The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes here the techno-utopians go again, drinking the corporate propaganda. Yes many GMO opponent object to GMO because a individual dangers directly caused by the GMO, and on that these scientist are correct, if a GMO crop have been tested the individual danger will be non-existing.

But here's the problem you techno utopians ignore. What have the crops been modified for? They haven't been modified for salt resistance, they haven't been modified for drought resistance. They have been modified for pesticide resistance. So by buying these GMO crops not only do you get greater amount of pesticides into the body, you also support the greater use of larger quantities pesticide which cause greater amounts end up in nature.

Another aspect is also that GMO in the corporate manners we them used, also have a negative effect on the biodiversity among crops. "Who cares about bio diversity in potatoes" says the techno-utopists, well historical the potato famine happened, because a high yield potato out competed the more diverse potato crops which dominated before, the result was that Europe in general and Ireland specific in the 1840s was dominated by single potato crop with little genetic diversity. We have seen the same with bananas, where we have seen a dominating banana crop collapse. If we see the same in with rice in 20 years, we will likely see the biggest famine in world history, and then you people are welcome with coming with your "... but but dihydrogen monoxide".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First I thought BRTD was talking about the collapse of White "ethnic" culture into a general or regional (White) American identity, and I was like "okay that's a interesting discussion", then I found out he was talking about a general collapse of a collective American cultural identity and tradition, and my opinion changed to "that's the stupidest thing I have heard this month".

No BRTD the collective culture is not becoming annihilated, in fact the creation of mass media and standardised education have resulted in it becoming less heterogene. A author archetypes can through mass education become universal among a population, while mass media have allowed the spread of things like Black Friday or St. Patricks day.

That's kind of point. Mass media means people are no longer locked into a culture they are born into. They're free to select and associate with aspects of others they want to and simply choose whatever they like best. Your heritage becomes a non-factor.

I think a major problem here is that you may be the least cosmopolitan person on this board (no insult), you doesn't seem to get what makes up culture, likely because you belong to the cultural dominant culture not just in USA but also in the world. As such you have a very superficial understanding of what makes up culture. As example when I meet a Arab I don't look him into his eyes or show him the soles of my feet, not unless I want to insult him, when I meet a Dane I don't know at a bus stop, I don't talk to him no matter how long we wait side by side, unless I have a impersonal question to him ("have that or that bus arrived", do you know what bus I have to shift to and where to get to some specific place" etc), or to complain over the weather (the social acceptable smalltalk). When I go into the bus I don't sit down beside a person if there's still empty seats, where I can avoid sitting down next to a person, I don't talk in the bus and try my best to ignore everyone around me, unless of course I meet someone I know, this is seen as the proper behaviour. If I for example was a Turk I would sit down next to a person, and it would be impolite not to make small talk.

All that is make up real culture, running around playing Ingress, listening to specific kind of music or go into a specific a specific chuch are not usual part of a culture, that's part of a subculture. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Frankly, I'm not against this because I like West Virginia or anything. It's just that your feeble, pathetic attempts at 'comedy' are the most unfunny, ridiculous endeavors I have ever heard of. At least TNVolunteer is entertaining in some ways. IceSpear, you used to be a good poster. What the hell happened? Nobody takes you seriously anymore because you get so triggered by West Virginia.

[IceSpear]

Hallejuah! Beet turning a new leaf?

So no indictment. Thank goodness. Given my earlier comments, I clearly have to reassess the lens by which I look at politics. Maybe my critics are right that I'm too much of a chicken little. I will make an effort from here on out to be more objective and self-critical when examining what biases are affecting my analysis.

While it's a little strange to be celebrating one's own candidate not being indicted, from Mr. Comey's comments it's clear that this wasn't a close call. There was no intent to undermine national security or hide anything from investigators. There was only what you would expect from 30,000 emails - that there would be some mistakes in classifying them made by Clinton. 110 emails out of 30,000+ had some level of classification at the time they were sent or received. That's 0.4%. She's human, we are all human.

