Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 135733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #105 on: May 30, 2009, 04:40:28 PM »
If our ecosystem is affected, so is "theirs." It's not as if each animal has it's own ecosystem, each animals fits into the ecosystem in different ways. It's also besides the point: Jobe said himself that people are free to do what they want insofar as they don't harm other people. He didn't say harm "what" people (the landowners or not), but people. Your system has too many holes which can't be filled, as in who exactly has the ability to protect their land. A company in Canada spewing out certain chemicals harms the ecosystem in a way which affects a tiny village fisher in Indonesia. DDT is to be found all over the world now, and not because it was USED all over the world. In what fantasy land is the Indonesian farmer going to be able to know he's being directly harmed by those chemicals, and then have the ability to SUE over it?
Dude, are you ignoring present time? People own farms and share limits with their neighbours. Has that in a way affected the ecosystem? People own land and most of the time they don't exploit it. They just like the way it is. It's just that it's THEIR property. You have to stop thinking that EVERYTHING is going to be exploited. People take more care for their stuff than "public" property ever does.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #106 on: May 30, 2009, 05:05:57 PM »
If our ecosystem is affected, so is "theirs." It's not as if each animal has it's own ecosystem, each animals fits into the ecosystem in different ways. It's also besides the point: Jobe said himself that people are free to do what they want insofar as they don't harm other people. He didn't say harm "what" people (the landowners or not), but people. Your system has too many holes which can't be filled, as in who exactly has the ability to protect their land. A company in Canada spewing out certain chemicals harms the ecosystem in a way which affects a tiny village fisher in Indonesia. DDT is to be found all over the world now, and not because it was USED all over the world. In what fantasy land is the Indonesian farmer going to be able to know he's being directly harmed by those chemicals, and then have the ability to SUE over it?
Dude, are you ignoring present time? People own farms and share limits with their neighbours. Has that in a way affected the ecosystem? People own land and most of the time they don't exploit it. They just like the way it is. It's just that it's THEIR property. You have to stop thinking that EVERYTHING is going to be exploited. People take more care for their stuff than "public" property ever does.

You are completely misinterpreting my argument, or ignoring other parts of it. This isn't about land owners exploiting anything, it's about companies using manufacturing processes and chemicals which affects EVERYONE and EVERYTHING with an ecosystem. It's also about the philosophical justification of regulation upon the SAME classical liberal ideaology which criminalizes murder and theft. It's about the fact that you, jobe and the libertarians on this forum afford more rights and less restrictions to businesses and corporations than you allow a citizen.

Seriously, why do you just jump to your own conclusions and assume that I must be taking those conclusions myself? I don't think I even once mentioned (even indirectly) the idea that landowners would exploit the land they have; and that this is the reason I don't think your plan would work so wonderfully as you assume. Is it because I'm taking an environmentalist stance that you assume I must align myself with everything environmentalists imagine or think?

As for the bolded part: of course it fucking has. As you kidding me? My being alive has affected the ecoystem. It isn't a question of affection, but a question of consequences. Farmers have and always will drastically affect the ecosystem in which they exist. This isn't even a question if, it's a question of how.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #107 on: May 30, 2009, 05:17:39 PM »
You are completely misinterpreting my argument, or ignoring other parts of it. This isn't about land owners exploiting anything, it's about companies using manufacturing processes and chemicals which affects EVERYONE and EVERYTHING with an ecosystem. It's also about the philosophical justification of regulation upon the SAME classical liberal ideaology which criminalizes murder and theft. It's about the fact that you, jobe and the libertarians on this forum afford more rights and less restrictions to businesses and corporations than you allow a citizen.

Seriously, why do you just jump to your own conclusions and assume that I must be taking those conclusions myself? I don't think I even once mentioned (even indirectly) the idea that landowners would exploit the land they have; and that this is the reason I don't think your plan would work so wonderfully as you assume. Is it because I'm taking an environmentalist stance that you assume I must align myself with everything environmentalists imagine or think?

