assassin_696

Understanding difficult concepts, I love knowing how things work. I also love making my friends and family laugh, or laughing with them.

I really disagree with that. I think people who drink purely to get drunk without regard for the taste are probably in the minority. Most people 30+ drink because they like the taste of it. But it's a matter of preference. There are times when nothing tastes better than a coke with ice, it can be very refreshing. But at other times an cold beer is perfect. I could happily drink 5+ pints socially in a night, but if I drank an equivalent amount of coke I'd feel sick.

Won't Get Fooled Again - The Who Doesn't get much better than this.

Baileys is lovely. Glenmorangie (single malt whisky) is also exceptionally nice. I'm not fussy when it comes to beers and lagers, although Black Sheep is a favourite of mine. Not a huge fan of cider, although it's nice in the summer. Don't really drink wine, I might get into it.

It's also ridiculously impractical most of the year round in this (British climate).

Tonight The Streets Are Ours - Richard Hawley

I thought this was quite an interesting commentary: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 415342.ece

That wasn't really my argument though. My point was simply this: Love is a way of saying that you're attracted to someone. People tend not to choose who they fall in love with. Hence who you are attracted to is not a simple choice. Don't get hung up on me wording it as if it was a logical argument, I know it's not and was just using it to illustrate a point.

Unfortunately, and despite a warning from Rainy_Day, this thread has descended into flames and petty insults. Locked.

Unlocked at request :)

On the large scale, beneficial. And very much inevitable.

I find the distinction between maths and science quite interesting. I certainly wouldn't say science is a subject with "definite" answers. In fact the more you study science the more you need to be aware of uncertainty, errors and estimations. But I agree it's not subjective. The reason why maths isn't a science is simply what warri0r said. Science proposes testable hypothesis which are either validated through empircal data or refuted. Maths is not empirical, it is based on proof. Also don't let what universities give you when you graduate confuse you. Cambridge University awards it's mathematicians BA's, and it's probably the toughest maths course in the world. It's just for historical reasons. I also think maths is an art, in the sense that it can be very aesthetic. It's not coincidence that a lot of mathematicians talk about the "beauty" of a proof. It's not that the proof happens to work and be aesthetically pleasing, it's that it is beautiful because it works. Paul Dirac, the great theoretical physicist, once gave a lecture to some young researchers. His advice was to make their work beautiful, and the correctness would follow. I find the distinction interesting in fields like theoretical physics (my main interest). Theoreticians might work purely with mathematical formulae, deriving and proving results and yet what they do still needs to be validated by experiment for it to be correct.

I'll cut to what you consider to the chase. Yes, the wage differentials can be huge in capitalism, but what if the bottom rung of the ladder is still higher than what could be achieved under communism? A trickle down effect inevitable occurs in capitalism when the prosperous recycle their wealth back into the market and so bring up the wealth of everybody on the ladder. This doesn't mean that the ultimate goal is that the bottom rung reaches the same level as the top rung. That'll never happen. But when the bottom rung is achieving by and large the same opportunities, healthcare, education and support that would be afforded to the top rung then I can't see what the problem is. Some people will go on to become more successful than others. But they may have worked hard, and they're simply being rewarded for it.

Call me an idealist but surely Israel must realise that by responding to force with force it's only generating further hatred and masses of young Muslims willing to martyr themselves? [bleep] for tat would be bad enough, but responding with the ferocity that it has is just overkill and bordering on war crimes. A new strategy is needed that isn't based on retribution. But I suppose that wouldn't be politically desirable.

If you continue chemistry to A2 level you'll find maths A-level useful. If you continue chemistry to degree level you'll find it almost essential. Maths comes up in some form or another in nearly every science. Hugely so in physics, but also in chemistry and to a lesser extent biology, depending on your topic of specialisation.

Isn't liberatarian socialism a paradox? Its an interesting time to make that comment. With the market in collapse, I mean. Obviously this doesnt apply to all forms of Capitalism, but it is one of the problems of free market capitalism, that you are at the whims of an unpredictable system. I'd also like to suggest that the majority of the increased standards of living came from a technological boom rather than any force due to capitalism but of course its difficult to show definite cause and effect in something as complex as economics. But it can be seen that communist countries are equally recieving the same boom, and whilst they are not forms of communisms which I would support and thus dont have the distribution of that wealth in the way I'd like to see it, that wealth is still there, just in the hands of very few (to which my response is "And thats supposed to be communism??"). The current finanical crisis is not a failure of the free market system, it's a failure of the way it was regulated/handled. I'm sure you realise recessions just come in cycles, so I assume you're referring to the credit crunch. I agree it's a significant event, but it's hardly 1929. Governments have come a long way since then and the theories and models have developed significantly. Economics is still far from an exact science, but we're learning more about it and gathering more data every day. As for your last paragraph, for a start the increased standards of living haven't largely come through technological boom. Rather they've come through years of basic economic growth. Yes, technology will have had a part to play in this growth. But so has globalisation, free trade between countries, increased productivity, better training/education and the control of inflation. Besides, I find it very hard to believe that the same technological booms would have come about in communist societies, where there won't have been the same free market incentives to develop them.

