.
Its a rather sad and pathetic tactic used by stupid people who don't want to admit they are stupid.
#151 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
'This is a stupid system so dumb people can pretend to be smart'
The pot and kettle couldn't be blacker.
#77 - lean (04/13/2015) [-]
Who decides what qualifies as political understanding? Who do they send to negotiate? Who makes the call during a war? What keeps them from being bought off, or purposefully disrupting said min-maxes? Moreover, who assigns them to a job?
The idea of a functioning technocracy as a separate form of democracy holds water like a cheese grater. Might as well say a utopia
#89 - anon (04/13/2015) [-]
There would of course have to be ample testing for suitability. I won't pretend to have mapped out a fully functional technocratic system. It should be fairly obvious that the issues you raised are exactly the same for democracy, except democracy relies on the rediculous notion that bubba who eats nothing but roadkill and thinks aliens stole his wife has as much voting power as an economics major from harvard.
As a ruling system on the scale we have, democracy is just as rediculously impossible system, which is why we bastardised the basic concept into some semblance of alright-ish.
#71 - mountainyard (04/13/2015) [-]
I have no idea what sytem would work... Communism or socialism would work in theory, but not so well in real life. A democracy with a wide spectrum of politicans from every field would be nice. Like scientists, doctors, engineers etc etc, people who know what they're voting about. I've seen to many quotes from politicians where they are talking complete and utter shit. Todd Akin, with the "legitimate rape"-thing comes to mind.
#79 - lean (04/13/2015) [-]
Capitalism is economic, democracy is political. Mass social fiscal policies are doomed to fail. Communism completely removes incentive. There is a reason the politics doesn't appeal to the best and brightest, they know that the politicians have to appeal to the masses. The masses on a whole are morons. I think you should have to own land to vote, just like in the old days.
#82 - mountainyard (04/13/2015) [-]
I agree with the incentive-point. Mostly I've given up on the world, I don't see how we could make it better. Thankfully I live in a country that mostly has it's shit together and I live a comfortable life. I want to own a house and some land with no neighbours in the woods or near a lake. But only time will tell what happens to me.
|#15 - Am grep. Less grep [+] (1 new reply)||04/13/2015 on Art||+145|
|#24 - explaining why people why emoji were never racist||04/13/2015 on Never Bloody Happy||+1|
|#200 - depends. high fps allows for more information to be displayed …||04/13/2015 on 59fps||0|
|#4 - nothing. the absolute worse case would be a vacuum being created||04/12/2015 on What if...||+48|
|#37 - not ashamed my of word placement||04/12/2015 on Doublethink||0|
|#5 - Picture||04/10/2015 on Magestic||+1|
|#9 - breaking news from 2013 [+] (1 new reply)||04/10/2015 on Fight on brother||+20|
|#8 - attend event, wheel in palate of phallic sugar cookies||04/10/2015 on Thought you guys might...||0|
|#37 - I once went to without my parents permission [+] (1 new reply)||04/10/2015 on Confession time!||+11|
|#5 - "Should've ordered the small pizza" [+] (2 new replies)||04/10/2015 on When mom says dinners ready||+35|
|#19 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||04/10/2015 on Poke fusion comp||+4|
|#3 - 100% gluten chocolate. is it a loaf of bread||04/10/2015 on Chocolate? CHOCOLATE!||+171|
|#53 - Didn't know that charlie sheen was so articulate [+] (1 new reply)||04/10/2015 on The teacher asked for a 16...||0|
|#53 - God, i hate it when fake grills try to impress people. you can…||04/09/2015 on Hot Grill Compilation||0|
|#75 - OH GOD MY THUMB IS MISSING better take a picture||04/09/2015 on Oh God||0|
|#56 - but by her own admission, she's not really human||04/08/2015 on Having fun with a Tumblr-ite||+14|
|#31 - when the acid hits||04/08/2015 on Pls Don't Kill Me||0|