As for the bolded part: of course it fucking has. As you kidding me? My being alive has affected the ecoystem. It isn't a question of affection, but a question of consequences. Farmers have and always will drastically affect the ecosystem in which they exist. This isn't even a question if, it's a question of how.
OK. Fine. EVERYTHING AFFECTS EVERYTHING. We know that. You just ignore that the Libertarian proposition is giving the best alternative for the world to live in a better place! If people own land they can sue whoever is damaging it! The companies can ONLY damage theirs! It's that simple. They can do whatever they want as long as they don't affect the rest! Have I not worded my ideas properly for you not to get the argument? What's that I'm forgetting to say?

Everything we do has a reaction. The best solution for the Earth is if we all of us humans commit suicide and stop polluting it. That's what you prefer? We have to live here, but we also have to find ways for this Earth to last. And that's what my ideas (technically not mine) are presenting.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #108 on: May 30, 2009, 05:43:05 PM »
Why do you have a double standard, one for companies and one for people? Why is it fine for government to regulate murder, but wrong for it to regulate such harmful consequences? THAT'S what you aren't answering, that's the point I'm getting at the point you continually ignore. Even after I restate that this is my point, you come back with something which isn't about this.

Where have I ever intoned that man is a virus or that we are intrinsically harmful to nature? Keep jumping to these stereotypes, it's rather entertaining. You seem to be thinking that humanity is apart of nature, when in fact it is simply a part of it. Your displaying a dichotomy which simply does not exist. More and more, science is starting to back this up. It's not about living apart from nature, it's about living with nature. The bacteria on your skin is usually good and wards against harmful bacteria; the worms and bacteria in your stomach helps you digest properly and leaves you healthier; living in an ultra-sterile environment foments allergies and a weak immune system; etc, etc. What's good for nature is good for us (as we are natural).


Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #109 on: May 30, 2009, 06:19:42 PM »
Then I don't know what you are trying to debate.

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 08:02:40 PM by emindead »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #110 on: May 30, 2009, 07:19:39 PM »
Then I don't what you are trying to debate.

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

I can frame laws against ANYTHING in such a way. I can easily argue that the government should abolish all laws against murder and theft, as without the government, society would naturally do away with the people it doesn't appreciate of. If you didn't have government, then someone who goes around kiling people will just find himself dead. Problem solved, yes? And without the need of "the big bad government!" So why is it that we don't do this?

Yet I doubt you go as far as to suggest these laws should be done away with (especially laws against theft, seeing as how I'm guessing you view the right to property as something vital); so then why is it fine for the government to regulate interactions between it's individual citizens when such free interactions harm others (no murder, no theft, etc), but not for government to regulate the interactions which occur between companies and businesses when such interactions harm others?

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #111 on: May 30, 2009, 08:09:06 PM »
Then I don't what you are trying to debate.

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

I can frame laws against ANYTHING in such a way. I can easily argue that the government should abolish all laws against murder and theft, as without the government, society would naturally do away with the people it doesn't appreciate of. If you didn't have government, then someone who goes around kiling people will just find himself dead. Problem solved, yes? And without the need of "the big bad government!" So why is it that we don't do this?

Yet I doubt you go as far as to suggest these laws should be done away with (especially laws against theft, seeing as how I'm guessing you view the right to property as something vital); so then why is it fine for the government to regulate interactions between it's individual citizens when such free interactions harm others (no murder, no theft, etc), but not for government to regulate the interactions which occur between companies and businesses when such interactions harm others?
The problem I have is with big government. Government I can tolerate; big government that starts making things that it shouldn't, no thanks. Police? Hell, they never get on time. They never trap the bad guys. They aren't really motivated to solve x case. They just have guns and think they are the law. Bounty hunters do a better job than them. Why? Money. And Money = motivation. Police supposedly try to "protect and serve" but are really lousy at their jobs. The things the government should do are minimal.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #112 on: May 30, 2009, 08:35:07 PM »
Bounty hunters do a better job than them. Why? Money. And Money = motivation.

