Wii! Second randomly started thread
Now then this thread does have a topic, what do you all think about the nitendo revolution's new name? The "Wii"
Sounds great! *Thumbs up*
I don't understand why it's called "Wii". What has that got to do with the revolution?
It sounds like the name of a hyperactive anime animal. lol
"Revolution" was just a codename for the console. What has a Gamecube got to do with dolphins, anyway?
As for an explanation as to why it's called "Wii": Read this
As for an explanation as to why it's called "Wii": Read this
Wii is the most sucking name I've ever seen a console be called. As for the explanation for it; what the quack? Wiiva la Revolution 
but jedi? dont wii need to see that wii is the way of the future lol wii must be good to wii so wii can prosper with wii
XP XP XP
XP XP XP
actually I dislike the name wii but who cares 
I only dislike it since the revolution was cooler
I only dislike it since the revolution was cooler
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Linux Linux!
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Linux Linux!
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Linux Linux!
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Ahh Mac, Ahh Mac! Maaac oh Maaac, ohhh it's a Maaac...
There, it had to be said.
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Linux Linux!
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Linux Linux!
Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Windows Ahh Mac, Ahh Mac! Maaac oh Maaac, ohhh it's a Maaac...
There, it had to be said.
Hmm, now that you mention it; Wii!! also sounds kinda "mushroom mushroom mushroom"-like. Like the name of a poisonous mushroom
Wii looks more like it's a city in Finland or something.
I see that Nintendo has still to learn the leason that they should include DVD playback without a addon. They have also yet to learn their leason and stop using priporiety disks.
I can understand the lack of DVD playback possibly cutting into the Gamecube's sales slightly (not much), but I doubt it'd have much influence during this next generation of consoles. By now, pretty much everybody has a DVD player, and I don't know many people that are as anal as I am about having as few devices hooked up as possible.
Also, proprietary discs helped minimize piracy of Gamecube games, so I can see why they'd take that route again.
Also, proprietary discs helped minimize piracy of Gamecube games, so I can see why they'd take that route again.
Wii reminds me of Weed lol
Nintendo Revolution sounds so much better than "wee".
"Hey guys, after the pub do you want to come round to my place and play with my Wii?"
"Hey guys, after the pub do you want to come round to my place and play with my Wii?"
Revolution... Wii... Revolution... Wii...
One sounds like a cool next gen consol..
One sounds like a particular yellow substance..
One sounds like its for hardcore gamers (compaired to the other)
One sounds like its going to attract new Noobs
One sounds like a cool next gen consol..
One sounds like a particular yellow substance..
One sounds like its for hardcore gamers (compaired to the other)
One sounds like its going to attract new Noobs
Well, it's a little better than playing with your seedy eye.
Well, that's exactly what Nintendo has stated they're going for... Noobs.
Though, in this age when the video game industry makes even more money than the movie one, I'm not exactly sure how large the Noob market is anymore.
Though, in this age when the video game industry makes even more money than the movie one, I'm not exactly sure how large the Noob market is anymore.
Game - $50
Movie on DVD - $20
* Argument not checked for validity
But that's what came to mind immediately.
(in hindsight, I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to achieve with this post)
Movie on DVD - $20
* Argument not checked for validity
But that's what came to mind immediately.(in hindsight, I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to achieve with this post)
Though, in this age when the video game industry makes even more money than the movie one, I'm not exactly sure how large the Noob market is anymore.
Lies. The video game industry makes more than the box office, but DVD sales trump all. I should find a source for that.
Yay for Grumpy Gamer.
It's really comparing apples to oranges.
Lies. The video game industry makes more than the box office, but DVD sales trump all. I should find a source for that.
Yay for Grumpy Gamer.
It's really comparing apples to oranges.
Arg, I knew I shouldn't have used that lazy arguement.
But I still maintain that there just isn't as many Noobs as there used to be.
But I still maintain that there just isn't as many Noobs as there used to be.
By now, pretty much everybody has a DVD player
Maybe in the US, but there are many places, such as NZ, where this is not true.
Also, proprietary discs helped minimize piracy of Gamecube games, so I can see why they'd take that route again.
It also raises cost by a large ammount, which is one reason many game companies gave as their reason for not making games for the GameCube. And that is a bad thing, since it's the games where Nintendo and co make the money. They actually lose money on the sales of the console units.
Maybe in the US, but there are many places, such as NZ, where this is not true.
Also, proprietary discs helped minimize piracy of Gamecube games, so I can see why they'd take that route again.
It also raises cost by a large ammount, which is one reason many game companies gave as their reason for not making games for the GameCube. And that is a bad thing, since it's the games where Nintendo and co make the money. They actually lose money on the sales of the console units.
Indeed. Gaming is no longer clasified as a thing exclusively for kids and nerds. Also their are a lot more games that are made to appeal to female gamers than there used to be. So, in other words, the rise in the popularity of gaming is hardly surprising.
It also raises cost by a large ammount, which is one reason many game companies gave as their reason for not making games for the GameCube
You are completely incorrect. Xbox game discs are proprietary. PS2 game discs are proprietary. That's why you can't just burn a DVD and play it in your Xbox or PS2. The only difference with Gamecube discs is the size, and in mass production they do not cost any more than Xbox or PS2 discs.
They actually lose money on the sales of the console units.
0 for 2. There have only been 2 consoles that have consistently been sold for a loss, the Dreamcast and the Xbox. Note that Sega went bankrupt trying to sustain that business model, and Microsoft has lost hundreds of millions of dollars with the Xbox. They've had ONE profitable quarter for the Xbox in the past 5 years. One. And that was only because of Halo 2. Every other quarter they lost more money than they took in. Microsoft can only afford it because they have money coming in for Windows and Office.
You are completely incorrect. Xbox game discs are proprietary. PS2 game discs are proprietary. That's why you can't just burn a DVD and play it in your Xbox or PS2. The only difference with Gamecube discs is the size, and in mass production they do not cost any more than Xbox or PS2 discs.
They actually lose money on the sales of the console units.
0 for 2. There have only been 2 consoles that have consistently been sold for a loss, the Dreamcast and the Xbox. Note that Sega went bankrupt trying to sustain that business model, and Microsoft has lost hundreds of millions of dollars with the Xbox. They've had ONE profitable quarter for the Xbox in the past 5 years. One. And that was only because of Halo 2. Every other quarter they lost more money than they took in. Microsoft can only afford it because they have money coming in for Windows and Office.
I heard about this just today.
I liked the name "Revolution" and I think the name "Wii" sounds more like a mistake in spelling or pronounciation than a name.
Very lame.
Example:
"Today I was playing with my "wii" in public and the police arrested me for indecent exposure."
,
The Vault Dweller
I liked the name "Revolution" and I think the name "Wii" sounds more like a mistake in spelling or pronounciation than a name.
Very lame.
Example:
"Today I was playing with my "wii" in public and the police arrested me for indecent exposure."
,The Vault Dweller
You are completely incorrect. Xbox game discs are proprietary. PS2 game discs are proprietary. That's why you can't just burn a DVD and play it in your Xbox or PS2. The only difference with Gamecube discs is the size, and in mass production they do not cost any more than Xbox or PS2 discs.
No, I am not wrong. PS2 and X-Box disks are DVD based discs. Also I was simply quoting what game makers and gaming magazines have said. For some strange reason i can't figure out, I'm going to take the word of the game makers over yours.
0 for 2. There have only been 2 consoles that have consistently been sold for a loss, the Dreamcast and the Xbox. Note that Sega went bankrupt trying to sustain that business model, and Microsoft has lost hundreds of millions of dollars with the Xbox. They've had ONE profitable quarter for the Xbox in the past 5 years. One. And that was only because of Halo 2. Every other quarter they lost more money than they took in. Microsoft can only afford it because they have money coming in for Windows and Office.
You misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, the PS2, for example, is profitable. But that's only because of the royalty fee on games that is paid to Sony. Every console in history costs/costed more to produce the console unit than they were sold for. The games and pheriphals, partically the games, are where the money is made. At one stage Sony reported to be losing US$150 on the sale of every PS2 (this was early in it's life). Microsoft were reporting a similar loss on the sale of the X-Box. However, Sony reported that royalty on game sales more than made up for it by a multiple of hundreds. So yes, while over all the consoles make money, that's got little to do with what I was saying. I was referring to the hardware (minus the pheriphals), not the overall picture.
So, in short, I did not have 0/2, I had 2/2, unless the companies involved are all wrong, which I doubt.
No, I am not wrong. PS2 and X-Box disks are DVD based discs. Also I was simply quoting what game makers and gaming magazines have said. For some strange reason i can't figure out, I'm going to take the word of the game makers over yours.
0 for 2. There have only been 2 consoles that have consistently been sold for a loss, the Dreamcast and the Xbox. Note that Sega went bankrupt trying to sustain that business model, and Microsoft has lost hundreds of millions of dollars with the Xbox. They've had ONE profitable quarter for the Xbox in the past 5 years. One. And that was only because of Halo 2. Every other quarter they lost more money than they took in. Microsoft can only afford it because they have money coming in for Windows and Office.
You misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, the PS2, for example, is profitable. But that's only because of the royalty fee on games that is paid to Sony. Every console in history costs/costed more to produce the console unit than they were sold for. The games and pheriphals, partically the games, are where the money is made. At one stage Sony reported to be losing US$150 on the sale of every PS2 (this was early in it's life). Microsoft were reporting a similar loss on the sale of the X-Box. However, Sony reported that royalty on game sales more than made up for it by a multiple of hundreds. So yes, while over all the consoles make money, that's got little to do with what I was saying. I was referring to the hardware (minus the pheriphals), not the overall picture.
So, in short, I did not have 0/2, I had 2/2, unless the companies involved are all wrong, which I doubt.
Draconic: If you claim something in a disscussion it can be helpful if you mention your sources. It helps a lot in it's believability.
DraconicDink. I live video games. I breathe video games. I generally know what I'm talking about. I didn't source some of my statements previously, and now I shall smite your ignorance with facts. Your "I read something in a magazine so it must be true because my memory cannot be faulty"-shtick is getting kind of old.
False Statement 1) Gamecube discs are more proprietary than PS2 and Xbox discs, and would somehow cost more to manufacture.
Wikipedia: "Contrary to popular belief, Gamecube discs are not physically read any differently from a standard DVD disc, but are encrypted and contain a 'barcode' unreadable by most DVD drives."
"Later, a special debug mode in the GameCube drive was discovered which allowed the console to read and play from standard mini DVD-Rs."
Random Pirate Forum: "I have a qoob pro modchip in my Gamecube... This chip supports direct booting of dvd-r discs. You can use mini or full size. I'm using full size Ritek G05's in my GC. To fit the whole thing, you need to take the top off."
So... with a mod chip, you could purchase mini DVD-Rs, burn Gamecube games on them, and play them. Just like the PS2 and Xbox games.
The Playstation 2 uses 12 cm DVD discs with proprietary extensions to prevent piracy.
