[QUOTE=Bobie;37616697]because intelligence is merely a conditioned factor in society[/QUOTE]
no you literally could not be more wrong
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37616704]does the word "meritocracy" mean anything to you
i dislike this story but it's so bloody relevant that I have to [URL="http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html"]link it[/URL][/QUOTE]
lol i love it how you jump at me for fallacies then you start pulling out all this shit
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37616745]no you literally could not be more wrong[/QUOTE]
"you're wrong" - a man who does not understand conditioning
isn't this the third time you've done this lmao, "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND CONDITIONIGN!!!!!" but you can't cite your sources
[quote]isn't this the third time you've done this lmao, "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND CONDITIONIGN!!!!!" but you can't cite your sources[/QUOTE]
If intelligence were not heritable, it would not have evolved in humans. Brains are expensive organs in terms of energy consumption (not to mention the fact that large craniums aren't exactly a help in terms of childbirth), and if they weren't providing a considerable benefit relative to their cost that could be passed on to offspring, natural selection would have weeded them out in short order. In fact this has happened on isolated island populations of humans, where brain sizes shrunk considerably because there were less needs for intelligence.
[quote=http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/back-to-the-trees/]There is still doubt, but there seems to be a good chance that the Flores Hobbit was a member of a distinct hominid species, rather than some homo sap with a nasty case of microcephalic dwarfism. If this is the case, the Hobbits are likely descended from a small, Australopithecus-like population that managed to move from Africa to Indonesia without leaving any fossils in between, or from some ancient hominid (perhaps homo erectus) that managed to strand themselves on Flores and then shrank, as many large animals do when isolated on islands.
Island dwarfing of a homo erectus population is the dominant idea right now. However, many proponents are really bothered by how small the Hobbit’s brain was. [B]At 400 cc, it was downright teeny, about the size of a chimpanzee’s brain.[/B] Most researchers seem to think that hominid brains naturally increase in size with time. They also suspect that anyone with a brain this small couldn’t be called sentient – and the idea of natural selection driving a population from sentience to nonsentience bothers them.
[B]They should get over it.[/B] Hominid brain volume has increased pretty rapidly over the past few million years, but the increase hasn’t been monotonic. It’s decreased about 10% over the past 25,000 years. Moreover, we know of examples where natural selection has caused drastic decreases in organismal complexity – for example, canine venereal sarcoma, which today is an infectious cancer, but was once a dog.[/quote]
Intelligence is heritable by the fact of its very existence, get the fuck over it. You can't conjure complex behavior like that out of a blank slate, otherwise we could teach dogs to write poetry.
Now obviously it can also be influenced by environmental factors (lead is a nasty one) but the idea that you can significantly increase intelligence through conditioning is just unsupported. N-Backing for example, is only good for maybe a third to a half sigma.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37616821]If intelligence were not heritable, it would not have evolved in humans. Brains are expensive organs in terms of energy consumption, and if they weren't providing a considerable benefit relative to their cost that could be passed on to offspring, natural selection would have weeded them out in short order. In fact this has happened on isolated island populations of humans, where brain sizes shrunk considerably because there were less needs for intelligence.
Intelligence is heritable by the fact of its very existence, get the fuck over it. You can't conjure complex behavior like that out of a blank slate, otherwise we could teach dogs to write poetry.[/QUOTE]
are you saying that foxconn employees are a different species of human or something lol and therefore deserve to have a lower standard of living or what
this doesn't counter my argument in the context i'm referring it to
either way, this doesn't justify your original statement
[QUOTE=archie200034;37614158]Like there'll be any left in the country when it's introduced[/QUOTE]
that's the point, it's a maximum wage
there is a minimum wage after all
[QUOTE=Bobie;37616865]are you saying that foxconn employees are a different species of human or something lol and therefore deserve to have a lower standard of living or what
this doesn't counter my argument in the context i'm referring it to
either way, this doesn't justify your original statement[/QUOTE]
no this isn't about foxconn, I was responding specifically to your statement that "intelligence is merely a conditioned factor in society"
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37616905]no this isn't about foxconn, I was responding specifically to your statement that "intelligence is merely a conditioned factor in society"[/QUOTE]
to which it is; in an incredibly large extent. if you want me to be more PC about it then i would conform and say that intelligence is a [i]determined[/i] factor in society; one which someone has little to no control over how they see it fit. regardless of the method in which intellect, critical thinking, logic etc. is acquired, it is not something that an individual has control over.
i'm sorry if i led you off of the path with the wrong terminology
[QUOTE=Bobie;37616940]to which it is; in an incredibly large extent. if you want me to be more PC about it then i would conform and say that intelligence is a [i]determined[/i] factor in society; one which someone has little to no control over how they see it fit. regardless of the method in which intellect, critical thinking, logic etc. is acquired, it is not something that an individual has control over.
i'm sorry if i led you off of the path with the wrong terminology[/QUOTE]
oh ok sorry
excuse my ignorance, but this is a tax on net income right? Otherwise it could be harmful for economy
lots of ceo's sorta do this already, like ceo's that get a $1 annual paycheck
they do this to avoid the tax, but that is what the government [I]wants[/I] them to do, since by avoiding this tax they are investing in the company, and a company is more than one person, so $1 million is better off in control by a few (the company) than than just one (the CEO).
this tax practice is basically saying "you guys keep talking about how you're job creators and you use your wealth to invest in new stuff, guess what? We're keeping you to your word now!"
cough cough stock options
[QUOTE=person11;37617148]cough cough stock options[/QUOTE]
And if the company suddenly crashes right in-front of the CEO's nose.