So what happens when the bounty hunter catches the bank robber, and the bank robber just splits half his take with him to get off?

And who pays the bounty hunter?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #113 on: May 30, 2009, 08:47:17 PM »
Then I don't what you are trying to debate.

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

I can frame laws against ANYTHING in such a way. I can easily argue that the government should abolish all laws against murder and theft, as without the government, society would naturally do away with the people it doesn't appreciate of. If you didn't have government, then someone who goes around kiling people will just find himself dead. Problem solved, yes? And without the need of "the big bad government!" So why is it that we don't do this?

Yet I doubt you go as far as to suggest these laws should be done away with (especially laws against theft, seeing as how I'm guessing you view the right to property as something vital); so then why is it fine for the government to regulate interactions between it's individual citizens when such free interactions harm others (no murder, no theft, etc), but not for government to regulate the interactions which occur between companies and businesses when such interactions harm others?
The problem I have is with big government. Government I can tolerate; big government that starts making things that it shouldn't, no thanks. Police? Hell, they never get on time. They never trap the bad guys. They aren't really motivated to solve x case. They just have guns and think they are the law. Bounty hunters do a better job than them. Why? Money. And Money = motivation. Police supposedly try to "protect and serve" but are really lousy at their jobs. The things the government should do are minimal.

Ever consider the effect of the actual presence of police officers?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effect+of+police+presence+on+crime&hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

I wish I could read more of the studies, but I found two quite new ones (disproving older theories) which showed an affect of the actual presence of crime on crime rate.

As for the bolded part, that's what we're arguing about, or at least what I originally asked Jobe about; and I'm saying that by the same logic that the government should and can regulate murder, theft, etc, and be within it's propriety, it should and can regulate business. It's applying social contract theory to not just individuals in a country, but the businesses that operate in the same country.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 08:52:48 PM by Scheavo »

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #114 on: May 31, 2009, 01:24:19 AM »
Will comment later.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #115 on: June 01, 2009, 05:34:11 PM »
Bounty hunters do a better job than them. Why? Money. And Money = motivation.

So what happens when the bounty hunter catches the bank robber, and the bank robber just splits half his take with him to get off?

And who pays the bounty hunter?
Wow, I forgot about this discussion.

The point I was trying to make was that bounty hunters do a better job because they are getting paid for that job. Sure, a regular cop has a salary, but he has it more or less guaranteed... and it generally suck. A bounty hunter may be given more money depending on the difficulty of his task (kept within legal standards, of course).

So, in a Free Market society, instead of a bureau being paid by the State through tax payers, there's a legal private company paid by clients. Much more effective, if you ask me. Not necessarily with the name "bounty hunters", but they'll come up with a much more appealing name for the public. So the clients will pay them if they want, not by force like the tax payers have to.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #116 on: June 01, 2009, 05:36:25 PM »
So who pays the bounty hunters?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #117 on: June 01, 2009, 05:38:12 PM »
So who pays the bounty hunters?
The clients.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #118 on: June 01, 2009, 05:39:13 PM »
So who pays the bounty hunters?
The clients.

Who are the clients? The victims of whatever crime?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #119 on: June 01, 2009, 05:45:28 PM »
So who pays the bounty hunters?
The clients.
Who are the clients? The victims of whatever crime?
Most of the times. Yes. I see where you are heading at.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #120 on: June 01, 2009, 05:51:55 PM »
So who pays the bounty hunters?
The clients.
Who are the clients? The victims of whatever crime?
Most of the times. Yes. I see where you are heading at.

Ok, so,

1) You're making the victims of a crime pay to have the criminal captured. So you can kill someone with no family and it's perfectly fine? Not to mention how incredibly fucked up that is anyways.

2) Who responds to crimes in progress? If some guy's beating the hell out of his wife, she can't call, and what neighbor is going to pay? This applies to pretty much everything though. If you see some guy sneaking around your neighbor's house, the cops come and check it out. It could be totally legit, it could be a burglar. But in your case, someone would have to pay. "Yeah, it was just a friend who came by to check on the house while they're on vacation. That'll be 50 bucks". Cops do far more than just catch a criminal, and none of that at all applies to a private security firm.