The Xbox uses 12 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as spinning the disc backwards) to prevent piracy.
The Gamecube uses 8 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as reading the data backwards) to prevent piracy.
Please tell me how these differ.
False Statement 2) Every console in history costs more to produce the console unit than they were sold for.
You didn't read my previous link. Read it. Then if you disagree, please find some logical source besides another news story parroting the same statement with no facts or figures.
Edit: found another link:
Nintendo Insider: "When the system wars began, Nintendo GameCube was actually making money for each system sold, as Nintendo didn’t bother with all the extra non-gaming functions of its competitors, like DVD movie playback. The system was still making Nintendo money at $150, and it wasn’t until its $99 price tag that it was estimated Nintendo was losing money – but only in the single digits."
False Statement 1) Gamecube discs are more proprietary than PS2 and Xbox discs, and would somehow cost more to manufacture.
Wikipedia: "Contrary to popular belief, Gamecube discs are not physically read any differently from a standard DVD disc, but are encrypted and contain a 'barcode' unreadable by most DVD drives."
"Later, a special debug mode in the GameCube drive was discovered which allowed the console to read and play from standard mini DVD-Rs."
Random Pirate Forum: "I have a qoob pro modchip in my Gamecube... This chip supports direct booting of dvd-r discs. You can use mini or full size. I'm using full size Ritek G05's in my GC. To fit the whole thing, you need to take the top off."
So... with a mod chip, you could purchase mini DVD-Rs, burn Gamecube games on them, and play them. Just like the PS2 and Xbox games.
The Playstation 2 uses 12 cm DVD discs with proprietary extensions to prevent piracy.
The Xbox uses 12 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as spinning the disc backwards) to prevent piracy.
The Gamecube uses 8 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as reading the data backwards) to prevent piracy.
Please tell me how these differ.
False Statement 2) Every console in history costs more to produce the console unit than they were sold for.
You didn't read my previous link. Read it. Then if you disagree, please find some logical source besides another news story parroting the same statement with no facts or figures.
Edit: found another link:
Nintendo Insider: "When the system wars began, Nintendo GameCube was actually making money for each system sold, as Nintendo didn’t bother with all the extra non-gaming functions of its competitors, like DVD movie playback. The system was still making Nintendo money at $150, and it wasn’t until its $99 price tag that it was estimated Nintendo was losing money – but only in the single digits."
I didn't supply sources because frankly I don't care weither or not anyone believes me.
DraconicDink. I live video games. I breathe video games. I generally know what I'm talking about. I didn't source some of my statements previously, and now I shall smite your ignorance with facts. Your "I read something in a magazine so it must be true because my memory cannot be faulty"-shtick is getting kind of old.
Firstly my main source was the gaming companies, not magazines. Secondly, because of the the "firstly" if I'm ignorant, then the companies are ignorant about their own products. Somehow, i doubt it. Thirdly, "DraconicDink. I live video games. I breathe video games. I generally know what I'm talking about." is not much of a selling point. I have no way of knowing if your opinion is correct.
False Statement 1) Gamecube discs are more proprietary than PS2 and Xbox discs, and would somehow cost more to manufacture.
Wikipedia: "Contrary to popular belief, Gamecube discs are not physically read any differently from a standard DVD disc, but are encrypted and contain a 'barcode' unreadable by most DVD drives."
Firstly, Wikipedia is not an authoritive source. Anyone can write Wikipedia articles. Therefore there is no way to check the credentials of most of the authors. Unless I can check the credentials of the author, there is no good reason for me to trust the articles. Secondly, as I have already stated (a couple of times now) the companies themselves were the main source of my info. Are you suggesting that the author of that article knows more than Nintendo and the companies whomake the games?
"Later, a special debug mode in the GameCube drive was discovered which allowed the console to read and play from standard mini DVD-Rs."
Random Pirate Forum: "I have a qoob pro modchip in my Gamecube... This chip supports direct booting of dvd-r discs. You can use mini or full size. I'm using full size Ritek G05's in my GC. To fit the whole thing, you need to take the top off."
So... with a mod chip, you could purchase mini DVD-Rs, burn Gamecube games on them, and play them. Just like the PS2 and Xbox games.
So third party products prove me wrong? What a load of crock!
The Playstation 2 uses 12 cm DVD discs with proprietary extensions to prevent piracy.
The Xbox uses 12 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as spinning the disc backwards) to prevent piracy.
The Gamecube uses 8 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as reading the data backwards) to prevent piracy.
Please tell me how these differ.
Those extensions are software, not anything to do with the disk, according to Sony and MS respectively. Nitendo themsleves said that "The game cubes disks are based on DVDs but are not DVDs, unlike the PS2 disks. This gives an edge in the sense that our games are harder to pirate." That's the difference. Note: that is paraphrased. I cannot remember the exact words.
You didn't read my previous link. Read it. Then if you disagree, please find some logical source besides another news story parroting the same statement with no facts or figures.
You acuse me of not reading your link when you didn't read me comment properly!
It was not a news story! It was what the console manufaturers said! They are a logical source! Their is no source more logical than them! To add to what I said about Sony and NS saying that, Nintendo and seha have both admitted that all of their consoles have lost them money on the sales of the units and that the royalty fees was the source of their profit.
Nintendo Insider: "When the system wars began, Nintendo GameCube was actually making money for each system sold, as Nintendo didn’t bother with all the extra non-gaming functions of its competitors, like DVD movie playback. The system was still making Nintendo money at $150, and it wasn’t until its $99 price tag that it was estimated Nintendo was losing money – but only in the single digits."
Okay, then I'll admit that as an exception, because of it's source, but Sony and MS both said their units lost them money,as did Sega. Nintendo also claimed that the SNES and NES lost them money on the units.
Firstly my main source was the gaming companies, not magazines. Secondly, because of the the "firstly" if I'm ignorant, then the companies are ignorant about their own products. Somehow, i doubt it. Thirdly, "DraconicDink. I live video games. I breathe video games. I generally know what I'm talking about." is not much of a selling point. I have no way of knowing if your opinion is correct.
False Statement 1) Gamecube discs are more proprietary than PS2 and Xbox discs, and would somehow cost more to manufacture.
Wikipedia: "Contrary to popular belief, Gamecube discs are not physically read any differently from a standard DVD disc, but are encrypted and contain a 'barcode' unreadable by most DVD drives."
Firstly, Wikipedia is not an authoritive source. Anyone can write Wikipedia articles. Therefore there is no way to check the credentials of most of the authors. Unless I can check the credentials of the author, there is no good reason for me to trust the articles. Secondly, as I have already stated (a couple of times now) the companies themselves were the main source of my info. Are you suggesting that the author of that article knows more than Nintendo and the companies whomake the games?
"Later, a special debug mode in the GameCube drive was discovered which allowed the console to read and play from standard mini DVD-Rs."
Random Pirate Forum: "I have a qoob pro modchip in my Gamecube... This chip supports direct booting of dvd-r discs. You can use mini or full size. I'm using full size Ritek G05's in my GC. To fit the whole thing, you need to take the top off."
So... with a mod chip, you could purchase mini DVD-Rs, burn Gamecube games on them, and play them. Just like the PS2 and Xbox games.
So third party products prove me wrong? What a load of crock!
The Playstation 2 uses 12 cm DVD discs with proprietary extensions to prevent piracy.
The Xbox uses 12 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as spinning the disc backwards) to prevent piracy.
The Gamecube uses 8 cm DVD media discs with proprietary extensions (such as reading the data backwards) to prevent piracy.
Please tell me how these differ.
Those extensions are software, not anything to do with the disk, according to Sony and MS respectively. Nitendo themsleves said that "The game cubes disks are based on DVDs but are not DVDs, unlike the PS2 disks. This gives an edge in the sense that our games are harder to pirate." That's the difference. Note: that is paraphrased. I cannot remember the exact words.
You didn't read my previous link. Read it. Then if you disagree, please find some logical source besides another news story parroting the same statement with no facts or figures.
You acuse me of not reading your link when you didn't read me comment properly!
It was not a news story! It was what the console manufaturers said! They are a logical source! Their is no source more logical than them! To add to what I said about Sony and NS saying that, Nintendo and seha have both admitted that all of their consoles have lost them money on the sales of the units and that the royalty fees was the source of their profit.Nintendo Insider: "When the system wars began, Nintendo GameCube was actually making money for each system sold, as Nintendo didn’t bother with all the extra non-gaming functions of its competitors, like DVD movie playback. The system was still making Nintendo money at $150, and it wasn’t until its $99 price tag that it was estimated Nintendo was losing money – but only in the single digits."
Okay, then I'll admit that as an exception, because of it's source, but Sony and MS both said their units lost them money,as did Sega. Nintendo also claimed that the SNES and NES lost them money on the units.
Nintendo also claimed that John Lennon invented peanut butter sandwiches. I heard it straight from Nintendo.
Ha ha. Your sarcasm isn't funny. Nor is it constructive.
But it's equally valid as your earlier points, as it is theoretically possible, and it has an equal defence behind it.
Geez... Redink has a wealth of knowledge on this subject compared to you, Draconic. If you keep digging that hole for yourself, he's just going to push you into it eventually. 
Please, just accept that he knows what he is talking about. It would make you seem a lot more reasonable if you could just accept when you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Please, just accept that he knows what he is talking about. It would make you seem a lot more reasonable if you could just accept when you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I'm hoping they named the console that just to get some talk going, and will rename it before the release.
I get a little grumpy when it comes to video game ignorance. My apologies.
I know that wikipedia is not an authoritative source. And that is why I tried to provide evidence by proxy that Gamecube discs use DVD-ROM media. I'll try to make it a little simpler:
A DVD-ROM cannot be read in a CD-ROM drive. A DVD uses a shorter wavelength to read bits off of the disc, so a CD-ROM drive cannot physically detect any information on a DVD.
How can the Gamecube play burned DVD-Rs without any modifications to the physical optical drive unless its just a (gasp) DVD-ROM drive?
And if it is a DVD-ROM drive, it follows that Gamecube games are DVD-ROMs.
The Gamecube mod chips seem to be fairly simple to install (connect four wires), and allows you you to load custom bios software onto the Gamecube to disable copy protection so it can play unauthorized DVDs.
I do believe Nintendo did state that Gamecube games are more difficult to pirate than Playstation 2 games. They added more protections (like leaving the first sector of the DVD blank and reading the data backwards), but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a DVD technology. The Xbox does something similar (by spinning the discs backwards).
So I'm not sure how Gamecube games are more proprietary, and how that would equal greater costs.
I know that wikipedia is not an authoritative source. And that is why I tried to provide evidence by proxy that Gamecube discs use DVD-ROM media. I'll try to make it a little simpler:
A DVD-ROM cannot be read in a CD-ROM drive. A DVD uses a shorter wavelength to read bits off of the disc, so a CD-ROM drive cannot physically detect any information on a DVD.
How can the Gamecube play burned DVD-Rs without any modifications to the physical optical drive unless its just a (gasp) DVD-ROM drive?