Her real mistake was having the private servers in the first place. That was wrong, and she was right to apologize for it. But given that her predecessors or their aides also used private e-mail of varying degrees and neither had government e-mail, it's fair to say that this was only allowed because compliance policies at State were sloppy and ill-defined. It seems clear that all sorts of sloppiness in many different agencies at all levels of government would be uncovered, if they were all subject to the same degree of scrutiny as Clinton. Hillary Clinton has been the most investigated, scrutinized public figures in modern history. Literally dozens of books and tens of thousands of pages of documents exist on her. There's probably more information out there about her than she even remembers about herself. Yet no "smoking gun" has ever been found - just one dead end investigation after another. The only time either of the Clintons were "gotten" was when it involved a blue dress. Go figure.

However, this incident should be a warning to all of our public officials to be scrupulous with classified information, no matter one's rank. If Hillary can be seriously damaged politically by something like this, than any public official who isn't careful to follow procedure strictly can be. And it must be a warning to both the Clintons and the people around them not to make unforced errors in the future - they can learn from the current president, Obama, who has been relatively scandal-free.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If anything, I'd rather see Islam become more Catholic. (And for that matter the Protestant Reformation largely reversed while we're at it).

Yes let's return to the religious overlordship of a Roman autocrat, no thank I prefer a pluralistic Church which doesn't bend its head to a foreign head of state. Also I prefer a clergy who rapes as few children as possible and on that point we do better.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not only is that not properly a Good Post, it's not even a Simple Truth because it's based on a possibly-willful misunderstanding of what CrabCake meant.

It's also in incredibly poor taste to enshrine these sorts of religious insults as Good Posts and Simple Truths, especially completely boilerplate insults that read like something one of the Paisleys might say at a No Popery rally. I wouldn't put a post uncreatively attacking hipster Christianity, or Pentecostalism, or some other religion that I don't like but isn't objectively monstrous, in one of these threads. Because that actually kind of wounds people, you know?

[ingemann]

Not only is that not properly a Good Post, it's not even a Simple Truth because it's based on a possibly-willful misunderstanding of what CrabCake meant.

It's also in incredibly poor taste to enshrine these sorts of religious insults as Good Posts and Simple Truths, especially completely boilerplate insults that read like something one of the Paisleys might say at a No Popery rally. I wouldn't put a post uncreatively attacking hipster Christianity, or Pentecostalism, or some other religion that I don't like but isn't objectively monstrous, in one of these threads. Because that actually kind of wounds people, you know?

I get that attitude in that post can be seen as wounding, but it's also a ugly truth, I'm often the first to defend Catholicism, which I in general see as a force of good, but Catholicism is best in a plural world, when it gain  to much power and prestige, it hides things, which should not be hidden (yes I'm talking about the pedophilia) and let it fester, until we see something like this. When the Church get secular power it also behave quite horrible (see Magdalene laundries,). Which is why I think that Luther may have been the second best thing which ever happened to the Catholic Church (after Paulus), while the third was the Italian conquest ofg the Papal States, he removed secular power from the Church forced it to reform itself and develop into a institution of faith and moral, rather than one of secular power.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not only is that not properly a Good Post, it's not even a Simple Truth because it's based on a possibly-willful misunderstanding of what CrabCake meant.

It's also in incredibly poor taste to enshrine these sorts of religious insults as Good Posts and Simple Truths, especially completely boilerplate insults that read like something one of the Paisleys might say at a No Popery rally. I wouldn't put a post uncreatively attacking hipster Christianity, or Pentecostalism, or some other religion that I don't like but isn't objectively monstrous, in one of these threads. Because that actually kind of wounds people, you know?

I get that attitude in that post can be seen as wounding, but it's also a ugly truth, I'm often the first to defend Catholicism, which I in general see as a force of good, but Catholicism is best in a plural world, when it gain  to much power and prestige, it hides things, which should not be hidden (yes I'm talking about the pedophilia) and let it fester, until we see something like this. When the Church get secular power it also behave quite horrible (see Magdalene laundries,). Which is why I think that Luther may have been the second best thing which ever happened to the Catholic Church (after Paulus), while the third was the Italian conquest ofg the Papal States, he removed secular power from the Church forced it to reform itself and develop into a institution faith and moral, rather than one of secular power.

Oh! Okay, yeah, in that context your post makes perfect sense (and is close to the perception of the role of Catholicism that I got after taking a series of mandatory courses on Christian history last year).