3) What exactly is the role of government in your mind? You always say they're there to protect us, yet apparently not if the police should be privatized.

Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #121 on: June 01, 2009, 06:08:58 PM »
Ok, so,

1) You're making the victims of a crime pay to have the criminal captured. So you can kill someone with no family and it's perfectly fine? Not to mention how incredibly fucked up that is anyways.

2) Who responds to crimes in progress? If some guy's beating the hell out of his wife, she can't call, and what neighbor is going to pay? This applies to pretty much everything though. If you see some guy sneaking around your neighbor's house, the cops come and check it out. It could be totally legit, it could be a burglar. But in your case, someone would have to pay. "Yeah, it was just a friend who came by to check on the house while they're on vacation. That'll be 50 bucks". Cops do far more than just catch a criminal, and none of that at all applies to a private security firm.

3) What exactly is the role of government in your mind? You always say they're there to protect us, yet apparently not if the police should be privatized.
1) The role of the Free Market is to reduce the size of the government. Not to annihilate it. Reducing the size of the cops is a tax relief. That's a fact. So cops would still exist, only that their work would be cut in half (or even more). You would still pay taxes. That could go directed to the cops and solve the mysterious crime of lonely Mrs. Jenkins who we really don't give a shit about, but anyway we still contribute so "justice" can be made. You see, you have less burden and the job is still done, even if you are poor.

2) It's not going to be that different with what we have today. You may have a contract with the company, just the same as if you pay for an alarm system. You suspect that someone is breaking into your house? You call them. Or you call the police. Now that I'm paying for my private security system I just might well use it. Not all of the times they charge for a distress call (and I've done some). Hell, they even come and check your house every day to see if everything is alright. The monthly fee pays for it.

3) As explained above, not everything has to be privatized. Maybe in the future it will. Who knows? I didn't came up with this projects, yet I'm really sure that someone has given more head to it than me and has a more coherent and better proposition. And still it sounds more productive than with what we have now.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #122 on: June 01, 2009, 08:41:55 PM »
Emindead, you're trying to half argue the free market stance.  Basically, you're not going far enough or you're making concessions when you shouldn't and going too far. 

For example,
1) The role of the Free Market is to reduce the size of the government. Not to annihilate it.

I'd say the FM is entirely capable of replacing it and is better at doing the positive things gov does and less harmful than everything else the gov does.

You can either argue for a market anarchy, or concede to a limited government to take care of the things that most people will scoff at the idea of the market taking care our, (police services, military, etc) and have the market take care of the rest.

Of course, when talking to non-libertarians, I usually stick to some form of limited government, i.e. the constitution, it's usually only within libertarian circles when there can be serious discussions like poly-centric legal systems and things like this.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #123 on: June 01, 2009, 09:55:11 PM »
Emindead, you're trying to half argue the free market stance.  Basically, you're not going far enough or you're making concessions when you shouldn't and going too far. 

For example,
1) The role of the Free Market is to reduce the size of the government. Not to annihilate it.

I'd say the FM is entirely capable of replacing it and is better at doing the positive things gov does and less harmful than everything else the gov does.

You can either argue for a market anarchy, or concede to a limited government to take care of the things that most people will scoff at the idea of the market taking care our, (police services, military, etc) and have the market take care of the rest.

Of course, when talking to non-libertarians, I usually stick to some form of limited government, i.e. the constitution, it's usually only within libertarian circles when there can be serious discussions like poly-centric legal systems and things like this.
You know pretty well your constitution; I don't. So I can't use that as an argument when talking to people here (in my Country).

I know that FM can do a better job than the government. And where "I'm educating myself" show me some good arguments as to why. Yet I'm still absorbing the ideas. Currently I'm reading Bastiat and I'm just in awe of the genius this guy was.  :hefdaddy I'm just starting my path. I'm sure the answers will be much clearer in the future.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #124 on: June 02, 2009, 12:35:40 AM »
you're not going far enough or you're making concessions when you shouldn't and going too far. 


