freenode #wikipedia

2008-04-12 23:01 < notagerbil> Happily I had it on a serving table a few meters away...
2008-04-12 23:01 < zocky> i have a dawkins book somewhere in the house where he does the same calculation
2008-04-12 23:02 < zocky> about the last common ancestor of all living humans, and some other stuff
2008-04-12 23:02 < zocky> the figures turn out quite surprisingly recent
2008-04-12 23:03 < notagerbil> it's really about doubling the population so not fully relevant...
2008-04-12 23:03 * Fennec frowns.
2008-04-12 23:03 * Fennec is trying to practice a song, but he disagrees with the rythm. :P
2008-04-12 23:04 < notagerbil> It claims doubling the population three times every century... But since you were talking about successfull people, not people in starvation torn countries, I claim my figures are still seriously lowball.
2008-04-12 23:04 < zocky> "You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years — and probably on the low side of that range — to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant."
2008-04-12 23:04 < zocky> "Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago — everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors."
2008-04-12 23:04 < Kelsey> Fennec: What song?
2008-04-12 23:04 < Kelsey> On what instrument?
2008-04-12 23:05 < Fennec> Kelsey: a random Bohemian folk dance. on harp. (it's in the beginning-harp-type book so :P)
2008-04-12 23:05 < Kelsey> Ah.
2008-04-12 23:05 < Kelsey> I actually knew a Kelsey that played harp.
2008-04-12 23:05 < zocky> where bohemian is archaic for czech?
2008-04-12 23:06 < notagerbil> I think there is a bit later about how many one specific person had, but that isn't the bit in the opening paragraphs, that comes deeper into the book...
2008-04-12 23:08 < zocky> anyway, statisticians say that everybody who was alive 5000-7000 years ago is either the ancestor of everybody living today, or of nobody living today
2008-04-12 23:08 < zocky> i'm not sure how that works for e.g. australian aborigines, but otherwise it makes sense
2008-04-12 23:08 < Fennec> that so?
2008-04-12 23:09 < drwhoiswho> hello
2008-04-12 23:09 < arcimboldo_> Hm ... should I claim [[Ötzi]] as my ancestor?
2008-04-12 23:10 < zocky> who knows :)
2008-04-12 23:10 < zocky> he was old enough to have kids when he froze
2008-04-12 23:10 < notagerbil> zocky: I just thought of something. not really the biggest factor how rich you are. if you have the genes for sufficient male erotomania, money won't necessary be a big advantage, in fact being a successful individual may be a handicap...
2008-04-12 23:10 < zocky> Ötzi the Iceman (pronounced [ˈœtsi] (help·info)), Frozen Fritz, and Similaun Man
2008-04-12 23:11 < zocky> hmm, I never heard anybody call him anything but "ötzi"
2008-04-12 23:11 < arcimboldo_> Probably for someone like Julius Cesar or Alexander the Great it is rather likely that we descend from them.
2008-04-12 23:11 < zocky> notagerbil, it's not how rich you are, it's how "fit" you are in evolutionary sense. the two are commonly related, but not directly dependent
2008-04-12 23:12 < notagerbil> if you are rich, your descendants bloodlines will likely converge quite a bit because of inbreeding, because people want to keep the money in the family.
2008-04-12 23:12 < zocky> alexander the great probably not (did he have any kids at all?), but caesar quite possibly
2008-04-12 23:12 < notagerbil> zocky: I wouldn't say being insatiable sexually is a measure of fitness, but whatever...
2008-04-12 23:13 < zocky> notagerbil, "fitness" is measured by the number of descendants, nothing else
2008-04-12 23:13 < arcimboldo_> Yeah, it's a mixture of you predisposition to being healthly and surviving difficult situations, and your sexual attracvitveness.
2008-04-12 23:13 < arcimboldo_> your
2008-04-12 23:13 < notagerbil> okay, be circular about it, if you like
2008-04-12 23:13 < notagerbil> A person can have a lot of kids who has the conditions that allow him to have lots of kids...