And if it is a DVD-ROM drive, it follows that Gamecube games are DVD-ROMs.
The Gamecube mod chips seem to be fairly simple to install (connect four wires), and allows you you to load custom bios software onto the Gamecube to disable copy protection so it can play unauthorized DVDs.
I do believe Nintendo did state that Gamecube games are more difficult to pirate than Playstation 2 games. They added more protections (like leaving the first sector of the DVD blank and reading the data backwards), but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a DVD technology. The Xbox does something similar (by spinning the discs backwards).
So I'm not sure how Gamecube games are more proprietary, and how that would equal greater costs.
Geez... Redink has a wealth of knowledge on this subject compared to you, Draconic. If you keep digging that hole for yourself, he's just going to push you into it eventually.
Please, just accept that he knows what he is talking about. It would make you seem a lot more reasonable if you could just accept when you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot that redink's one sources know more about those things than the companies who made them. I forgot that the reponsible thing to trust them over the people who make the products. From now on I won't believe what they say on their own websites since you all seem to think that's what I should do.
Not!! Why on earth should I accept I'm wrong? That'd also mean accepting that the companies are wrong about their own products!! How is it more reasonable to accept the companies themsleves as wrong? That's not only illogical, it's irrational and stupid as well! I do not appreciate people even unwittingly telling me to be irrational, stupid, and/or illogical!!
Please, just accept that he knows what he is talking about. It would make you seem a lot more reasonable if you could just accept when you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot that redink's one sources know more about those things than the companies who made them. I forgot that the reponsible thing to trust them over the people who make the products. From now on I won't believe what they say on their own websites since you all seem to think that's what I should do.
Not!! Why on earth should I accept I'm wrong? That'd also mean accepting that the companies are wrong about their own products!! How is it more reasonable to accept the companies themsleves as wrong? That's not only illogical, it's irrational and stupid as well! I do not appreciate people even unwittingly telling me to be irrational, stupid, and/or illogical!!
A DVD-ROM cannot be read in a CD-ROM drive. A DVD uses a shorter wavelength to read bits off of the disc, so a CD-ROM drive cannot physically detect any information on a DVD.
I would appreciate it if you did not assume I was a complete ignoramous!! I know that sort of thing! I understand a hell of a lot about computer technology. In fact in that respect I'm what some would call a "nerd" becaude I know so much about it. To be on the safe side you can assume I know about that sort of thing and things more advanced.
How can the Gamecube play burned DVD-Rs without any modifications to the physical optical drive unless its just a (gasp) DVD-ROM drive?
And if it is a DVD-ROM drive, it follows that Gamecube games are DVD-ROMs.
I never actually said they weren't DVD-ROMs. I said they were a propriety version.
The Gamecube mod chips seem to be fairly simple to install (connect four wires), and allows you you to load custom bios software onto the Gamecube to disable copy protection so it can play unauthorized DVDs.
So what? What's that got to do with it? That sort of third party illegal hardware exists for all of the console. In what way does that prove me wrong?
I do believe Nintendo did state that Gamecube games are more difficult to pirate than Playstation 2 games. They added more protections (like leaving the first sector of the DVD blank and reading the data backwards), but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a DVD technology. The Xbox does something similar (by spinning the discs backwards).
I never said it wasn't a DVD technology. I simply said it was a propriety DVD technology.
So I'm not sure how Gamecube games are more proprietary, and how that would equal greater costs.
I'm not sure why it costs more either. I just know that companies like SquareSoft complained about how much more it costs to manufacture GameCube disks than X-Box and PS2 disks.
I would appreciate it if you did not assume I was a complete ignoramous!!
I know that sort of thing! I understand a hell of a lot about computer technology. In fact in that respect I'm what some would call a "nerd" becaude I know so much about it. To be on the safe side you can assume I know about that sort of thing and things more advanced.How can the Gamecube play burned DVD-Rs without any modifications to the physical optical drive unless its just a (gasp) DVD-ROM drive?
And if it is a DVD-ROM drive, it follows that Gamecube games are DVD-ROMs.
I never actually said they weren't DVD-ROMs. I said they were a propriety version.
The Gamecube mod chips seem to be fairly simple to install (connect four wires), and allows you you to load custom bios software onto the Gamecube to disable copy protection so it can play unauthorized DVDs.
So what? What's that got to do with it? That sort of third party illegal hardware exists for all of the console. In what way does that prove me wrong?
I do believe Nintendo did state that Gamecube games are more difficult to pirate than Playstation 2 games. They added more protections (like leaving the first sector of the DVD blank and reading the data backwards), but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a DVD technology. The Xbox does something similar (by spinning the discs backwards).
I never said it wasn't a DVD technology. I simply said it was a propriety DVD technology.
So I'm not sure how Gamecube games are more proprietary, and how that would equal greater costs.
I'm not sure why it costs more either. I just know that companies like SquareSoft complained about how much more it costs to manufacture GameCube disks than X-Box and PS2 disks.
From now on I won't believe what they say on their own websites since you all seem to think that's what I should do.
Okay. Go to nintendo.com. Find the web page that says "We've sold all of our consoles for a loss, even the NES and SNES." Come back here and post the link.
Just saying "The video game companies said so-and-so" isn't convincing anyone.
I've tried to provide sources to back up my claims. You should do the same, and then we can compare sources to see who is correct.
Okay. Go to nintendo.com. Find the web page that says "We've sold all of our consoles for a loss, even the NES and SNES." Come back here and post the link.
Just saying "The video game companies said so-and-so" isn't convincing anyone.
I've tried to provide sources to back up my claims. You should do the same, and then we can compare sources to see who is correct.
Okay. Go to nintendo.com. Find the web page that says "We've sold all of our consoles for a loss, even the NES and SNES." Come back here and post the link.
Just saying "The video game companies said so-and-so" isn't convincing anyone.
I've tried to provide sources to back up my claims. You should do the same, and then we can compare sources to see who is correct.
Who said I was trying to convince anyone? Did I not say:
I didn't supply sources because frankly I don't care weither or not anyone believes me.
The answer is yes I did say it. Scroll up and check if you want.
Just saying "The video game companies said so-and-so" isn't convincing anyone.
I've tried to provide sources to back up my claims. You should do the same, and then we can compare sources to see who is correct.
Who said I was trying to convince anyone? Did I not say:
I didn't supply sources because frankly I don't care weither or not anyone believes me.
The answer is yes I did say it. Scroll up and check if you want.
I didn't supply sources because frankly I don't care weither or not anyone believes me.
Yes. I can understand that. You type several paragraphs with lots of exclamation points! ! ! ! ! and angry faces because you don't care whether anyone believes you. I mean, it isn't like the purpose of argument is trying to convince someone else of something.
Yes. I can understand that. You type several paragraphs with lots of exclamation points! ! ! ! ! and angry faces
because you don't care whether anyone believes you. I mean, it isn't like the purpose of argument is trying to convince someone else of something.
The angry faces and explanations were simply fustration at the comments I was responding to. as for why I did the posts... well I had my reasons and that should be enough for you. If it isn't well tough luck because I don't feel like giving them.
I mean, it isn't like the purpose of argument is trying to convince someone else of something.
No, it's not. To quote Monty Python: "An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a proposition." That isn't the same as trying to convince someone of your views/knowledge/whatever. That's simply trying to establish them/pass them on. Oh, and yes, I know Monty Python isn't exactly the best source, but in this case they are correct. To prove that I'll quote my dictionary: "The act of reasoning to establish or refute a position" and "A summary or synopsis of a plot, subject, etc." Note that the first definition says or refute, not <b?and<ib> refute. The second defination says "summary or synopsis", not "attempt to prove" or anything similar.
Now, if you'll excuse I've had enough of a argument that isn't going anywhere, so I won't be taking part in it anymore.
I mean, it isn't like the purpose of argument is trying to convince someone else of something.
No, it's not. To quote Monty Python: "An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a proposition." That isn't the same as trying to convince someone of your views/knowledge/whatever. That's simply trying to establish them/pass them on. Oh, and yes, I know Monty Python isn't exactly the best source, but in this case they are correct. To prove that I'll quote my dictionary: "The act of reasoning to establish or refute a position" and "A summary or synopsis of a plot, subject, etc." Note that the first definition says or refute, not <b?and<ib> refute. The second defination says "summary or synopsis", not "attempt to prove" or anything similar.
Now, if you'll excuse I've had enough of a argument that isn't going anywhere, so I won't be taking part in it anymore.
Why would you quote from Monty Python for any reason, making a joke aside?
Nintendo says Wii is pronounced 'We'. revolution.nintendo.com
"Why on earth should I accept I'm wrong? That'd also mean accepting that the companies are wrong about their own products!! How is it more reasonable to accept the companies themsleves as wrong? That's not only illogical, it's irrational and stupid as well! I do not appreciate people even unwittingly telling me to be irrational, stupid, and/or illogical!!"
Are you making fun of yourself here? Are you some sort of joke? It is very hard to accept your - this may send you into seizures - illogical and irrational stance here. You are not employed by the companies, therefore you do not represent the companies, and thus claiming that you are incorrect is not comparable to claiming that the companies are incorrect.
"I would appreciate it if you did not assume I was a complete ignoramous!!"
I don't think we have to assume that.
Are you making fun of yourself here? Are you some sort of joke? It is very hard to accept your - this may send you into seizures - illogical and irrational stance here. You are not employed by the companies, therefore you do not represent the companies, and thus claiming that you are incorrect is not comparable to claiming that the companies are incorrect.
"I would appreciate it if you did not assume I was a complete ignoramous!!"
I don't think we have to assume that.
I thought the reason was obvious: they have the correct definition in this case.
What part of I'm not getting involved in this argument do you not understand? By trying to arue with someone who isn't involved you are making it look like you are the joke.
That's the problem... while not backing up your statements with evidence makes for an argument of sorts, it makes whatever you say an incredibly weak argument.
While, "Nintendo also claimed that John Lennon invented peanut butter sandwiches. I heard it straight from Nintendo." is, of course, less believable than anything you've said, it *is* an accurate parody of your argument. In that, logically, no one else can know if you are lying or not unless they have specifically seen those statements before.
In conclusion, if you are going to take the time to make a serious arguement with someone, you should at least take the meager effort of backing your assertions with evidence.
While, "Nintendo also claimed that John Lennon invented peanut butter sandwiches. I heard it straight from Nintendo." is, of course, less believable than anything you've said, it *is* an accurate parody of your argument. In that, logically, no one else can know if you are lying or not unless they have specifically seen those statements before.
In conclusion, if you are going to take the time to make a serious arguement with someone, you should at least take the meager effort of backing your assertions with evidence.
I don't think it's Tal who looks like the joke here.
Why should I act against my own desires just to satisfy those of others? That's giving in to slavery.
Hey, nice strawman argument. I was not presenting slavery, but simple social responsibility.
Hey, nice strawman argument. I was not presenting slavery, but simple social responsibility.