I think of all the sciences my mind and intuition seems to be most suited to physics. But I find all the sciences interesting. I dropped biology for A-level because I knew that a large part of the course at our school is ecology based, which I don't find hugely interesting, and at A-level I think biology involves a lot of memorisation. I enjoy chemistry, but find the A-level experiments too prescribed and restrictive. I don't really consider mathematics a science, but I know why it's lumped in there with them. I love maths, especially the pure and mechanics modules we do. I think statistics is too number-crunching based at A-level, and is consequently boring, but I can see it's useful and probably more interesting at a higher level. Theoretical physics interests me more than experimental. But I think pure maths might leave me cold as a career.

I think it's just human nature. We can all be armchair idealists but when we have to take a reduction in our standards of living for the sake of equity most people wouldn't want to. Capitalism is just an economic system, it doesn't prescribe any morals or ethics so I don't think you can blame capitalism for the way we conceptualise society. Doctors and baggers are maybe at extreme ends of the spectrum, but what about in jobs (previously mentioned) where there is a higher risk to the employee? There needs to be some incentive for them to do that job that carries the personal risk. My problem with communism is that I don't think it's a viable economic system. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but although capitalism has its faults I think we are all enjoying the benefits of increased standards of living.

You missed the point where I said I don't support communism. Reread my last post about responsibility. Besides, I want to be a doctor. Whether I'm payed £18K or £80K, I really couldn't care less. That's not why I want to be one. My apologies, I missed that bit.

Ginger, can't you see though that if a bagger and doctor are paid the same wage then there is no particular incentive for anyone to become a doctor? They could do it for ethical reasons, but many wouldn't when there is a far less stressful and comfortable job offering the same wage. Another example is haulage truckers in the US. There's a route called the ice road, which heads up to somewhere in Alaska or something, I can't remember. The truckers are driving over inches of ice and many die each year. The only incentive for them to do it is extra money to feed their families. Do you think they shouldn't be able to command that higher premium?

The principles of communism disincentivise people doing certain jobs (traditionally ones with high wages and high training) and working harder than the next man. As such productivity would be be slashed and people would have to accept much lower living standards. I also think that the state does a terrible job of allocating resources. Whether or not this is the price to pay for equality, I don't know. That said, I find Marxist thinking fascinating and very thought provoking. I just think communism is a deeply flawed ideology, but with a noble purpose. I think it woefully misjudges human nature to its downfall and has mostly arisen in the world out of times of great social unrest and so perhaps hasn't started on the best foot. I can't see it ever being implemented on a scale like that of Russia anymore though. Free markets work too well, although not perfectly.

Ah, checking the Wikipedia page it actually says it's unreleased to the general public. But then on Last.fm I read about some people who said they'd heard it. Haven't really looked for it though. I think it's called "Songs for Christmas, Vol VIII: Astral Inter Planet Space Captain Christmas Infinity Voyage" Yeah the Welcome Wagon CD is one he produced I think. I heard a song off it a few weeks ago, it sounded great, you could really hear his influence. Apparently it's by some American pastor and his wife. http://www.asthmatickitty.com/music.php?releaseID=114

Of course it is, you assumed to know my response and misrepresented my opinion and stance. But that's not what matters. Love is hard to define and measure, so these questions are difficult to reach a consensus about. But in both cases (age and gender) the feelings of love might well be equivalent. The problems arise when you look at why society prevents one kind of relationship and allows the other. We don't allow relationships between old men and young girls because although the feelings of love on the old man's behalf might well be genuine the young girl isn't developed to a stage where she can make an informed decision as to whether or not she reciprocates. The law serves to protect the child but doesn't necessarily discredit the love of the old man. Besides, if the old man pleaded that he loved the child then surely he wouldn't abuse her? The point isn't that it's all fatalistic and predetermined. There are lots decisions and choices that will probably be made before falling for someone. But the experience of most relationships is that once you feel attracted to someone it's very hard to shake that feeling, as much as you might want to. Sexual attraction is more deeply rooted in our genetic makeup than a tendency to steal or commit murder. It's more likely that a propensity to steal results from the way someone is brought up and the circumstances that they are in, particularly the latter. Although sexual attraction probably isn't entirely genetic, there is more evidence of things like testosterone levels in the womb having a strong correlation to the likely sexual orientation of the child. This is why they are inappropriate to compare.

Save the last few posts, I don't think this thread has had much constructive input, which isn't surprising reading the first post. Please make your rants a little more constructive in future. Locked.

Checking the rules there doesn't seem to be anything explicity prohibiting these threads. However, I think I'll err on the side of caution and lock this anyway. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to what happened to him it's probably mostly speculation, and I think he deserves some more privacy.