2008-04-12 23:13 < arcimboldo_> t <-> v
2008-04-12 23:13 < notagerbil> sorites
2008-04-12 23:15 < arcimboldo_> And I don't see a great reason why I would be a descendant of people who lived in America 5000 years ago.
2008-04-12 23:15 < arcimboldo_> There were too few genes coming back to Europe.
2008-04-12 23:15 < Fennec> the partitioning is a little interesting
2008-04-12 23:16 < notagerbil> sorry, not sorites, just the other way around... sorites is a chained argument that holds, I remembered it just the wrong away around...
2008-04-12 23:19 < notagerbil> zocky, what you did was a [[petitio principii]]
2008-04-12 23:20 < zocky> notagerbil, nah, I just offered you the definition of fitness
2008-04-12 23:24 < notagerbil> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition - is perhaps more apposite...
2008-04-12 23:24 < notagerbil> fitness in reproduction is fitness in reproduction, that is what you defined.
2008-04-12 23:25 < Mike_H> bumm13: are you there?
2008-04-12 23:26 < zocky> notagerbil, I was replying to your musing about whether sexual insatiability is a measure of fitness
2008-04-12 23:26 < notagerbil> I could say to you that fitness in passing people your knowledge is fitness in passing people your knowledge.
2008-04-12 23:26 < notagerbil> no, I didn't say it was fitness, I denied it...
2008-04-12 23:26 < notagerbil> just a moment, let me dig my buffer
2008-04-12 23:27 < notagerbil> zocky: I wouldn't say being insatiable sexually is a measure of fitness, but whatever...
2008-04-12 23:27 < notagerbil> that is what I said.
2008-04-12 23:27 < zocky> notagerbil, yeah, but it didn't seem to be a denial of anything that was said before
2008-04-12 23:28 < notagerbil> of course not, because it was a circular definition...
2008-04-12 23:28 < notagerbil> read the article...
2008-04-12 23:28 < notagerbil> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
2008-04-12 23:29 < zocky> notagerbil, i said "fitness is measured by number of descendants" as I would say "mars is the 4th planet in the Solar system"
2008-04-12 23:29 < zocky> it was a definition, not an argument
2008-04-12 23:29 < notagerbil> I could say to you that fitness in passing people your knowledge is fitness in passing people your knowledge.
2008-04-12 23:29 < notagerbil> whose definition of fitness is better
2008-04-12 23:29 < zocky> you could say "fitness in passing knowledge is measured by how much knowledge you pass"
2008-04-12 23:29 < Gracenotes> we're talking about genes, not memes... <:
2008-04-12 23:29 < zocky> that would be a definition, not a restatement
2008-04-12 23:30 < notagerbil> I was saying that fitness is not about genes.
2008-04-12 23:31 < notagerbil> passing genes is a very narrow ability
2008-04-12 23:31 < notagerbil> as is passing knowledge
2008-04-12 23:31 < zocky> well, fitness in that narrow sense, of course
2008-04-12 23:31 < zocky> since we were discussing common ancestors
2008-04-12 23:31 < notagerbil> exactly, that is why it is a circular definition
2008-04-12 23:32 < notagerbil> I just said I wouldn't use fitness in that sense.
2008-04-12 23:32 < zocky> well, that's the term
2008-04-12 23:32 < zocky> of course you can define fitness as something else
2008-04-12 23:33 < notagerbil> it is incorrect even on it's own terms... look at mongooses, or ants...
2008-04-12 23:33 < notagerbil> by your argument only the queen of the ants is fit
2008-04-12 23:33 < zocky> they're not individuals in evolutionary sense
2008-04-12 23:33 < Messedrocker> unsk!
2008-04-12 23:33 < Gracenotes> individuals don't evolve, notagerbil. only populations do.
2008-04-12 23:33 < zocky> only the queen of the ants *can* be fit in that sense
2008-04-12 23:34 < Messedrocker> yahtzee crowshaw ftw. he implied metroid prime is a good fps \o/
2008-04-12 23:34 < zocky> or, if you look at it another way, the whole anthill is more or less fit
2008-04-12 23:34 < notagerbil> zocky, the other ants are passing their own genes by helping the queen do it...
