AquinasD

Nope. Yoda.

Faust by Goethe

I do talk about anarchism, but you'd find what I have to say more interesting than the usual dreck.

The book is about politics, ideology, social theory, and civilization. Though to be fair, it would probably be better to introduce you to its perspective through more introductory readings.

Since I've left? I find that hard to believe. I thought you were already continental. What does Megan Fox even matter, at least since the Transformers movies? Want to read a book I wrote? I'd ask you over PM, but I can't send you PM's for some reason.

You can't have honestly thought that Christian Teen Forums would be more politically right than the average Christian forum. Do you even dialectics?

Is pirating, say, music, wrong?

It's a worldwide conspiracy. This is a crucial element in bringing about the NWO. This is what my Masonic Overlords told me the other night.

Not necessarily, or even usually, the case. Compare the cost of transporting a bushel of wheat by horseback to train. The train could probably bring the same bushel of wheat 500 times further at the same cost. Or, compare the cost of growing wheat in Kansas to Hawaii. Per acre, Kansas can produce 5 times as much wheat. Further, Hawaii can produce certain fruits that Kansas cannot, such as pineapple. When we decide where to grow pineapple and wheat, we should look to maximize our production so that everyone can have more of what they want. We can ship wheat to Hawaii from Kansas cheaper than we can grow it there. Likewise, we can ship pineapple to Kansas cheaper than we can grow it there. Sure, but realize that cheapness isn't necessarily the highest value. If I was trying to be as cheap as possible with my food consumption, I would eat nothing but ramen. But that is not very preferable, so I'll also eat rice, beans, salad, and meat. It may be more expensive, but it is also more satisfactory. There are limited amount of hours in the week that I can (or am willing) to work. If I spend all my time constructing roads and someone else spends all their time growing vegetables, we will each have more vegetables to eat and more roads to drive on. Such is the advantage of division of labor and trade. You realize that the "right to save seeds from grown crops" is given up by the farmers who choose to buy Monsanto? And Monsanto's "ownership" of the advanced seed strains is protected by government intellectual property law? Remember what I said about "letting people figure things out for themselves?" No individual thing is the answer. At least, not probably. A magic hat that makes infinite amounts of rice pop into existence would go a long way. Such is already the incentive of the farmers who own the land. Private ownership of the land is how you avoid tragedy of the commons. Once again, you're not taking into account costs. "Eating more efficiently" is costly; I need to give up more time to make it happen, I need to consume food I might not like, and so on. Why not make applesauce? Probably because, compared to the processes already in use by factories to make applesauce, it wouldn't be cost-effective. In other words, devoting more time to the applesauce production that's already in place, rather than having someone spend their time picking up apples that have fallen to the ground in an apple orchard that isn't geared towards making applesauce, would produce more applesauce. Would you have more applesauce, or less? I think that answers your question.

If they were really mean to you, then they might deserve it.

Sure, but food should also be less costly. More food = cheaper food. Duh. Suppose we just let people make their own decisions. ---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ---------- I think you missed the beginning of what I said: It's not about saying people would refuse some level of testing, but that an extremely high burden of proof could be more costly. The benefits of such just aren't worth what we give up.

There is nothing without a cost. Proving a negative in cases like this can be virtually impossible, and if you maintain an extremely high burden of proof on establishing that GMO's will never have even the least bit of side effects (and being able to separate this from relevant genetic and environmental factors in your sample/population studies), then doing such will be extremely costly. You must take into account what we give up in order to gain a sentimentally satisfactory "proof" that GMO's will never, ever hurt anybody in the least way. In the meanwhile, we know certain things like this; GMO's can raise crop yields by 10%, and are especially effective in regions susceptible to pests. People need food to live. There is a substantial population for whom food is incredibly scarce. Now, I can grant that a steady diet of carcinogenic oats that might give you cancer in 40 years is less preferable than a steady diet without such oats, but I also reckon that developing cancer over 40 years of living is preferable to dying immediately. And this is assuming the worst case scenario with GMO's. Life is not without risks. I think this just needs to be accepted, and we shouldn't be irrational about risks because SCIENCE IS MESSING WITH OUR VEGETABLES. I'm willing to bet, based on the data gathered so far by the hundreds of studies that have so far not shown any negative correlations between GMO's and health, that GMO's do not pose a risk substantial enough to fricking lose our minds about. You're more likely to choke on a GMO than to die by GMO-induced cancer. As to the study in question, I'm sure the study will either be refuted on grounds of being completely irrelevant (i.e. they weren't testing the effects of GMO crops in the first place) or else that the results can't be repeated (i.e. the results were either anomalous or maybe even fraudulent).

Oh no science will kill us by producing greater harvest yields. Also hundreds of studies that have shown no link but this one sensationalized study that's probably not even remotely related when it comes down to it.

Guys, let me explain something to you. Girls don't know what they want. They say they want to feel loved, but you give them that and they'll think you're a creep. Ignore them, and they'll love you. But that's assuming they like you in the first place.

The right time to date is never because girls are icky. And they'll beat you up.

A moneyless society? Creationists don't tend to do biology either. But have fun plugging away at your absurd fantasies.

Women don't have rights, so whatever they could say is irrelevant. Any man who thinks they have rights is just trying to get sex. *totally my legit opinion*

Well, public schools are essentially prison.

"Was successful" meaning what? There was over-investment which eventually led to rapid market restructuring which was a sign that capital was not being placed in its most effective place? Gee, sounds like a real success, if that's what you're trying to do. You keep calling my view "faith" but you won't even defend it! I can lay out my views in plain without a problem, but you keep referring me to this vague collection of "post-Keynesians" like its your gospel. You're undermining any interest I might have in trying to understand these ideas, since the impression I'm receiving is that you're completely disconnected from reality.

So you are saying that you know how to correctly balance between the demand and supply of everyone and everything in economies comprising quadrillions of individual variables? If not, then what? What remains unproven, what else needs to be proven, how are prices formed?