What's upsetting though isn't really the sentiment itself so much as the fact that BRTD, who certainly wouldn't have seen this nuance, was himself enough of a No Popery hack to goldmine the post without seeing said nuance.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not only is that not properly a Good Post, it's not even a Simple Truth because it's based on a possibly-willful misunderstanding of what CrabCake meant.

It's also in incredibly poor taste to enshrine these sorts of religious insults as Good Posts and Simple Truths, especially completely boilerplate insults that read like something one of the Paisleys might say at a No Popery rally. I wouldn't put a post uncreatively attacking hipster Christianity, or Pentecostalism, or some other religion that I don't like but isn't objectively monstrous, in one of these threads. Because that actually kind of wounds people, you know?

You should see what Straha is saying about hipster Christianity on AAD on a forum I moderate.

How wounded am I? I haven't deleted a single one of his posts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also I don't associate comments like that with Paisley types because I'd most likely hear it from someone in the scene or on some progressive activist forum.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not only is that not properly a Good Post, it's not even a Simple Truth because it's based on a possibly-willful misunderstanding of what CrabCake meant.

It's also in incredibly poor taste to enshrine these sorts of religious insults as Good Posts and Simple Truths, especially completely boilerplate insults that read like something one of the Paisleys might say at a No Popery rally. I wouldn't put a post uncreatively attacking hipster Christianity, or Pentecostalism, or some other religion that I don't like but isn't objectively monstrous, in one of these threads. Because that actually kind of wounds people, you know?

You should see what Straha is saying about hipster Christianity on AAD on a forum I moderate.

How wounded am I? I haven't deleted a single one of his posts.

Good for you. You're either thicker-skinned than most people I know (in which case, sincerely, good for you) or don't really have your religion as too central a part of your little world after all.

Also I don't associate comments like that with Paisley types because I'd most likely hear it from someone in the scene or on some progressive activist forum.

Good for you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not only is that not properly a Good Post, it's not even a Simple Truth because it's based on a possibly-willful misunderstanding of what CrabCake meant.

It's also in incredibly poor taste to enshrine these sorts of religious insults as Good Posts and Simple Truths, especially completely boilerplate insults that read like something one of the Paisleys might say at a No Popery rally. I wouldn't put a post uncreatively attacking hipster Christianity, or Pentecostalism, or some other religion that I don't like but isn't objectively monstrous, in one of these threads. Because that actually kind of wounds people, you know?

You should see what Straha is saying about hipster Christianity on AAD on a forum I moderate.

How wounded am I? I haven't deleted a single one of his posts.

Good for you. You're either thicker-skinned than most people I know (in which case, sincerely, good for you) or don't really have your religion as too central a part of your little world after all.

Also I don't associate comments like that with Paisley types because I'd most likely hear it from someone in the scene or on some progressive activist forum.

Good for you.

Well yeah if you couldn't tell on here I tend to be thick skinned. Actually I think hipster Christians and Christians in the scene in general are because we'll associate with people that'll result in hearing far more Christian bashing than most people. I mean look at some if the records I own.

Also that you shouldn't get angry at anti-Christians because God doesn't need you to fight that battle is a common topic preached in hipster Christianity and the theme of someone's sermon shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attack.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Genuinely curious: Does God need or want anybody to fight that battle, according to these people? If so, whom?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Genuinely curious: Does God need or want anybody to fight that battle, according to these people? If so, whom?

Basically no. Just turn the other cheek.

I'd say it's a much more healthy attitude than someone like Bushie or anyone who unironically talks about Christian persecution in America.

(Now if we're talking about somewhere that has actual Christian persecution that's quite different.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think there's a middle ground between aggressive hypersensitivity and complete passivity, but maybe that means I'm not 'with it' enough.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think it's a very Millennial style view thanks to that the Internet has brought forth a lot of this stuff that has made people more desensitized and that getting visibly offended is counter productive because that's usually what the provocateur wants.

It's kind of like what Alcon pointed out with Trump's taco bowl tweet and that the best response to such a thing is simple mockery and ridicule instead of pearl clutching outrage because that's exactly the response Trump was trying to provoke.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've got to agree with BRTD here. Not because muh hipster millennial stuff but because harsh and sometimes deliberately unfair and simplistic criticism of religions is one of the hallmarks of a healthy society. A religion that doesn't tolerate this kind of behavior (even if just in words, or, as the Catholic Church has done multiple times with Charlie Hebdo, in lawsuits) is already going down a dangerous path.