2008-04-12 23:34 < zocky> individual ants are much like individual cells of your body
2008-04-12 23:34 < notagerbil> even though they aren't getting their own descendant.
2008-04-12 23:34 < zocky> only the sexual cells actually transmit genes
2008-04-12 23:35 < zocky> all the other cells die like ants do
2008-04-12 23:35 < notagerbil> The same happens in a minor fashion among humans...
2008-04-12 23:35 < zocky> oh, of course
2008-04-12 23:35 < zocky> very properly speaking, fitness has meaning only for genes
2008-04-12 23:36 < notagerbil> so it isn't a solid definition, even if you only accept the end of passing genes as a goal of fitness
2008-04-12 23:36 < zocky> not for the protein shells they build around them, since those protein shells don't make copies of themselves
2008-04-12 23:37 < arcimboldo_> I guess in modern developed countries the sexual/partnering attractiveness part is dominant in the evolutionary process.
2008-04-12 23:37 < notagerbil> well, I think we are on something we can agree on..., if you are only interested in how well genese propagate, they propagate well, if they propagate well. Another circular definition...
2008-04-12 23:37 < arcimboldo_> And the ability to escape the lions is less relevant.
2008-04-12 23:38 < arcimboldo_> so "fitness" is quite context-related.
2008-04-12 23:38 < zocky> arcimboldo_, yeah, evolution has been hacked just like democracy
2008-04-12 23:38 < zocky> it's all about PR, not actual ability
2008-04-12 23:38 < Gracenotes> arcimboldo_: I doubt those features are genetic, though :)
2008-04-12 23:38 < zocky> Gracenotes, which?
2008-04-12 23:38 < zocky> the ability to escape lions is surely genetic
2008-04-12 23:39 < zocky> as is sexual attractiveness for the most part
2008-04-12 23:39 < Gracenotes> no, referring to the frivolous ones (human attractiveness, sexuality, behavior, etc.)
2008-04-12 23:39 < arcimboldo_> zocky: I am not sure that this is just a thing of modern times ... Dawkins argues, to me quite convincingly, that the fast development of the human brain was likely due to sexual selection.
2008-04-12 23:39 < Gracenotes> to a certain extent, it's genetic, but I can't entirely attribute it to that :|
2008-04-12 23:40 < arcimboldo_> genetic mutation alone based on the environmental survival factors could hardly have been so fast.
2008-04-12 23:41 < zocky> arcimboldo_, well, of course the whole sexual attractiveness thing has been hacked long ago
2008-04-12 23:42 < zocky> in principle, females prefer males who are more likely to be reproductively successful, and in species where it matters, vice versa
2008-04-12 23:42 < notagerbil> arcimboldo: I was arguing before, that it isn't attractiveness that is definitive, but insatiableness.
2008-04-12 23:42 < zocky> the problem is that they have no way to measure it directly, so they have to look for certain signs
2008-04-12 23:43 < notagerbil> You only need to look at all the ugly folks who had incredibly good look with women...
2008-04-12 23:43 < arcimboldo_> notagerbil: But the far majority of humans has descended from a monogamic relationship.
2008-04-12 23:43 < zocky> and obviously, when the life is not too tough for the population, the "cheaters" who have the signs without actually having the abilities are going to prosper
2008-04-12 23:43 < notagerbil> [[John Wilkes]] article is very good case in point.
2008-04-12 23:44 < notagerbil> arcimboldo_, less than you would think...
2008-04-12 23:44 < arcimboldo_> So I would consider it a factor (being insatiable may increase the *number* of your direct descendants but less the fact that you reproduce).
2008-04-12 23:44 < zocky> notagerbil, ugly men who are successful with women are not a good example, since women aren't that prejudicial about looks
2008-04-12 23:44 * zocky knocks on wood
2008-04-12 23:44 < arcimboldo_> but not more than a factor
2008-04-12 23:44 < notagerbil> only in what we calle late modern age in the west...
2008-04-12 23:44 < zocky> finding ugly women who are greatly successful with men is harder
2008-04-12 23:45 < notagerbil> monogamy is a very minor cultural feature in human history, very very minor...