"Social responsibility"? Exactly! Social responsibility is slavery! It's my life and mine alone! The only reponsibility I have is to myself. To quote Richard Rahl, the main character of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, and the main receptacle of Terry's philiosophies: "You life is yours alone. Ride up and live it." If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery.
"Social responsibility"? Exactly! Social responsibility is slavery! It's my life and mine alone! The only reponsibility I have is to myself. To quote Richard Rahl, the main character of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, and the main receptacle of Terry's philiosophies: "You life is yours alone. Ride up and live it." If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery.
So me giving money to a beggar is slavery?
They want me to give them money, and I gain nothing of it. Not even a warm fuzzy feeling of helping someone.
They want me to give them money, and I gain nothing of it. Not even a warm fuzzy feeling of helping someone.
Social responisbility is defined as: #
Social responsibility can be viewed as a part of the social contract in that is the responsibility of each entity whether it is state, government, corporation, organisation or individual that they are contributing to society at large, or on a smaller scale. In a way it can be traced back to ideas such as the golden rule of treating everyone else as good as you would want to be treated by everyone else.
So what your saying is that you want to be exempt from this? You want to poo on people while have them smile on you in return? It's not going to happen. With a lack of social responsibility, there really wouldn't be any government. Now I may not be a fan of government, but I realize its nessesity to continued civilization as we know it.
You must be a lonely person to not care about the desires of anyone else.
Social responsibility can be viewed as a part of the social contract in that is the responsibility of each entity whether it is state, government, corporation, organisation or individual that they are contributing to society at large, or on a smaller scale. In a way it can be traced back to ideas such as the golden rule of treating everyone else as good as you would want to be treated by everyone else.
So what your saying is that you want to be exempt from this? You want to poo on people while have them smile on you in return? It's not going to happen. With a lack of social responsibility, there really wouldn't be any government. Now I may not be a fan of government, but I realize its nessesity to continued civilization as we know it.
You must be a lonely person to not care about the desires of anyone else.
No. If you do it voluntarily it's okay because it's your money. if you do it because you have to, then it's theft.
Oh, and you're wrong there is personal gain. At least if you choose to do it. Because in that case you're doing it for one of two reasons: either you like to help people or because you feel it's the right thing to do. If you like doing it you get happiness, which is one the greatest personal gains. If you do it because you feel it's the right thing to do, then you get the feeling that you did the right thing, which creates a form of self-satisfaction, which is also one of the greatest rewards.
Oh, and you're wrong there is personal gain. At least if you choose to do it. Because in that case you're doing it for one of two reasons: either you like to help people or because you feel it's the right thing to do. If you like doing it you get happiness, which is one the greatest personal gains. If you do it because you feel it's the right thing to do, then you get the feeling that you did the right thing, which creates a form of self-satisfaction, which is also one of the greatest rewards.
"What part of I'm not getting involved in this argument do you not understand?"
Inserted into the random quotes in 3... 2... 1...
Inserted into the random quotes in 3... 2... 1...
I'm a little perplexed as to how showing us that you aren't just spouting off half-truths mixed with lies is giving in to slavery. I am convinced that this is your "I won't admit to being wrong, but there's no way I'm right so I'm not doing squat" stance.
Social responsibility can be viewed as a part of the social contract in that is the responsibility of each entity whether it is state, government, corporation, organisation or individual that they are contributing to society at large, or on a smaller scale.
Each indicidual has resposilbility only to him or herself.
In a way it can be traced back to ideas such as the golden rule of treating everyone else as good as you would want to be treated by everyone else.
So what your saying is that you want to be exempt from this? You want to poo on people while have them smile on you in return? It's not going to happen.
That is totally miscontrueing what I said. I said I don't feel responsibility to others, not that'd "poo" on them. Treating others is fairly and as you want them to treat you is not a social responsibility, it is a moral responsibility. It is a matter of respecting rights, not socialism. So, in short, despite feeling no repsonsibilty to others I do treat people as they deserve to be treated. Besides treating other the way you want to be treated results in personal gain, which is all the more reason for me to do it.
With a lack of social responsibility, there really wouldn't be any government. Now I may not be a fan of government, but I realize its nessesity to continued civilization as we know it.
Wrong. Governments would exist to pass laws to make sure we act morally as opposed to socially, which is a far better thing. they would also supply some neccessary. services to the public. That is all governments have the right to do. Current governments exceed that right by expecting us to act socially and charging taxes. Don't get me wrong. The government has the right to charge for their services. However, that fee would be like a commercial fee, in that you can choose not to use the service, but that would mean lack of access to it. Taxes, however, are theft.
You must be a lonely person to not care about the desires of anyone else.
I never said that I don't care about the desires of anyone else. I just said I don't let them get in the way of my own. In fact, I do care about the desires of others and their well being. I am in fact a caring person. It's just that I care about myself before any others. After all, as my quote said, "Your life is yours alone. Rise up and live it." It's my life, so the responsible thing is to look after myself first. However, I do help people out at times, but that's because I like to do so, not because it's "required/expected" of me.
Each indicidual has resposilbility only to him or herself.
In a way it can be traced back to ideas such as the golden rule of treating everyone else as good as you would want to be treated by everyone else.
So what your saying is that you want to be exempt from this? You want to poo on people while have them smile on you in return? It's not going to happen.
That is totally miscontrueing what I said. I said I don't feel responsibility to others, not that'd "poo" on them. Treating others is fairly and as you want them to treat you is not a social responsibility, it is a moral responsibility. It is a matter of respecting rights, not socialism. So, in short, despite feeling no repsonsibilty to others I do treat people as they deserve to be treated. Besides treating other the way you want to be treated results in personal gain, which is all the more reason for me to do it.
With a lack of social responsibility, there really wouldn't be any government. Now I may not be a fan of government, but I realize its nessesity to continued civilization as we know it.
Wrong. Governments would exist to pass laws to make sure we act morally as opposed to socially, which is a far better thing. they would also supply some neccessary. services to the public. That is all governments have the right to do. Current governments exceed that right by expecting us to act socially and charging taxes. Don't get me wrong. The government has the right to charge for their services. However, that fee would be like a commercial fee, in that you can choose not to use the service, but that would mean lack of access to it. Taxes, however, are theft.
You must be a lonely person to not care about the desires of anyone else.
I never said that I don't care about the desires of anyone else. I just said I don't let them get in the way of my own. In fact, I do care about the desires of others and their well being. I am in fact a caring person. It's just that I care about myself before any others. After all, as my quote said, "Your life is yours alone. Rise up and live it." It's my life, so the responsible thing is to look after myself first. However, I do help people out at times, but that's because I like to do so, not because it's "required/expected" of me.
I'm a little perplexed as to how showing us that you aren't just spouting off half-truths mixed with lies is giving in to slavery. I am convinced that this is your "I won't admit to being wrong, but there's no way I'm right so I'm not doing squat" stance.
Your right that isn't slavery. I never said that was. I said that doing something other than I want to, doing it for the reason of "social responsibility" is slavery. here's my stance, my messeage in full:
If someone does something for any reason other than wanting to do it it's slavery. It may not be to a person or people, it may be to an ideal/belief. Doing something for the reason that other excpect you to do it or want you to do it is slavery. To do it because an ideal/belief says it's the "right thing to do" is slavery. Especially if, like me, you don't believe in that. To do it because you want to do or because you feel it is the right thing to do is slavery. The same goes for not doing something.Say if you guys thought I shouldn't eat meat because it was wrong to do it and I stopped doing it bexcause of that, despite disagreeing, it'd be slavery.
hopefully that clears it up for you. I know you won't agree, but that should at least clarify where I stand and that it isn't an excuse. Besides I've already stated this sort of view in the thread about Objectivism that DuckRand started. Check that thread for confirmation if you like. Back in that thread there was no possible reason for a "excuse" motive.
Your right that isn't slavery. I never said that was. I said that doing something other than I want to, doing it for the reason of "social responsibility" is slavery. here's my stance, my messeage in full:
If someone does something for any reason other than wanting to do it it's slavery. It may not be to a person or people, it may be to an ideal/belief. Doing something for the reason that other excpect you to do it or want you to do it is slavery. To do it because an ideal/belief says it's the "right thing to do" is slavery. Especially if, like me, you don't believe in that. To do it because you want to do or because you feel it is the right thing to do is slavery. The same goes for not doing something.Say if you guys thought I shouldn't eat meat because it was wrong to do it and I stopped doing it bexcause of that, despite disagreeing, it'd be slavery.
hopefully that clears it up for you. I know you won't agree, but that should at least clarify where I stand and that it isn't an excuse. Besides I've already stated this sort of view in the thread about Objectivism that DuckRand started. Check that thread for confirmation if you like. Back in that thread there was no possible reason for a "excuse" motive.
In fact in my novels that's what my characters will think, as will the governments of the main countries involved.
In fact in the science fiction novel I am now writing earth is ruled in such a fashion. this happened because of a huge global collapse due to the world's ever growing socalism. This is because I believe that just like happened in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged that will happen in real life. I've set that as happening about 2050 in my novel, though the real occurence may be any time, perhaps over 100 years later than that.
Oh, and of course when that happens, Objectivists like myself will say, "Ha! We told you so! Oh, and stop asking us for help! You got yourself into it, now get yourself out of it. Besides, we couldn't help you even if we wanted to."
In fact in the science fiction novel I am now writing earth is ruled in such a fashion. this happened because of a huge global collapse due to the world's ever growing socalism. This is because I believe that just like happened in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged that will happen in real life. I've set that as happening about 2050 in my novel, though the real occurence may be any time, perhaps over 100 years later than that.
Oh, and of course when that happens, Objectivists like myself will say, "Ha! We told you so! Oh, and stop asking us for help! You got yourself into it, now get yourself out of it. Besides, we couldn't help you even if we wanted to."
I'm not going to dispute your dismissal of the definition, I'm much to tired at this point. What I will dispute is your idea that you can *opt out* of public services. That's not possible. How would you opt out of national defence? Mercinaries? For every person? That's just not feasible. What about if there were two neighbooring buildings, and only one had paid for fire protection. Would the fire deparment have to look up, see that the fire protection was paid up, and then race over, and only save the people from the one building. To everyone else, well, sorry, we can't help you. Would every road be a toll road? Who would man the tolls? Would you have to run your own power lines? Would you have to have a mound in the backyard, as you wouldn't have public sewers. What about the media. There would be no more television, radio or any form of transmision, as the government body that controls the airways would be overrun by people that would set up their own transmision towers and they would just *opt out* of the national system. So bye-bye comunications. You like the enviroment? Well, it's gone now, as the agencies can't really stop anyone from strip mining that forest if the people doing so have opted out. You like the air? Oh, so sorry. How dare I make the air black with soot and ash after I opted out of those silly clean air acts. How would a person go about opting in or out of the united nations. What would that mean? You don't need to abide by international law anymore? If taxes were abolished, who would pay for the police? Would everyone have to start paying protection money?