Are you a Nietzschian? 

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #125 on: June 02, 2009, 07:15:46 PM »
you're not going far enough or you're making concessions when you shouldn't and going too far. 


Are you a Nietzschian? 

? Explain. What I meant was that you have to have some common assumptions to frame a successful argument. 
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #126 on: June 02, 2009, 07:41:20 PM »
you're not going far enough or you're making concessions when you shouldn't and going too far. 


Are you a Nietzschian? 

? Explain. What I meant was that you have to have some common assumptions to frame a successful argument. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche


Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #127 on: June 02, 2009, 09:29:19 PM »
Math Riddle:

What speed in miles per hour is equal to the number of minutes it takes to go exactly one mile at said speed?

Hint below, so don't scroll down if you don't want help.







































It's a speed most people can jog at.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #128 on: June 02, 2009, 09:39:19 PM »
Use the Metric system!  >:(

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #129 on: June 02, 2009, 09:45:42 PM »
7.75 mph

edit: square root of sixty to be mathematically exact.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #130 on: June 02, 2009, 10:01:02 PM »
7.75 mph

edit: square root of sixty to be mathematically exact.

I started jogging and was playing around with my times for distance and noticed the mph was damn near the minutes per mile. 

If you go X miles in Y minutes, then to get the mph you go X*60/Y, and to get the minutes per mile you just take Y/X, so to set them equal take X/Y as a ratio of Z and it's 60/Z = Z

Which of course is sqrt(60). 

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction?  I don't recall reading anything.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #131 on: June 02, 2009, 10:09:03 PM »
Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction?  I don't recall reading anything.

From a techincal perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #132 on: June 02, 2009, 11:11:27 PM »
Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction?  I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction. 
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #133 on: June 02, 2009, 11:22:49 PM »
Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction?  I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction. 

Well it would have to be moving in a spatial frame otherwise you still don't have any velocity/speed.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #134 on: June 02, 2009, 11:33:29 PM »
Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction?  I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction. 

Well it would have to be moving in a spatial frame otherwise you still don't have any velocity/speed.

Spatial, but not up/down, left/right or forward/back, so I suppose moving along a 4th dimension could be considered negative velocity/speed.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #135 on: June 02, 2009, 11:38:16 PM »
Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction?  I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction.  

Well it would have to be moving in a spatial frame otherwise you still don't have any velocity/speed.

Spatial, but not up/down, left/right or forward/back, so I suppose moving along a 4th dimension could be considered negative velocity/speed.

Velocity would still be negative under the same rules, and speed could still never be negative. You can do the math (even if it's impossible to truly comprehend what it says).

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #136 on: June 02, 2009, 11:40:48 PM »
The problem with this is that its totally relative, based on what you're measuring the velocity against. Negative velocity has no inherent meaning, because velocity has no inherent meaning in the physical world besides what you apply it towards - it can be just one dimension, it can be three, it can be whatever, as long as you have distance/time.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #137 on: June 03, 2009, 12:55:10 AM »
The problem with this is that its totally relative, based on what you're measuring the velocity against. Negative velocity has no inherent meaning, because velocity has no inherent meaning in the physical world besides what you apply it towards - it can be just one dimension, it can be three, it can be whatever, as long as you have distance/time.

Well that's what it comes down to, can you have negative distance or negative time? Assuming a cohesive flow of time, no negative time.  Negative distance is what I was aiming for.  And yes, it's all entirely arbitrary, I understand that, we could call say an electron carries a positive charge and rewrite all the books. 
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #138 on: June 03, 2009, 12:59:42 AM »
I just started writing for this website. If you like conversing with me here, you may like reading and commenting on my articles. Check it out and subscribe.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #139 on: June 03, 2009, 09:41:30 AM »
WTF happened here? A normal discussion about physics?