2008-04-12 23:45 < zocky> notagerbil, nah, it's the standard in settled societies
2008-04-12 23:45 < notagerbil> nope
2008-04-12 23:45 < Golbez> as opposed to polygamy, or as opposed to promiscuity?
2008-04-12 23:45 < Golbez> there are two different alternatives to monogamy
2008-04-12 23:45 < arcimboldo_> zocky: Although, looking at which women have the most children, I don't think that they are the ones that we would consider most attractive.
2008-04-12 23:45 < notagerbil> zocky, you think polynesians aren't settled?
2008-04-12 23:46 < zocky> well, settlers usually go for monogamy+promiscuity, nomads usually go for polygamy
2008-04-12 23:46 < Golbez> widespread polygamy is not a stable system
2008-04-12 23:46 < zocky> arcimboldo_, that may be an artefact of modernity
2008-04-12 23:46 < zocky> Golbez, it is, if most men die in war before they're married
2008-04-12 23:46 < Golbez> zocky- well, exactly
2008-04-12 23:46 < notagerbil> zocky: settlers =! settled societies...
2008-04-12 23:46 < Golbez> the only way you can sustain a polygamous society is to dispose of the excess males
2008-04-12 23:47 < Golbez> which of course leads to war
2008-04-12 23:47 < notagerbil> settlers are pioneering societys
2008-04-12 23:47 < Golbez> (not to mention that the ones you send to war will be the angry and frustrated ones)
2008-04-12 23:47 < zocky> notagerbil, settlers vs. nomads is what the dichotomy is usually called, AFAIK
2008-04-12 23:47 < Golbez> china, unless they do a very interesting job of managing their society in the next couple of decades, will run into that problem
2008-04-12 23:47 < notagerbil> it is a brief blip, unless it culturally becomes a self-perpetuating system, as it only happened in the west, through christian values
2008-04-12 23:48 < Golbez> too many males, not enough females, will always lead to one of two things: societal collapse or war. there is no happy option.
2008-04-12 23:48 < Golbez> and/or, rather./
2008-04-12 23:48 < zocky> yeah, china is going to get fucked up over that, unless they do some magic
2008-04-12 23:48 < Gracenotes> Golbez: that was the case for Brazilian slaves
2008-04-12 23:48 < Gracenotes> I think the male-female ratio was something like 3:1
2008-04-12 23:48 < notagerbil> zocky, it wouldn't last, if it didn't culturally congeal... in overabundance, there is zero incentive to stay faithful.
2008-04-12 23:49 * Golbez tries to find out what china's gender ratio will be in 2020...
2008-04-12 23:49 < Gracenotes> Golbez: while they didn't have war, they *did* have their population continually dying off... :|
2008-04-12 23:49 < Golbez> 15-64 years: 1.057 male(s)/female (2007)
2008-04-12 23:49 < arcimboldo_> India may be in a similar situation
2008-04-12 23:49 < zocky> notagerbil, the incentive is that genes that make fathers provide for their children have been evolutionary successful
2008-04-12 23:50 < notagerbil> china is of course in the opposite trap, they have to have at least the children they have propagate...
2008-04-12 23:50 < Golbez> compare with Japan, which has a ratio of 1.01.
2008-04-12 23:50 < notagerbil> zocky, no, the fathers who sow their oats widely, have been evolutinarily successful.
2008-04-12 23:50 < Golbez> or the US, which has a ratio of, well, 1.00.
2008-04-12 23:51 < notagerbil> Otherwise, we wouldn't be the horny bustards we are...
2008-04-12 23:51 < zocky> notagerbil, only in nomadic societies or in wartime.
2008-04-12 23:51 < notagerbil> if all we needed was to keep one woman preggy, we wouldn't have nearly the sex drive...
2008-04-12 23:52 < Golbez> let's consider the simple numbers here. a ratio of 1.057 men to women in the PRC means there are... hm
2008-04-12 23:52 < zocky> notagerbil, ah, but that doesn't imply polygamy or total promiscuity
2008-04-12 23:52 < notagerbil> Zocky, also in societies of overabundance...