Just think of the massive middle management that would be required to set up this ground level, only pay for what you use infrastructure. You would end up paying more than double than what you were paying before, and you wouldn't be getting half of it.
Your ideas *might* work in a utopia but a utopia is, by definition, an unchanging state of afairs and it would be unimaginably boring. And also fiction. Remember, not everyone has your set of morals. And the people that actually do things usually have a much different set of ideas of what's right and what's wrong than the people who dream up utopias. Usually people who dream up utopias are people who have never had to work in a farm, or do any manual labor for little to no pay.
Government is required, and so are taxes. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a hopeless, closeminded, fool.
Just think of the massive middle management that would be required to set up this ground level, only pay for what you use infrastructure. You would end up paying more than double than what you were paying before, and you wouldn't be getting half of it.
Your ideas *might* work in a utopia but a utopia is, by definition, an unchanging state of afairs and it would be unimaginably boring. And also fiction. Remember, not everyone has your set of morals. And the people that actually do things usually have a much different set of ideas of what's right and what's wrong than the people who dream up utopias. Usually people who dream up utopias are people who have never had to work in a farm, or do any manual labor for little to no pay.
Government is required, and so are taxes. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a hopeless, closeminded, fool.
I honestly think your idea, doing something just because someone else thinks it's right equalling slavery, is an interesting one. It truly upsets me, though, that you'd rather look like a dimwit to practically everyone else who's posted in this thread instead of taking just a few minutes out of your day to try and dig up some of those sources of yours that supposedly exist, or admitting that you're just flat-out wrong about a lot of things... maybe not everything, but quite a few things.
Until you put forth some effort to prove otherwise, I'm fairly certain everyone here is going to deem you a fool. I hope you enjoy the title; you seem to be standing by it pretty well.
Cheers.
Until you put forth some effort to prove otherwise, I'm fairly certain everyone here is going to deem you a fool. I hope you enjoy the title; you seem to be standing by it pretty well.
Cheers.
I honestly think your idea, doing something just because someone else thinks it's right equalling slavery, is an interesting one.
I think I should clarify something here. That isn't complete, which is my fault admittedly. If you do something because others think it's right and at the same time disagree, then it's slavery. if you do it for that reason and agree, then it's not slavery.
It truly upsets me, though, that you'd rather look like a dimwit to practically everyone else who's posted in this thread instead of taking just a few minutes out of your day to try and dig up some of those sources of yours that supposedly exist, or admitting that you're just flat-out wrong about a lot of things... maybe not everything, but quite a few things.
Okay, now you're just being silly. Of course I don't prefer to look like a dimwit. In fact it never occured to me that I would. Admittidly I should of seen it coming, but the fact remains that I didn't. All that I forsore was disagreement. What it is that I'd prefer is to live my life my way.
Until you put forth some effort to prove otherwise, I'm fairly certain everyone here is going to deem you a fool. I hope you enjoy the title; you seem to be standing by it pretty well.
To be honest, I don't care if others think ill of me. All that matters to me is that I think don't think ill of me. Not surprising is it, considering what I've stated so far?
I'll finish on a sad note: What happened to Americas belief in free will and the right to live your life your way? If the forefather saw what America is like now they'd be absolutely livid!
I think I should clarify something here. That isn't complete, which is my fault admittedly. If you do something because others think it's right and at the same time disagree, then it's slavery. if you do it for that reason and agree, then it's not slavery.
It truly upsets me, though, that you'd rather look like a dimwit to practically everyone else who's posted in this thread instead of taking just a few minutes out of your day to try and dig up some of those sources of yours that supposedly exist, or admitting that you're just flat-out wrong about a lot of things... maybe not everything, but quite a few things.
Okay, now you're just being silly. Of course I don't prefer to look like a dimwit. In fact it never occured to me that I would. Admittidly I should of seen it coming, but the fact remains that I didn't. All that I forsore was disagreement. What it is that I'd prefer is to live my life my way.
Until you put forth some effort to prove otherwise, I'm fairly certain everyone here is going to deem you a fool. I hope you enjoy the title; you seem to be standing by it pretty well.
To be honest, I don't care if others think ill of me. All that matters to me is that I think don't think ill of me. Not surprising is it, considering what I've stated so far?
I'll finish on a sad note: What happened to Americas belief in free will and the right to live your life your way? If the forefather saw what America is like now they'd be absolutely livid!
What I will dispute is your idea that you can *opt out* of public services. That's not possible.
Actually it's quite possible. However, I know what you mean. The word you should of used is "feasible", not "possible".
How would you opt out of national defence? Mercinaries? For every person? That's just not feasible. What about if there were two neighbooring buildings, and only one had paid for fire protection. Would the fire deparment have to look up, see that the fire protection was paid up, and then race over, and only save the people from the one building.[i]
If you left one and not the other then you'd risk the one that payed. This mean you'd have to save both to save the paying one. Also you could charge them for the service afterwards. Besides the government is best of saving them anyway, for reasons of self-interest, because the loss of productivity is not good for the economy, which is also bad for the government.
[i]Would every road be a toll road? Who would man the tolls?
Your taxes already pay for the roads so road cost would not go up at all.
Would you have to run your own power lines?
No they would be run by private providers (the power comapnies). That is hald done here in NZ.
Would you have to have a mound in the backyard, as you wouldn't have public sewers.
Admitedly that would have to be a free service, since the lack of that would be a bad thing for the government as well as those without it.
What about the media. There would be no more television, radio or any form of transmision, as the government body that controls the airways would be overrun by people that would set up their own transmision towers and they would just *opt out* of the national system.
No. The government could always own a TV station. There is no reason why governments cannot own businesses, as long as they are run by qualified people and operate on at least the intention of profit.
You like the enviroment? Well, it's gone now, as the agencies can't really stop anyone from strip mining that forest if the people doing so have opted out. You like the air? Oh, so sorry. How dare I make the air black with soot and ash after I opted out of those silly clean air acts.
Actually that sort of thing can be protected with laws and fines. Also the person who done it would have to pay court costs You can't opt out of those three.
If taxes were abolished, who would pay for the police? Would everyone have to start paying protection money?
Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.
Just think of the massive middle management that would be required to set up this ground level, only pay for what you use infrastructure. You would end up paying more than double than what you were paying before, and you wouldn't be getting half of it.
Wrong. since the government would be supplying less services their would be less middle management than you get now. And less services means lower fees. Besides the government could use any profit from businesses they own to improve the services. Besides the government could run those services as business, thus potentially make profit off them (while dropping the overall cost to us since we are paying for less services from them). That profit could be used to improve the services, hence making them better than they currently are.
Your ideas *might* work in a utopia but a utopia is
No they'd work in the real world. Well, depending on one condition that all systems depend: good management. Utopias cannot exist since every system will still have the odd flaw since humans are not perfect.
Remember, not everyone has your set of morals.<i/>
yes, well I know that. That is self-evident. This very discusiion illustrates that.
[i]And the people that actually do things usually have a much different set of ideas of what's right and what's wrong than the people who dream up utopias
I know that, as well. However, I would like to point out that I do not desire a utopia. I just desire an improvement on the way things are now.
Usually people who dream up utopias are people who have never had to work in a farm, or do any manual labor for little to no pay.
I worked at an lettuce farm for very little. in fact pretty much my whole life has been a struggle to survive. Admittedly not on the scale of that if some places of Africa, but by western standards my childhood was one of low money. In fact we could barely afford the neccesities and had to miss out on some of them a lot of the time. However, in the system I mentioned the measly wages my mom was getting would be enough to get the neccesities and more, because the equivalant of tax would be less.
Government is required, and so are taxes. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a hopeless, closeminded, fool.
Is that so? Well consider this:
As it is now most people don't get to use all of what their taxes are paying for. Either that or they get them all but not to the value of which they are using them. Instead their money goes to helping out others. However, they were never asked if tht was okay. Now I ask you this: is that fair? How is me paying for someone elses's hospital care neccessary? I was never asked if I approve. That is not only not fair, that's blatant theft.
I'll finish on one last sad note. and that is that that humanity's ever increasing reliance on socialism will result in this (quote from a post of mine from above):
In fact in the science fiction novel I am now writing earth is ruled in such a fashion. this happened because of a huge global collapse due to the world's ever growing socalism. This is because I believe that just like happened in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged that will happen in real life. I've set that as happening about 2050 in my novel, though the real occurence may be any time, perhaps over 100 years later than that.
Oh, and of course when that happens, Objectivists like myself will say, "Ha! We told you so! Oh, and stop asking us for help! You got yourself into it, now get yourself out of it. Besides, we couldn't help you even if we wanted to."
Oh, and it's also covered in Terry Goodkind's Sword of truth series (books 2-9), especially in book six, Faith of the Fallen.
Actually it's quite possible. However, I know what you mean. The word you should of used is "feasible", not "possible".
How would you opt out of national defence? Mercinaries? For every person? That's just not feasible. What about if there were two neighbooring buildings, and only one had paid for fire protection. Would the fire deparment have to look up, see that the fire protection was paid up, and then race over, and only save the people from the one building.[i]
If you left one and not the other then you'd risk the one that payed. This mean you'd have to save both to save the paying one. Also you could charge them for the service afterwards. Besides the government is best of saving them anyway, for reasons of self-interest, because the loss of productivity is not good for the economy, which is also bad for the government.
[i]Would every road be a toll road? Who would man the tolls?
Your taxes already pay for the roads so road cost would not go up at all.
Would you have to run your own power lines?
No they would be run by private providers (the power comapnies). That is hald done here in NZ.
Would you have to have a mound in the backyard, as you wouldn't have public sewers.
Admitedly that would have to be a free service, since the lack of that would be a bad thing for the government as well as those without it.
What about the media. There would be no more television, radio or any form of transmision, as the government body that controls the airways would be overrun by people that would set up their own transmision towers and they would just *opt out* of the national system.
No. The government could always own a TV station. There is no reason why governments cannot own businesses, as long as they are run by qualified people and operate on at least the intention of profit.
You like the enviroment? Well, it's gone now, as the agencies can't really stop anyone from strip mining that forest if the people doing so have opted out. You like the air? Oh, so sorry. How dare I make the air black with soot and ash after I opted out of those silly clean air acts.
Actually that sort of thing can be protected with laws and fines. Also the person who done it would have to pay court costs You can't opt out of those three.
If taxes were abolished, who would pay for the police? Would everyone have to start paying protection money?
Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.
Just think of the massive middle management that would be required to set up this ground level, only pay for what you use infrastructure. You would end up paying more than double than what you were paying before, and you wouldn't be getting half of it.
Wrong. since the government would be supplying less services their would be less middle management than you get now. And less services means lower fees. Besides the government could use any profit from businesses they own to improve the services. Besides the government could run those services as business, thus potentially make profit off them (while dropping the overall cost to us since we are paying for less services from them). That profit could be used to improve the services, hence making them better than they currently are.
