War Room OT Discussion v3

[HomerThompson]

It would make as much sense going back to the gold standard as it would going back to riding donkeys around.

Today, on Jackass:

I go to the store.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It would make as much sense going back to the gold standard as it would going back to riding donkeys around.

You're saying it would help the environment?

But seriously, I appreciate your agreement on that point.

 

[JonesBones]

Steve Jobs was an asshole but is irreplaceable as a CEO. He had flair. Bill Gates was asked what quality of Jobs he would most like to have and Gates said his style. Jobs and Wozniak would argue when Jobs would say a computer is a painting. It is art. I watched his revealing of the first Mac yesterday. That is a master at work. "Don't trust a computer you can't lift."




I was thinking of him because Tesla is again behind on the model 3 and their stock is dropping. Jobs would be cracking people's heads over that. He was perfectionist and tyrant.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're saying it would help the environment?

But seriously, I appreciate your agreement on that point.

We agree that going back would be disastrous. I don't agree that primitive technology being used longer than more recently developed technology means it's less stupid.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't agree that primitive technology being used longer than more recently developed technology means it's less stupid.

If I ever try to make that case I'll tag you in for fun then.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If I ever try to make that case I'll tag you in for fun then.

Sorry, thought you said this:

While returning to it would be problematic, use of gold as money goes back centuries before Christ. Based on that run, it can't be much more stupid than all the institutions of government that have come and gone in that time.

I must have been imagining it. Apologies. I'm sure you would never say anything like that.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

And i'm proud to say I made it an entire two weeks in India without getting diarrhea a single time

Yeah, I survived without getting the delhi belly too; despite even eating a meal that was prepped in the river.

My India experience would be best classified as a one and done - highly interesting place and would recommend anyone to visit, but one time is enough. Zero desire to ever go back.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Damn, I was gonna ask you guys why not just buy bottled water? Damn not even that's safe

The bottled water generally is. Like 99% of the time. But like any poor country, there are hucksters trying to rip off tourists.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sorry, thought you said this:



I must have been imagining it. Apologies. I'm sure you would never say anything like that.

I did.

What I mean and what you say I mean aren't really the same thing. In fact, I seldom find much overlap.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I did.

What I mean and what you say I mean aren't really the same thing. In fact, I seldom find much overlap.

Most normal people when seeing that they didn't mean to say what they said will clarify. Seems hard to read that in any way other than that the longer duration of the inferior system proves that it's less stupid than more recent technology,* but if there was another meaning, by all means, share.

Let me break down my reading of the piece so you can clearly see where I went wrong:

"While returning to it would be problematic, use of gold as money goes back centuries before Christ.Based on that run, it can't be much more stupid than all the institutions of government that have come and gone in that time."

First sentence: It would be difficult to return to the primitive system but it has been used for a very long time.

Second sentence: Because of the duration of its use and its age, it's either less stupid than modern systems or roughly as stupid as them.

My issue with that is that I don't think longer duration of use and greater age are reasons to consider one form of technology to be superior (or roughly equal) to another. They're theoretically not connected to quality (or stupidity) at all, but as it turns out, the correlation is almost always the exact opposite of the one you suggest (that is, newer technology that has been in use for less time is almost always *superior* to older technology that has been used longer).

 

[HomerThompson]

Most normal people when seeing that they didn't mean to say what they said will clarify. Seems hard to read that in any way other than that the longer duration of the inferior system proves that it's less stupid than more recent technology,* but if there was another meaning, by all means, share.

Let me break down my reading of the piece so you can clearly see where I went wrong:

"While returning to it would be problematic, use of gold as money goes back centuries before Christ.Based on that run, it can't be much more stupid than all the institutions of government that have come and gone in that time."

First sentence: It would be difficult to return to the primitive system but it has been used for a very long time.

Second sentence: Because of the duration of its use and it's age, it's either less stupid than modern systems or roughly as stupid as them.

My issue with that is that I don't think longer duration of use and greater age are reasons to consider one form of technology to be superior (or roughly equal) to another. They're theoretically not connected to quality (or stupidity) at all, but as it turns out, the correlation is almost always the exact opposite of the one you suggest (that is, newer technology that has been in use for less time is almost always *superior* to older technology that has been used longer).

Internal combustion engine?

I'll take a horse drawn carriage, thank you very much.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Internal combustion engine?

I'll take a horse drawn carriage, thank you very much.