2008-04-12 23:52 < zocky> notagerbil, what's normally done is having children on the side
2008-04-12 23:52 < Golbez> how do i calculate this
2008-04-12 23:52 < notagerbil> zocky, and that to you is evolutionarily monogamy?
2008-04-12 23:52 < arcimboldo_> depends what exactly you want to calculate ...
2008-04-12 23:53 < Coldstart> actually the rate of monogamy is related to the size of the male's testicles
2008-04-12 23:53 < Golbez> i want to know, if the ratio is 1.057:1 and the population is 1.3 billion, how many more men there are than women
2008-04-12 23:53 < Coldstart> because highly promiscuos species must evolve larger testicles to produce more sperm to out sperm the other males
2008-04-12 23:53 < Gracenotes> males + males/1.057 = 1.3 billion total
2008-04-12 23:53 < arcimboldo_> Men = (1.057/2.057) * 1.3billion
2008-04-12 23:54 < Coldstart> The average size of teh human male's testicles indicate that humans are moderately promiscous
2008-04-12 23:54 < zocky> notagerbil, the best bet seems to be having a monogamous relationship with the best long-term partner you can find, and if you're a man, make as many kids on the side as possible, and if you're a woman, have a child or two by some ravishing looking fellow, and have your husband provide for them
2008-04-12 23:54 < Gracenotes> hum >.>
2008-04-12 23:54 < Golbez> in that case
2008-04-12 23:55 < Golbez> there are presently ~36 million more men than women in china.
2008-04-12 23:55 < zocky> what you really want is 1.3 billion/2.057 * 0.057
2008-04-12 23:55 < Coldstart> yeah
2008-04-12 23:55 < Golbez> and well, i call that a good sized army.
2008-04-12 23:55 < arcimboldo_> The number of excess men is (0.057/2.057) * 1.3 billino
2008-04-12 23:55 < Coldstart> because of the one child policy
2008-04-12 23:55 < notagerbil> zocky, you are saying that if you just flit from flower to flower, your offspring will predominantly die before breeding?
2008-04-12 23:55 < Coldstart> I don't know how prevalent it is
2008-04-12 23:55 < Coldstart> but because families prefer sons to daughters
2008-04-12 23:55 < Golbez> that is a lot of unhappy, frustrated guys, and there is only one way to dispose of that - send them off to war.
2008-04-12 23:55 < arcimboldo_> I believe typically a few more men are born than women, even without deliberate selection.
2008-04-12 23:56 < Coldstart> they tend to abort their kid if its a daughter, since they're only allowed to have one
2008-04-12 23:56 < arcimboldo_> However, men tend to be more likely to die before their reproductive age.
2008-04-12 23:56 < zocky> notagerbil, no, I'm saying that you'll have more offspring that breed if you do it methodically in one place, and sow your seed as wide as possible at the same time
2008-04-12 23:56 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- correct, but men die sooner, so it evens out in the long run
2008-04-12 23:56 < Not_the_NSA> Coldstart: isn't it opposite?
2008-04-12 23:56 < Coldstart> no
2008-04-12 23:56 < arcimboldo_> yep
2008-04-12 23:56 < Not_the_NSA> isn't it unlimited daughters 1 or 2 sons
2008-04-12 23:56 < Coldstart> well maybe they changed it
2008-04-12 23:56 < Coldstart> I believed it was one child period
2008-04-12 23:56 < notagerbil> zocky, that is a very strange definition of monogamy, if you ask me...
2008-04-12 23:57 < Golbez> Not_the_NSA- if that's the case then it's recent, to prevent the wholesale abortion of half an entire generation of girls
2008-04-12 23:57 < arcimboldo_> Not_the_NSA: They have "softened" it, in particular in rural areas.
2008-04-12 23:57 < zocky> it's 1 child only if you live in a city, and max 2 children if you live in a village and your first child is a daughter
2008-04-12 23:57 < Coldstart> but if it was like that and they changed it, the damage to the sex ratio could already have been done
2008-04-12 23:57 < zocky> notagerbil, maybe so, but it's the prevalent arrangement among humans :)
2008-04-12 23:57 < Coldstart> anyway they don't even have free speech so what do you expect
2008-04-12 23:57 < notagerbil> I don't think it is monogamy though...