Your ideas *might* work in a utopia but a utopia is
No they'd work in the real world. Well, depending on one condition that all systems depend: good management. Utopias cannot exist since every system will still have the odd flaw since humans are not perfect.
Remember, not everyone has your set of morals.<i/>
yes, well I know that. That is self-evident. This very discusiion illustrates that.
[i]And the people that actually do things usually have a much different set of ideas of what's right and what's wrong than the people who dream up utopias
I know that, as well. However, I would like to point out that I do not desire a utopia. I just desire an improvement on the way things are now.
Usually people who dream up utopias are people who have never had to work in a farm, or do any manual labor for little to no pay.
I worked at an lettuce farm for very little. in fact pretty much my whole life has been a struggle to survive. Admittedly not on the scale of that if some places of Africa, but by western standards my childhood was one of low money. In fact we could barely afford the neccesities and had to miss out on some of them a lot of the time. However, in the system I mentioned the measly wages my mom was getting would be enough to get the neccesities and more, because the equivalant of tax would be less.
Government is required, and so are taxes. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a hopeless, closeminded, fool.
Is that so? Well consider this:
As it is now most people don't get to use all of what their taxes are paying for. Either that or they get them all but not to the value of which they are using them. Instead their money goes to helping out others. However, they were never asked if tht was okay. Now I ask you this: is that fair? How is me paying for someone elses's hospital care neccessary? I was never asked if I approve. That is not only not fair, that's blatant theft.
I'll finish on one last sad note. and that is that that humanity's ever increasing reliance on socialism will result in this (quote from a post of mine from above):
In fact in the science fiction novel I am now writing earth is ruled in such a fashion. this happened because of a huge global collapse due to the world's ever growing socalism. This is because I believe that just like happened in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged that will happen in real life. I've set that as happening about 2050 in my novel, though the real occurence may be any time, perhaps over 100 years later than that.
Oh, and of course when that happens, Objectivists like myself will say, "Ha! We told you so! Oh, and stop asking us for help! You got yourself into it, now get yourself out of it. Besides, we couldn't help you even if we wanted to."
Oh, and it's also covered in Terry Goodkind's Sword of truth series (books 2-9), especially in book six, Faith of the Fallen.
Back on topic now. Here is a link to an article about the fact that the name change has caused a lot of satire. Looking at the picture I have to say, I don't like those controllers. They look to much like tey're remotes rather than controllers.
But that's not the question. The question is:
To Wii or not to Wii.
/me attempts to return back on-topic
/me also knows that this thread is in the off-topic forum
/me shuts up now
To Wii or not to Wii.
/me attempts to return back on-topic
/me also knows that this thread is in the off-topic forum
/me shuts up now
As has been said before, by others, "Way to not get the point".
When I speak of social responsibility, I speak of the greater well being of everyone, including yourself... I suppose a better term would be "enlightened social responsibility." Not something arbitrary, as in, "Do this because it is expected of you," as you appear to believe.
In actually participating in the social dynamics of the group, you benefit yourself in small way. And since this is at no real cost to you, and cannot harm you (even potentially) in any way, it would be irrational not to. You do seem to have plenty of time on your hands, after all.
In your dealings with this board, it has become apparent that you have stirred up a great deal of ill will. This ill will is compounded by things like not supplying the necessary information to back up your argument. Behavior like this continues to lower the group's view of you. In essense, you have become very much a joke here.
Now, not supplying requested information to an argument is not too big of a deal on an Internet forum. You *can* act like an ass all you want, with few consequences, but there is always the chance that such behavior will come back to get you, albeit in a small way.
Let me just say that I hope, for your own sake, that you do not behave the way you do on the DN in social arenas that affect you far more than we do.
When I speak of social responsibility, I speak of the greater well being of everyone, including yourself... I suppose a better term would be "enlightened social responsibility." Not something arbitrary, as in, "Do this because it is expected of you," as you appear to believe.
In actually participating in the social dynamics of the group, you benefit yourself in small way. And since this is at no real cost to you, and cannot harm you (even potentially) in any way, it would be irrational not to. You do seem to have plenty of time on your hands, after all.
In your dealings with this board, it has become apparent that you have stirred up a great deal of ill will. This ill will is compounded by things like not supplying the necessary information to back up your argument. Behavior like this continues to lower the group's view of you. In essense, you have become very much a joke here.
Now, not supplying requested information to an argument is not too big of a deal on an Internet forum. You *can* act like an ass all you want, with few consequences, but there is always the chance that such behavior will come back to get you, albeit in a small way.
Let me just say that I hope, for your own sake, that you do not behave the way you do on the DN in social arenas that affect you far more than we do.
I'm not even going to comment on your social rubbish, Striker, as I've got sick of. Sufice to say that I believe that the only reponsibility we all have to any other is not to tread on their rights (rights are what I held above all else. They are my highest ideal).
In terms of my evidence or lack there of, it all depnds on many factors. As stated earlier, when I actually try to convince people I supply evidence when it availble. If I don't supply it then you can safetly assume I am simply makiing a statement without trying to convince you. Other factors exist as well, but i don't feel like going into them now. Maybe later, if anyone shows interest, which I doubt.
In terms of my evidence or lack there of, it all depnds on many factors. As stated earlier, when I actually try to convince people I supply evidence when it availble. If I don't supply it then you can safetly assume I am simply makiing a statement without trying to convince you. Other factors exist as well, but i don't feel like going into them now. Maybe later, if anyone shows interest, which I doubt.
You state: "when I actually try to convince people I supply evidence when it availble." This can mean either that there is no evidence, or that you are not trying to convince anyone, something I assume from the rest of your post. This becomes unbelievable when you are posting roughly 1/3 of the posts in a disscussion. (Using exclamation marks, angry smileys and defending your own points fierely)
When I want to make a statement, I just make the statement. When someone wants me to explain what I just said I do another post in which I explain myself. (That makes a total of two posts)
If I then reply to someone who disagrees to defend myself I am no longer just making a statement, I am trying to confince someone, in which case I should supply evidence. I don't know how you see this, but this is my view, so I agree with Striker on this one. Striker has given you some good advice, take it I'd say.
If you want to know what my views of goverment are, this is mine:
The goverment is there to:
A: provide protection
B: Provide basic services
C: provide equal chances for all
D: provide financial help for the weak
E: create a law that protects people, their freedom and comfort
F: enforce the law
A little bit of explaination:
A: Protection is a task for the goverment, an army could never survive as a private endevour. The police should protect us (as much as is reasonably possible) from crime.
B: The goverment should provide things like roads, sewers and health care. In my opinion even public transport should be free.
C: It's nice to think that if you let everything go its way everyone can do what he wants. Unfortunatly this is not true, so it's the governement's responsibility to make sure that everybody has (about) the same chances. (Like children of poor parents should be able to go to university too) I am not trying to achieve equal outcomes for all (which is communism), but equal chances.
D: It's not always someone's own fault if things go wrong, like if someone gets ill. That's when the goverment should give some help to get things going again.
E: The law should protect people, it's the goverment's task to edit the law when neccessary. Twenty years ago hardly anyone was confronted with cybercrime, nowadays more protection is needed. It should also protect their freedom, good protection means little if that means no personal freedom. I also believe the goverment should protect our comfort (comfort is probably the wrong word, I couldn't find a better word ). I mean if the goverment never acted against microsoft at all, it would be totally impossible to buy a computer without windows installed (it still almost is, but atleast not completely). I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
F: I think this one explains itself really...
EDIT: Funny, just after I posted this google-ads came up with a link called Honest political debate.
and defending your own points fierely)When I want to make a statement, I just make the statement. When someone wants me to explain what I just said I do another post in which I explain myself. (That makes a total of two posts)
If I then reply to someone who disagrees to defend myself I am no longer just making a statement, I am trying to confince someone, in which case I should supply evidence. I don't know how you see this, but this is my view, so I agree with Striker on this one. Striker has given you some good advice, take it I'd say.
If you want to know what my views of goverment are, this is mine:
The goverment is there to:
A: provide protection
B: Provide basic services
C: provide equal chances for all
D: provide financial help for the weak
E: create a law that protects people, their freedom and comfort
F: enforce the law
A little bit of explaination:
A: Protection is a task for the goverment, an army could never survive as a private endevour. The police should protect us (as much as is reasonably possible) from crime.
B: The goverment should provide things like roads, sewers and health care. In my opinion even public transport should be free.
C: It's nice to think that if you let everything go its way everyone can do what he wants. Unfortunatly this is not true, so it's the governement's responsibility to make sure that everybody has (about) the same chances. (Like children of poor parents should be able to go to university too) I am not trying to achieve equal outcomes for all (which is communism), but equal chances.
D: It's not always someone's own fault if things go wrong, like if someone gets ill. That's when the goverment should give some help to get things going again.
E: The law should protect people, it's the goverment's task to edit the law when neccessary. Twenty years ago hardly anyone was confronted with cybercrime, nowadays more protection is needed. It should also protect their freedom, good protection means little if that means no personal freedom. I also believe the goverment should protect our comfort (comfort is probably the wrong word, I couldn't find a better word
). I mean if the goverment never acted against microsoft at all, it would be totally impossible to buy a computer without windows installed (it still almost is, but atleast not completely). I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)F: I think this one explains itself really...
EDIT: Funny, just after I posted this google-ads came up with a link called Honest political debate.
NOTE: I do believe that some social views are correct. It's just that they are done for the wrong reasons.
When I want to make a statement, I just make the statement. When someone wants me to explain what I just said I do another post in which I explain myself. (That makes a total of two posts)
If I then reply to someone who disagrees to defend myself I am no longer just making a statement, I am trying to confince someone, in which case I should supply evidence. I don't know how you see this, but this is my view, so I agree with Striker on this one.
I believe it's about more than just actions. I believe it's more about intentions.
Striker has given you some good advice, take it I'd say.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
If you want to know what my views of goverment are, this is mine:
The goverment is there to:
A: provide protection
B: Provide basic services
C: provide equal chances for all
D: provide financial help for the weak
E: create a law that protects people, their freedom and comfort
F: enforce the law
I agree with all but D. Didn't expect me to agree with that much did you?
Now for comments on the points:
A. I agree in full.
B. Except for public transport I agree. "Why public transport?" you may ask. Because "public" transport is run by private companies that's why.
C. "Equal chances" are something I strongly agree with. Within reason. It would not be equal for a extreme criminal, such a rapist the chance to study, despite what the NZ Department of Corrections think. After all they forfeited their rights upon commiting their crime. Minor criminals are okay, just never major criminals and repeat offenders. oh, and you're right, thing's won't go well if left to go their own way. However, that should not breach fundemental rights, as it sometimes does. What I mean is that everyone should be able to go their own way, as long as they do not hinder the rights or chances of others.
D. true it isn't always our fault, but I do not agree with "they should". Only if they want to should they do it. It's just like we should only give to charity if we want to. If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice. After all their is nothing wrong with us voluntarily spending on charity. What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission. and yes, i hate them using your money in such a way just as much as them using mine. It's the principle of the matter, not who they do it to.