[QUOTE=person11;37617148]cough cough stock options[/QUOTE]
I'm aware, but stock is taxed less is it not?
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;37616736]Let those who control the economy pay the price for the Euro crisis they caused.[/QUOTE]
People who make a couple millions a year don't control the economy.
[QUOTE=Ezhik;37616566]hahahaha what
trust me
being a ceo is harder than assembling iphones
do you really think that leaving A GIANT CORPORATION is easier?
in the world where one wrong word could cost the company BILLIONS?[/QUOTE]
yeah I forgot about all those ceos trying to commit suicide just to escape the brutal working conditions of their sweat shop that refuses to pay them a livable wage
Just remember. A rich person with a 75 percent tax rate, still has 250,000 euros. That's like 400,000 dollars.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37617508]yeah I forgot about all those ceos trying to commit suicide just to escape the brutal working conditions of their sweat shop that refuses to pay them a livable wage[/QUOTE]
that does not mean that being a ceo is easier than assembling iphones
it's a problem with china, the fact that the people actually accept those wages
(though that's also why all the production is there)
[QUOTE=Ezhik;37617625]that does not mean that being a ceo is easier than assembling iphones
it's a problem with china, the fact that the people actually accept those wages
(though that's also why all the production is there)[/QUOTE]
they 'accept' those wages because china's government has a long, violent history of shooting those who disagree with them in public
[QUOTE=Bobie;37617652]they 'accept' those wages because china's government has a long, violent history of shooting those who disagree with them in public[/QUOTE]
and because there are no better alternatives
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37617669]and because there are no better alternatives[/QUOTE]
this, to a pretty large extent. as horrible as it is, an uprising in china will only cause more problems than it solves; especially with a population of one billion. it would be a bloodbath. there are ways for the standard of living to increase; but they require a whole selection of different factors to be set in place
[QUOTE=Nikota;37617617]Just remember. A rich person with a 75 percent tax rate, still has 250,000 euros. That's like 400,000 dollars.[/QUOTE]
Once again, the 75% tax applies only to earnings over 1m. Somebody who earns 1m doesn't suddenly earn less than somebody who earns 500k. Earnings between 750k and 1m are taxed at 55% (Assuming the new tax scheme overrules the current situation where 55% is for ~750k-~1.25m) and below 750k there is no wealth tax, so presumably that is taxed at the same rate as all other income tax.
But yes, they still have lots of money and reading the thread, that's (mostly) what the argument is about.
Time to give myself an even larger bonus to cover what I haven't hidden away in foreign banks!
/CEO logic.
[QUOTE=Jordax;37614862]Please change the title to 'French president Hollande introduces 75% tax', it might confuse the crowd from Holland/ The Netherlands here.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather die
[QUOTE=Nikota;37617617]Just remember. A rich person with a 75 percent tax rate, still has 250,000 euros. That's like 400,000 dollars.[/QUOTE]
No, a guy earning one million keeps ~eighty percent of it. It's the cash [I]above[/I] that.
I'm all for taxing the rich more, but 75% is out of the question.
Normally, I find this pretty radical. But to see the other side of the fence, I had a look at this: [URL="http://www.craigwilly.info/?p=1231"]A "Dangerous Nation"[/URL]
So far, I'm keeping an open mind on this new method of deficit busting.
Wish they did something like this in Italy aswell. Too bad that the wealthiest are the politicians and mafia bosses (in some cases the two are one), so it won't ever happen, sadly.
Also the amount of people not getting that the 75% tax is on the euros earnt over 1mil is scary. Do you have any idea how taxation works?
[QUOTE=person11;37615993]If you do not like taxes, move to Somalia.[/quote]
The Somalia strawman has been dealt with numerous times.
[url="http://c4ss.org/content/1201"]Here[/url] is just one of the many refutations of this argument.
[quote]Taxation is life. People who complain about the concept of taxation do not understand how the world functions.[/quote]
Ad hominem fallacy
[QUOTE=Noble;37620193][QUOTE]Taxation is life. People who complain about the concept of taxation do not understand how the world functions.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I would phrase it so: "Taxation is the price you pay to live in the civilized world".
[QUOTE=Noble;37620193]Ad hominem fallacy[/QUOTE]
Nah it's status quo fallacy more than anything else.
[editline]10th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;37620193][url="http://c4ss.org/content/1201"]Here[/url] is just one of the many refutations of this argument.[/QUOTE]
wait I don't really see how this refutes the argument
sounds like anarchy to me
[editline]10th September 2012[/editline]
sure you've got a lot of quasi-statelike entities vying for control, fighting: it's anarchy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