2008-04-12 23:58 < zocky> well, it's monogamy in the social sense
2008-04-12 23:58 < zocky> in the genetic sense, it's partial monogamy, with a lot of noise
2008-04-12 23:58 < notagerbil> Even harems have top wife...
2008-04-12 23:58 < Coldstart> I don't understand why one of the most unfree countries in the world deserves to be rewarded with an olympics
2008-04-12 23:58 < Coldstart> What's next, Iran gets it
2008-04-12 23:58 < Coldstart> ?
2008-04-12 23:58 < notagerbil> zocky, are you saying harems are monogamous?
2008-04-12 23:59 < Golbez> Coldstart- next you'll be telling me nazi germany shouldn't have gotten the olympics
2008-04-12 23:59 < zocky> Coldstart, first, it's not one of the most unfree countries. try iraq or somalia for that. second, olympics are not a reward, and 3rd, the point of olympics is maintaing contact between peoples and cultures regardless of what their governments are like.
2008-04-12 23:59 < Coldstart> I don't know the history of that so I can't comment on it
2008-04-12 23:59 < Messedrocker> well it was innocuous that they got the olympics
2008-04-12 23:59 < Golbez> Coldstart- tip: nazi germany got the olympics. =p
2008-04-12 23:59 < Messedrocker> i mean this was before the holocaust
2008-04-12 23:59 < Coldstart> 1936 I think
2008-04-12 23:59 < Golbez> also, it's a bit much to say the PRC is one of the most unfree countries in the world. I can list at least 20 that go on the list above it. 30, given enough time.
2008-04-13 00:00 < Coldstart> They don't have freedom of speech and they imprison and torture people for speaking out againt the government or doing falun gong I believe
2008-04-13 00:00 < Messedrocker> PRC has nothing on...
2008-04-13 00:00 < Coldstart> That puts them somewhere in the vicinity I belieev
2008-04-13 00:00 < Coldstart> of the most unfree
2008-04-13 00:00 < Messedrocker> that central asian country with that weird dictator...
2008-04-13 00:00 < Golbez> I'll start now: Belarus, Turkmenistan, Sierra Leone, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe
2008-04-13 00:00 < Messedrocker> Turkmenistan
2008-04-13 00:00 < notagerbil> zocky, Coldstart how about Ted Turner start a Goodwill Games tradition between say Afghanistan and the USA?
2008-04-13 00:00 < Golbez> Messedrocker- He died, sadly.
2008-04-13 00:00 < arcimboldo_> They had already been the "obvious nominee" for the 2000 olympics ...
2008-04-13 00:00 < Golbez> In Dec 06.
2008-04-13 00:00 < arcimboldo_> Eritra
2008-04-13 00:00 < Messedrocker> Golbez, SADLY!?
2008-04-13 00:00 < arcimboldo_> Eritrea
2008-04-13 00:00 < Golbez> Sadly, he was hilarious.
2008-04-13 00:00 < Messedrocker> Oh
2008-04-13 00:00 < zocky> Coldstart, all countries have censorship, and china is not the only powerful country that imprisons people without trial and tortures them
2008-04-13 00:00 < Messedrocker> You mean it's sad that The Lulz are now over?
2008-04-13 00:00 < Golbez> He renamed the DAYS OF THE WEEK after characters in his NOVEL
2008-04-13 00:00 < Golbez> how can you not love that
2008-04-13 00:01 < Coldstart> Also they are commies
2008-04-13 00:01 < Golbez> yes, sad that the lulz are over
2008-04-13 00:01 < Coldstart> Forgot that part
2008-04-13 00:01 < Golbez> his replacement seems to be not as crazy
2008-04-13 00:01 < zocky> chinese government is hardly communist these days
2008-04-13 00:01 < arcimboldo_> How's Turkmenistan doing after Turkmenbashi btw?
2008-04-13 00:01 < zocky> but even if it was, communist parties are legal pretty much everywhere, and they're in government in some european countries
2008-04-13 00:01 < zocky> so what's the problem?
2008-04-13 00:02 < Golbez> Coldstart- so was the Soviet Union when it got the Olympics. So was Sarajevo.