E. Of course the law should protect people! That's a large part of the reduced government role I've been advocating. However, I think governments are getting to the point where their attempt to do so is invading our fundemental rights, thus actually doing harm, not protecting. protect their freedom> Well, that's the most obvious role of government. That's why I advocate governments protecting our rights. In fact that and protecting us are one and the same. they're inseperable. To be alive is to be free, to be free is to be alive. To not be free is to be in a state of living death, to be a zombie.
I mean if the goverment never acted against microsoft at all, it would be totally impossible to buy a computer without windows installed (it still almost is, but atleast not completely)
Now, this I disagree with. MS in no way violates rights, so they are doing nothing wrong. People choose to use their products. All the commonly stated reasons as to why this isn't true are rubbish. For example, not being bothered changing OS is still a choice.
I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
There is no reason why that would be the case. In fact if anything you could work less time, since you would only be paying for what you need, rather than everything, including things you don't use. You wouldn't advocate paying for every service a business offered you if you were using only some of them, so why the government?
F. Indeed, it does explain itself, and this I agree with. I just don't agree with a lot of the laws that exist, as they go above and beyond the rights of the governemnt.
If I then reply to someone who disagrees to defend myself I am no longer just making a statement, I am trying to confince someone, in which case I should supply evidence. I don't know how you see this, but this is my view, so I agree with Striker on this one.
I believe it's about more than just actions. I believe it's more about intentions.
Striker has given you some good advice, take it I'd say.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
If you want to know what my views of goverment are, this is mine:
The goverment is there to:
A: provide protection
B: Provide basic services
C: provide equal chances for all
D: provide financial help for the weak
E: create a law that protects people, their freedom and comfort
F: enforce the law
I agree with all but D. Didn't expect me to agree with that much did you?
Now for comments on the points:
A. I agree in full.
B. Except for public transport I agree. "Why public transport?" you may ask. Because "public" transport is run by private companies that's why.
C. "Equal chances" are something I strongly agree with. Within reason. It would not be equal for a extreme criminal, such a rapist the chance to study, despite what the NZ Department of Corrections think. After all they forfeited their rights upon commiting their crime. Minor criminals are okay, just never major criminals and repeat offenders. oh, and you're right, thing's won't go well if left to go their own way. However, that should not breach fundemental rights, as it sometimes does. What I mean is that everyone should be able to go their own way, as long as they do not hinder the rights or chances of others.
D. true it isn't always our fault, but I do not agree with "they should". Only if they want to should they do it. It's just like we should only give to charity if we want to. If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice. After all their is nothing wrong with us voluntarily spending on charity. What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission. and yes, i hate them using your money in such a way just as much as them using mine. It's the principle of the matter, not who they do it to.
E. Of course the law should protect people! That's a large part of the reduced government role I've been advocating. However, I think governments are getting to the point where their attempt to do so is invading our fundemental rights, thus actually doing harm, not protecting. protect their freedom> Well, that's the most obvious role of government. That's why I advocate governments protecting our rights. In fact that and protecting us are one and the same. they're inseperable. To be alive is to be free, to be free is to be alive. To not be free is to be in a state of living death, to be a zombie.
I mean if the goverment never acted against microsoft at all, it would be totally impossible to buy a computer without windows installed (it still almost is, but atleast not completely)
Now, this I disagree with. MS in no way violates rights, so they are doing nothing wrong. People choose to use their products. All the commonly stated reasons as to why this isn't true are rubbish. For example, not being bothered changing OS is still a choice.
I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
There is no reason why that would be the case. In fact if anything you could work less time, since you would only be paying for what you need, rather than everything, including things you don't use. You wouldn't advocate paying for every service a business offered you if you were using only some of them, so why the government?
F. Indeed, it does explain itself, and this I agree with. I just don't agree with a lot of the laws that exist, as they go above and beyond the rights of the governemnt.
I believe it's about more than just actions. I believe it's more about intentions.
intentions lead to actions.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
Yes
About the points I made:
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
B: That's why I don't think public transport should be run by private companies, but that's a completely different disscussion.
C: I think we agree on this one.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter) If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
There is no reason why that would be the case. In fact if anything you could work less time, since you would only be paying for what you need, rather than everything, including things you don't use. You wouldn't advocate paying for every service a business offered you if you were using only some of them, so why the government?
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
intentions lead to actions.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
Yes
About the points I made:
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
B: That's why I don't think public transport should be run by private companies, but that's a completely different disscussion.
C: I think we agree on this one.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter) If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
There is no reason why that would be the case. In fact if anything you could work less time, since you would only be paying for what you need, rather than everything, including things you don't use. You wouldn't advocate paying for every service a business offered you if you were using only some of them, so why the government?
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
Yes>
Firstly, I was sarcastic. secondly, I would like to say that I appreciate you clarifying that you saction slavery, because that's what you inadvertently doing, weither you realise it or not.
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
You said they were there to "protect us from crime". That is the same as what I said about them "arresting criminals". When I said their job wasn't protection, i meant from sources other than criminal ones. i thought that was self-evident, since by arresting criminals they are protecting us from them.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
You misunderstand. I don't mean taxes. I mean charges for services that if you don't choose to pay for you don't get (what I stated above about replacing tax) or money gained from businesses they own. That would be legitemately gained money. You're right that taxes is not their legitametly gained money, that it is our money. I'd of thought my comments about them using our money and that taxes are theft would of made that clear.
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter)
Yes, I mean the government. And I disagree that you'd have a unreliable government.You might get one, but for other reasons not that one. In fact I'm puzzled as to why you'd say that you'd get that.
If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
If they got the money legitemately the money would be rightfully theirs. We have the right to choose what to do with our rightfully gained money, as do corporations, so why would a government be different?
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
With the way things currently are I the only way to get more of my money is to vote for a party who lowers the theft rate (better term than tax rate, I think), not one that will remove it.
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
I agree with that in part. It is right, but I'd like to add that it's also our repsonsibility. We get ourselves jobs that give us income or better income than we currently have. We get ourselves education that may improve our income. We do/don't do actions that contribute to more/less polution. It s our job to do things about our lives. It is the government's job to make sure we do because not doing some of the things, such as treads on the rights of others. we do not have the right to do things we want to if that action treads on the rights of others.
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
I never advocated that situation. In fact I disaprove of that. The system I advocate includes governements protecting our rights. This would mean them making that situation illegal through things like minimium wages.
Yes>
Firstly, I was sarcastic. secondly, I would like to say that I appreciate you clarifying that you saction slavery, because that's what you inadvertently doing, weither you realise it or not.
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
You said they were there to "protect us from crime". That is the same as what I said about them "arresting criminals". When I said their job wasn't protection, i meant from sources other than criminal ones. i thought that was self-evident, since by arresting criminals they are protecting us from them.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
You misunderstand. I don't mean taxes. I mean charges for services that if you don't choose to pay for you don't get (what I stated above about replacing tax) or money gained from businesses they own. That would be legitemately gained money. You're right that taxes is not their legitametly gained money, that it is our money. I'd of thought my comments about them using our money and that taxes are theft would of made that clear.
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter)
Yes, I mean the government. And I disagree that you'd have a unreliable government.You might get one, but for other reasons not that one. In fact I'm puzzled as to why you'd say that you'd get that.
If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
If they got the money legitemately the money would be rightfully theirs. We have the right to choose what to do with our rightfully gained money, as do corporations, so why would a government be different?
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
With the way things currently are I the only way to get more of my money is to vote for a party who lowers the theft rate (better term than tax rate, I think), not one that will remove it.
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
I agree with that in part. It is right, but I'd like to add that it's also our repsonsibility. We get ourselves jobs that give us income or better income than we currently have. We get ourselves education that may improve our income. We do/don't do actions that contribute to more/less polution. It s our job to do things about our lives. It is the government's job to make sure we do because not doing some of the things, such as treads on the rights of others. we do not have the right to do things we want to if that action treads on the rights of others.
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
I never advocated that situation. In fact I disaprove of that. The system I advocate includes governements protecting our rights. This would mean them making that situation illegal through things like minimium wages.
So doing anything else than what you want to do is slavery? That definition is sadly messed up, but I'll accept it anyway, for just this post because I don't want to have an arduous discussion about it with you. Would you view this as me wanting to accept your definition to avoid trouble, just not enjoying doing it? Or am I giving in to slavery?
The personal gain for posting sources to back up your claims would be to gain respect and have people not think of you as a retard, that is, having them treat you better. If you don't find that good enough a reward for a couple minutes of trouble, then that's funny. If you don't do it because you don't care about what anyone thinks, then I'll quote Striker:
Let me just say that I hope, for your own sake, that you do not behave the way you do on the DN in social arenas that affect you far more than we do.
The personal gain for posting sources to back up your claims would be to gain respect and have people not think of you as a retard, that is, having them treat you better. If you don't find that good enough a reward for a couple minutes of trouble, then that's funny. If you don't do it because you don't care about what anyone thinks, then I'll quote Striker:
Let me just say that I hope, for your own sake, that you do not behave the way you do on the DN in social arenas that affect you far more than we do.
Would you view this as me wanting to accept your definition to avoid trouble, just not enjoying doing it? Or am I giving in to slavery?
No. You choose not to argue.
As for poor definition my dictionary says this about slavery: "Submission to some habit, influence, etc." Isn't giving in to the will of others submission to that will and isn't that will an influence? Of course they are! So according to my dictionary is IS slavery.
The personal gain for posting sources to back up your claims would be to gain respect and have people not think of you as a retard, that is, having them treat you better. If you don't find that good enough a reward for a couple minutes of trouble, then that's funny.
Since when has not feeling like doing it and not thinking their is personal gain been the same thing. I never said that not supplying evidence was not to my benefit, but that I didn't feel like doing it. The two are different. I simply had other things that I'd of preffered doing with my time.
------
Sincerly, DragonMaci.
No. You choose not to argue.
As for poor definition my dictionary says this about slavery: "Submission to some habit, influence, etc." Isn't giving in to the will of others submission to that will and isn't that will an influence? Of course they are! So according to my dictionary is IS slavery.
The personal gain for posting sources to back up your claims would be to gain respect and have people not think of you as a retard, that is, having them treat you better. If you don't find that good enough a reward for a couple minutes of trouble, then that's funny.
Since when has not feeling like doing it and not thinking their is personal gain been the same thing. I never said that not supplying evidence was not to my benefit, but that I didn't feel like doing it. The two are different. I simply had other things that I'd of preffered doing with my time.
------
Sincerly, DragonMaci.
Ah, yes, what better thing to do with your time than making a donkey of yourself. I can relate, buddy
MEANIES!! If you are going to go fighting at least keep the origanal name so people can keep with the origanal plot on wii's name
I'll go out to slaughter some people, I don't like to be told what to do!
Or shall I prefer to remain a slave?
Or shall I prefer to remain a slave?
I'll go out to slaughter some people, I don't like to be told what to do!