Also, as someone who's recently called Crabcake the best poster in the past couple years and still thinks she is, that post of hers was utterly awful and trite. While Ingermann's retort would have been pathetic and mean-spirited in another context, I think it was the sort of retort that post deserved.

Never thought I'd be taking Ingermann and BRTD's defense against Nathan and Crabcake one day, but there's a first time for everything I guess.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah I'm still wondering what CrabCake thinks should be done with liberal Protestant churches that ordain women and accept gays.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Probably should clarify that I wasn't being serious. :/ There are good Protestant churches and bad Catholic practice's.

Still, I've always thought the Reformation as it turned out was a grotesque mistake. The Church should have been reformed, not cut away; and the nature of the Reformation led to endless bloodshed throughout Europe for centuries.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The split would've inevitably happened at some point. It should be obvious that people like me in the current year wouldn't be OK accepting the Vatican as an authority.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Still, I've always thought the Reformation as it turned out was a grotesque mistake. The Church should have been reformed, not cut away; and the nature of the Reformation led to endless bloodshed throughout Europe for centuries.

Wasn't Luther kicked out precisely because he called on the Church to reform itself? Sure, the schism might have been avoided if the Church had been receptive to its critics, but you can't blame those critics for parting ways after it became clear that anyone who found the status quo objectionable in any way wasn't welcome.

[DINGO Joe]

Probably should clarify that I wasn't being serious. :/ There are good Protestant churches and bad Catholic practice's.

Still, I've always thought the Reformation as it turned out was a grotesque mistake. The Church should have been reformed, not cut away; and the nature of the Reformation led to endless bloodshed throughout Europe for centuries.

Wasn't there endless bloodshed throughout Europe for centuries before the reformation too?

[Santander]

Probably should clarify that I wasn't being serious. :/ There are good Protestant churches and bad Catholic practice's.

Still, I've always thought the Reformation as it turned out was a grotesque mistake. The Church should have been reformed, not cut away; and the nature of the Reformation led to endless bloodshed throughout Europe for centuries.

Wasn't there endless bloodshed throughout Europe for centuries before the reformation too?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The split would've inevitably happened at some point. It should be obvious that people like me in the current year wouldn't be OK accepting the Vatican as an authority.

lmbo i didn't realise people actually used the $current_year argument unironically

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Labor theory of value is not a Marxist theory. It goes back to, at least, Adam Smith and was the mainstay of pretty much every classical economic theory between Smith and Marx. In this sense, Marxism is simply a somewhat conservative economic theory for its age: labor theory is not a Marxist invention in any sense ("surplus value", on the other hand, was a key Marxist idea - but that is something else).

The major problem with labor, or any other, theory of value was always finding a consistent definition of value. Marx was aware of inconsistencies in Smith, etc., and was trying to deal with them. Post-Marx, some of his followers were able to produce, at least, a logically consistent version: unfortunately, the clearer they worked it out, the more obvious arbitrariness of using labor, rather than anything else, was becoming.

In parallel, many economists back in the 19th century decided to abandon, as a dead end, the search for any objective value, and replaced it with a subjective value notion: which, to avoid confusion, they called utility. Neoclassical economists (such as Marshall), thought of it as an actual measure of satisfaction, a "psychic utility". That approach has been further replaced in mainstream economic theory by the revealed preference approach (to a degree derived from the old Austrian school), in which even the subjective utility is but a mathematical tool, a convenient representation of ordinal preference, which, in turn, are revealed through actions. Finally, many of the modern approaches to decision theory go beyond even that, dealing with models which cannot be represented by means of utility maximization at all. in modern discussion of economics, value, in the sense in which it had been used 150 years ago by classical economists, is simply not a notion that anybody considers. This is not, really, about labor: it is value that the problem.

In any case, to sum up, labor theory of value was, in its time, a significan attempt at defining objective worth of things. It long predates Marx: if anything, Marx was very unoriginal in sticking to it. Eventually, economists did not so much abandon the labor theory of value specifically, as the question this theory was supposed to answer. These days no (non-Marxist - and even many a Marxist) economist would even think of some sort of objective "worth" of goods, which could be called "value".