2008-04-13 00:02 < arcimboldo_> Oh, didn't read the lines before ...
2008-04-13 00:02 < Coldstart> I don't see how its comparable to say all countries have censorship where its clear that there is no freedom to dissent in China. That is clearly towards the intolerable end of the scale
2008-04-13 00:02 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- The craziness seems to have stopped
2008-04-13 00:02 < Golbez> But I think it's only slowly being reversed.
2008-04-13 00:02 < Coldstart> I wasn't old enough to care about politics when all that happened
2008-04-13 00:02 < zocky> Coldstart, are you speaking from experience or from regurgitated news reports?
2008-04-13 00:02 < arcimboldo_> I read that the new bureaucrat in charge is trying to build up his own personal cult ...
2008-04-13 00:02 < Coldstart> I've never been to china
2008-04-13 00:03 < Coldstart> But I do know they censor internet access
2008-04-13 00:03 < Golbez> Coldstart- history is the basis of everything, so don't simply discard it as something that has no bearing on the present
2008-04-13 00:03 < notagerbil> here's a question, what do you think the odds would be for the US getting the Olympics right now, (and ignore Salt Lake City in figuring the odds)
2008-04-13 00:03 < Coldstart> imprison people for political reasons
2008-04-13 00:03 < Coldstart> Conduct torture
2008-04-13 00:03 < Golbez> the Heritage Foundation ranks China as the 126th nation in the world in terms of economic freedom.
2008-04-13 00:03 < arcimboldo_> When I was in China last year, I could access most stuff from the hotel.
2008-04-13 00:03 < zocky> Coldstart, US imprisons people without trial and conducts torture
2008-04-13 00:03 < arcimboldo_> Including editing Wikipedia ...
2008-04-13 00:03 < Golbez> Coldstart- so it's like Britain during the Troubles? =p
2008-04-13 00:03 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- was it a tourist hotel?
2008-04-13 00:03 < Coldstart> I'm aware of that and I voted against bush to try to end it
2008-04-13 00:03 < arcimboldo_> but bbc website did not seem to work ...
2008-04-13 00:03 < zocky> Coldstart, yes, but your government is doing it anyway
2008-04-13 00:03 < Golbez> "China's economy is 52.8 percent free, according to our 2008 assessment, which makes it the world's 126th freest economy."
2008-04-13 00:04 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: sure, I'm not saying that ordinary Chinese would have the same access.
2008-04-13 00:04 < zocky> Coldstart, does that mean that we should all boycott you?
2008-04-13 00:04 < Coldstart> I thought the 1996 games were a stupid idea honestly
2008-04-13 00:04 < Coldstart> Yes, it does
2008-04-13 00:04 < Coldstart> actually
2008-04-13 00:04 < Golbez> Coldstart- what about the 2002 games? I thought they were quite nice.
2008-04-13 00:04 < zocky> Coldstart, does it mean that US doesn't deserve to be at the olympics?
2008-04-13 00:04 < Coldstart> Anything to put pressure on the us govt to stop what they're doing is fine with me
2008-04-13 00:04 < Coldstart> Yes
2008-04-13 00:04 < Coldstart> It sucks for the athletes but I think so
2008-04-13 00:04 * Messedrocker wonders who has the most free economy
2008-04-13 00:04 < zocky> it would be stupid and counterproductive
2008-04-13 00:04 < Golbez> Messedrocker- Hong Kong.
2008-04-13 00:04 < zocky> the point is to keep communication going, not to isolate countries
2008-04-13 00:04 < Messedrocker> Hong Kong has laissez-faire?
2008-04-13 00:05 < Golbez> The top ten are, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Australia, United States, New Zealand, Canada, Chile (!), Switzerland, and the UK.
2008-04-13 00:05 < zocky> just like people, countries are dangerous when they're isolated
2008-04-13 00:05 < Golbez> And that list absolutely astounds me: 8 of the top 10 freest economies all speak English.
2008-04-13 00:05 < Coldstart> Well we've been isolating cuba for decades and nothing happened there
2008-04-13 00:05 < Coldstart> yet we trade with China. I don't quite understand that
2008-04-13 00:05 < arcimboldo_> Hong Kong doesn't speak as much English as one generally assumes ...