Or shall I prefer to remain a slave?
Certain things we don't have the right to choose to do regardless of our wishes. These are things that breach the right of others, such as the right to life and freedom. To not do those things even if we want to is not conforming to the will of others, it is acting morally. Of course the lack of the right to choose it doesn't make us unable to choose it (as is evident by the fact that people do kill, rape, main, etc.).
Or shall I prefer to remain a slave?
Certain things we don't have the right to choose to do regardless of our wishes. These are things that breach the right of others, such as the right to life and freedom. To not do those things even if we want to is not conforming to the will of others, it is acting morally. Of course the lack of the right to choose it doesn't make us unable to choose it (as is evident by the fact that people do kill, rape, main, etc.).
Well, some people need free health care to continue to live, and to fund hospitals, we need money, and for them to get money, they need to tax you because usually people couldn't afford to pay for most medical services on thier own, when they need them the most.
Well, some people need free health care to continue to live, and to fund hospitals, we need money, and for them to get money, they need to tax you because usually people couldn't afford to pay for most medical services on thier own, when they need them the most.
I believe i said something about supporting goernment funded health services. Profit from fees could be used to fund that. And with less taxes that would be affordable.
I've come to the conclusion that the fees could be done in a way that is more to the liking of all of you and most of society and would perhaps be a better way than what I've so far implied (and actually meant). Those fees could by default be automatic like taxes, but you have the choice to opt out. However, if you do you don't get the cheaper healthcare, access to the roads, etc, unless you paid fees that are higher than the automatic fees at the time of use. In that situation not many people would choose to opt out. Only idiots or those with little need for the services would opt of automatic payments. I for example would opt out of road fees, since I almost never use roads and when I do it's in someone elses' car as a passenger or public transport. Since most of us would be choosing not to opt out of most things, it wouldn't be theft, because by doing that we're approving of the money being taken. is that more to everyone's liking than my original suggestions? I know I think it is.
------
Sincerly, DragonMaci
I believe i said something about supporting goernment funded health services. Profit from fees could be used to fund that. And with less taxes that would be affordable.
I've come to the conclusion that the fees could be done in a way that is more to the liking of all of you and most of society and would perhaps be a better way than what I've so far implied (and actually meant). Those fees could by default be automatic like taxes, but you have the choice to opt out. However, if you do you don't get the cheaper healthcare, access to the roads, etc, unless you paid fees that are higher than the automatic fees at the time of use. In that situation not many people would choose to opt out. Only idiots or those with little need for the services would opt of automatic payments. I for example would opt out of road fees, since I almost never use roads and when I do it's in someone elses' car as a passenger or public transport. Since most of us would be choosing not to opt out of most things, it wouldn't be theft, because by doing that we're approving of the money being taken. is that more to everyone's liking than my original suggestions? I know I think it is.
------
Sincerly, DragonMaci
I don't think we will ever come to a decent discussion, as I am a socialist, and you, well, you are not.
I don't think we will ever come to a decent discussion, as I am a socialist, and you, well, you are not.
Indeed I'm not. I believe in what Ayn Rand called "Le Faire Capitilism". Note: those e's are the French accented ones, so are pronounced as a's.
Vesides, I didn't want to know if you liked the idea, just if you thought it was better than my original one.
Indeed I'm not. I believe in what Ayn Rand called "Le Faire Capitilism". Note: those e's are the French accented ones, so are pronounced as a's.
Vesides, I didn't want to know if you liked the idea, just if you thought it was better than my original one.
Why do you think the "e"s have accents :/
EDIT: we usually write "laissez-faire capitilism" in English. No accents, just layzay-fair capitilism. The true french pronunciation is a little different, more like "less-say-fair capitilism." My French isn't great though, I could have that wrong...
EDIT: we usually write "laissez-faire capitilism" in English. No accents, just layzay-fair capitilism. The true french pronunciation is a little different, more like "less-say-fair capitilism." My French isn't great though, I could have that wrong...
Why do you think the "e"s have accents
Because Ayn Rand wrote it in one her books that way.
Because Ayn Rand wrote it in one her books that way.
No. You choose not to argue.
The purpose of my question was to find out your definition of "want". Maybe I should've just said that.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
Since when has not feeling like doing it and not thinking their is personal gain been the same thing. I never said that not supplying evidence was not to my benefit, but that I didn't feel like doing it. The two are different. I simply had other things that I'd of preffered doing with my time.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it. "Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets. Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant. Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
The purpose of my question was to find out your definition of "want". Maybe I should've just said that.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
Since when has not feeling like doing it and not thinking their is personal gain been the same thing. I never said that not supplying evidence was not to my benefit, but that I didn't feel like doing it. The two are different. I simply had other things that I'd of preffered doing with my time.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it. "Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets. Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant. Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
The purpose of my question was to find out your definition of "want". Maybe I should've just said that.
If you want me to understand you, then yes. I tend to interpret things literally. It's also the way I often talk and write, so doing the intrepreting me liteally would help to understand me.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
They could choose not to work, even if it's the only job available to them. After all even the choice of doing what's in your worst interest (which I'm sure you'd agree is just plain stupid) is still a choice.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
I see no double negative, nor do I think of it of bad wording, though I admit double negatives are bad wording, as they create too much confusion, which your comment is evidence of. As for making you look like a fool... I wasn't. I was trying to illustrate a hole in your comment. Holes are not the same as being a fool. We all do it every now and then since none of us are perfect. It may make us look like a fool at times, but looks can be decieving.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it.
Bad wording. I should of said, "And/or for no personal gain" rather than "And for no personal gain". Considering that the confusion is understanding. My bad, sorry. there's a case of one of my argument's having a hole in it. Thanks for making me realise that.
"Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
The dictionary defenition I gave earlier disagrees. According to that it need only be doing the will of others when it goes against your own. At the very least it's servitude. Of course doing the will of others when it goes with your own is not slavery or servitude.
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets.
No they don't have to. it's just in their best interests to do some things they don't want to. Do not get the two confused. they are quite different. Don't worry, though, it's not entirely your fault. It's something we're taught as kids. We're taught that "you have to do what's in your best interest". That's not true. We have every choice not to do it. There are no rules or laws saying otherwise in most cases, so their is no have to. The few exceptions are immoral laws. We can (and often do - even Objectivists like myself) act against our own best interests. No rules or laws stop that in most cases. The few exceptions are immoral laws.
Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant.
I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to do them. Besides the way I felt the lesser pleasantness would of come from me providing the evidence at the time. So in other words, their was no rational reason for me to do it.
Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
Really? You're not joking or being sarcastic? Because if your not I'm curious as to why that is.
If you want me to understand you, then yes. I tend to interpret things literally. It's also the way I often talk and write, so doing the intrepreting me liteally would help to understand me.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
They could choose not to work, even if it's the only job available to them. After all even the choice of doing what's in your worst interest (which I'm sure you'd agree is just plain stupid) is still a choice.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
I see no double negative, nor do I think of it of bad wording, though I admit double negatives are bad wording, as they create too much confusion, which your comment is evidence of. As for making you look like a fool... I wasn't. I was trying to illustrate a hole in your comment. Holes are not the same as being a fool. We all do it every now and then since none of us are perfect. It may make us look like a fool at times, but looks can be decieving.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it.
Bad wording. I should of said, "And/or for no personal gain" rather than "And for no personal gain". Considering that the confusion is understanding. My bad, sorry. there's a case of one of my argument's having a hole in it. Thanks for making me realise that.
"Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
The dictionary defenition I gave earlier disagrees. According to that it need only be doing the will of others when it goes against your own. At the very least it's servitude. Of course doing the will of others when it goes with your own is not slavery or servitude.
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets.
No they don't have to. it's just in their best interests to do some things they don't want to. Do not get the two confused. they are quite different. Don't worry, though, it's not entirely your fault. It's something we're taught as kids. We're taught that "you have to do what's in your best interest". That's not true. We have every choice not to do it. There are no rules or laws saying otherwise in most cases, so their is no have to. The few exceptions are immoral laws. We can (and often do - even Objectivists like myself) act against our own best interests. No rules or laws stop that in most cases. The few exceptions are immoral laws.
Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant.
I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to do them. Besides the way I felt the lesser pleasantness would of come from me providing the evidence at the time. So in other words, their was no rational reason for me to do it.
Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
Really? You're not joking or being sarcastic? Because if your not I'm curious as to why that is.
Let's say you're in a relationship with a girl, she's doing the dishes, and at the moment, you're watching TV. She asks you to help her do the dishes. You really don't want to get up and leave the TV. You hate doing the dishes.
Now, is helping your girl slavery? After all, if you'll help her, it's doing the will of someone else, and it's against your own will. I'd call it "give a little, take a little". (not sure if that's the right wording, but meh, y'all know what I mean)
Now, is helping your girl slavery? After all, if you'll help her, it's doing the will of someone else, and it's against your own will. I'd call it "give a little, take a little". (not sure if that's the right wording, but meh, y'all know what I mean)
Let's say you're in a relationship with a girl, she's doing the dishes, and at the moment, you're watching TV. She asks you to help her do the dishes. You really don't want to get up and leave the TV. You hate doing the dishes.
Now, is helping your girl slavery? After all, if you'll help her, it's doing the will of someone else, and it's against your own will. I'd call it "give a little, take a little". (not sure if that's the right wording, but meh, y'all know what I mean)
Depends. If you used some of them, then no, because if you leave her to do it then you're usinf her as if she's a servant. So helping her with the dishes you're doing your fair share of the dishes, which is the right thing to do. Doing the right thing when you don't want to isn't slavery, that's being moral. Not helping would be the wrong thing, since it'd be treating her as if she is the slave, which is wrong. Note that I am not saying she would be the slave, just that you'd be treating her as one. If you never used any of the dishes, then maybe. I say "maybe" because there are other factors. Too many to go into really.
----------
Sincerly, DragonMaci
Now, is helping your girl slavery? After all, if you'll help her, it's doing the will of someone else, and it's against your own will. I'd call it "give a little, take a little". (not sure if that's the right wording, but meh, y'all know what I mean)
Depends. If you used some of them, then no, because if you leave her to do it then you're usinf her as if she's a servant. So helping her with the dishes you're doing your fair share of the dishes, which is the right thing to do. Doing the right thing when you don't want to isn't slavery, that's being moral. Not helping would be the wrong thing, since it'd be treating her as if she is the slave, which is wrong. Note that I am not saying she would be the slave, just that you'd be treating her as one. If you never used any of the dishes, then maybe. I say "maybe" because there are other factors. Too many to go into really.
----------
Sincerly, DragonMaci
That's clarifying. Makes me glad I'm not your girlfriend. 
That's clarifying. Makes me glad I'm not your girlfriend.
The thing is that'd I choose to help her even if I didn't use the dishes.
The thing is that'd I choose to help her even if I didn't use the dishes.
Criminals go against the 'will' of society but this doesn't make
them 'free'.Especially once we catch them and lock them up.
them 'free'.Especially once we catch them and lock them up.