I suspect the issue is that it didn't occur to him to think of the development of modern monetary systems as a technological advance, which it unquestionably is (a major one, that has greatly lifted the standard of living of humans all over the world). Once I framed it that way (and I believe that it's something that you can't unsee once you see it), the flaw in his initial point became very obvious, which is why he wanted to distance himself from it. Dude is too proud and hostile to just say, "oh shit, I didn't think of it like that. Yeah, my point was dumb."

 

[Pickle Rick]

Internal combustion engine?

I'll take a horse drawn carriage, thank you very much.

cars are for pussies i run everywhere like a boss... cars are for cucks (channeling palis)

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Most normal people when seeing that they didn't mean to say what they said will clarify. Seems hard to read that in any way other than that the longer duration of the inferior system proves that it's less stupid than more recent technology,* but if there was another meaning, by all means, share.

Let me break down my reading of the piece so you can clearly see where I went wrong:

"While returning to it would be problematic, use of gold as money goes back centuries before Christ.Based on that run, it can't be much more stupid than all the institutions of government that have come and gone in that time."

First sentence: It would be difficult to return to the primitive system but it has been used for a very long time.

Second sentence: Because of the duration of its use and it's age, it's either less stupid than modern systems or roughly as stupid as them.

My issue with that is that I don't think longer duration of use and greater age are reasons to consider one form of technology to be superior (or roughly equal) to another. They're theoretically not connected to quality (or stupidity) at all, but as it turns out, the correlation is almost always the exact opposite of the one you suggest (that is, newer technology that has been in use for less time is almost always *superior* to older technology that has been used longer).

You consider modern institutions of government to be ones that have fallen by the wayside (i.e. "come and gone")? To me modern is the shit currently in use. Let's take a look.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modern

Definition of modern
1a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary

• the modern American family

b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time

• modern history

2: involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date

• modern methods of communication

3capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language

• Modern English

4: of or relating to modernism : modernist

• Modern art has abandoned the representation of recognizable objects.

Looks to me like calling institutions of government that have come and gone throughout history "modern" doesn't really jive with the overall definition and feel of the word.

"Come and gone" means they've failed and/or outlived their usefulness. Right? I'm comparing the historical usefulness of one man-made system to countless/nameless others that are no longer in use when I bring up government. I'm comparing the gold standard to advancements in technology by bringing up the wheel as one of the only things that would predate gold as money that is still of great benefit to humanity.

Age certainly doesn't make it the best thing now, but if people got more use out of it than almost anything you can name it's hard to call it the "stupidest thing ever".

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Internal combustion engine?

I'll take a horse drawn carriage, thank you very much.

Does little fella let Jack to chew all his food food for him?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You consider modern institutions of government to be ones that have fallen by the wayside (i.e. "come and gone")? To me modern is the shit currently in use. Let's take a look.

The modern currency system hasn't come and gone. Nations have, of course, but that was true with gold, too. So there's a disconnect. Your position was garbled a little. Aren't you glad you cleared it up?

Age certainly doesn't make it the best thing now, but if people got more use out of it than almost anything you can name it's hard to call it the "stupidest thing ever".

I agree that the gold standard isn't literally the stupidest thing ever (and I think it's obvious he was exaggerating). The fact that some people want to bring it back has to be way up there, though, no? And it was a bad system, and bad in ways that to modern eyes seem pretty obvious. I think that combination of harmfulness (relative to a more well-designed system) and the obviousness of that harmfulness does fit the definition of "stupid." And given *how* harmful it was, it deserves some strong language. So "The Gold Standard is the stupidest fuckin thing I ever heard of. Can't believe anybody supports this." sounds OK to me.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Been a while since we had a go-around in here about the gold standard

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Also learned that Greenspan is a disciple of Ayn Rand. That was a recipe for disaster. Thinking market forces will just correct themselves naturally. That scumbag. Watched this recently:

Watched the whole thing. Very interesting.

The congressional hearings show how intentionally or unintentionally people turn a blind eye to danger -- tough to take an unbiased stance when the gravy train is going.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Aren't you glad you cleared it up?

Knowing that it was mostly for your benefit, I'm kinda indifferent. But if you're glad I'm glad.

 

[HereticBD]

as much as you want to hold dear to that fiction im not.. just asked a mod for a name change

Yes, from @Peloqin. A ban evasion account. You seem to want to skirt that fact. You also seem to be quite rustled at my assumption of you being the insane member formerly known as @Bat Dad.

It's as if I'm hitting a nerve or something. Like you're embarrassed about being exposed as that hilariously crazy member...

... try to move on with your life...hows the snow in Canada?

Where I am, it's not as bad as it is in parts of New York right now.