2008-04-13 00:05 < Golbez> Coldstart- i agree, we should trade with Cuba
2008-04-13 00:05 < zocky> certainly nothing good happened there
2008-04-13 00:05 < arcimboldo_> I found it hard to get by in many places
2008-04-13 00:06 < Messedrocker> Coldstart, we continue to h8 Cuba because of the Cuban voting bloc
2008-04-13 00:06 < Golbez> trade is the only way to improve things
2008-04-13 00:06 < Coldstart> I don't see how the olympics can bring about positive change in the chinese govt's stance on civil righst
2008-04-13 00:06 < Coldstart> rights
2008-04-13 00:06 < Golbez> Coldstart- exposure is always a good thing. Don't go, there's less exposure.
2008-04-13 00:07 < zocky> it can't, and that's not the point
2008-04-13 00:07 < zocky> the point is, as golbez says, exposure
2008-04-13 00:07 < Golbez> psm321, the bottom 10: North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, Burma, Turkmenistan, Iran, Belarus, Venezuela, and Guinea-Bissau.
2008-04-13 00:07 < Golbez> er... that was supposed to be "ps, "
2008-04-13 00:07 < zocky> but it's also a matter of perception
2008-04-13 00:07 < zocky> china is not that much less free than many of the western countries
2008-04-13 00:08 < arcimboldo_> Would that mean that we should all travel to burma for our next holidyay and pay our money to the military regime?
2008-04-13 00:08 < zocky> trying to change the political system can get you imprisoned pretty much everywhere
2008-04-13 00:08 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- they wouldn't let us. =p
2008-04-13 00:08 < zocky> trying to secede a piece of territory is met with violent suppression in most places
2008-04-13 00:08 < arcimboldo_> They wouldn't?
2008-04-13 00:08 < Coldstart> In the US people are allowed to dissent against the government. They just can't advocate violent revolution.
2008-04-13 00:08 < zocky> Coldstart, so, they can't actually change the system, right?
2008-04-13 00:08 < arcimboldo_> North Korea has started to introduce little local markets.
2008-04-13 00:08 < Fennec> well, I think you can advocate, just not so much incite
2008-04-13 00:09 < Coldstart> Well they could do a petition to amend the constitution
2008-04-13 00:09 < Coldstart> So yes, they could change the system
2008-04-13 00:09 < Coldstart> They just have to use the procedure outlined in the constitution
2008-04-13 00:09 < zocky> how about abolish the government?
2008-04-13 00:09 < Golbez> i'm for taht one
2008-04-13 00:09 < Golbez> that
2008-04-13 00:09 < Krimpet> well, today you can dissent - not so much 50 years ago, though
2008-04-13 00:09 < zocky> not the government
2008-04-13 00:09 < Coldstart> If they wanted a new form of government they could propose that also
2008-04-13 00:09 < zocky> wrong word
2008-04-13 00:09 < Golbez> aww
2008-04-13 00:09 < Coldstart> They wouldn't be arrested for it
2008-04-13 00:09 < zocky> can the people abolish the constitution?
2008-04-13 00:09 < zocky> can a state secede from the union?
2008-04-13 00:10 < Coldstart> The articles of confederation was replaced by the constituion
2008-04-13 00:10 < Coldstart> Personally I think states should be able to secede
2008-04-13 00:10 < Golbez> zocky- a few of them tried about .. oh... seven score and seven years ago
2008-04-13 00:10 < Coldstart> But politically and militarily that would never be allowed to happen
2008-04-13 00:10 < arcimboldo_> Hm well, there are not that many Ron Paul supporters even if it's a free choice ...
2008-04-13 00:10 < zocky> let's be realistic - if there was anybody who seemed dangerous enough to the system they would be suppressed
2008-04-13 00:10 < Coldstart> A lot of people think New York City should secede from New York State
2008-04-13 00:10 < Golbez> <3 ron paul
2008-04-13 00:10 < zocky> just like anarchists were in 1920s and communists in 1950s
2008-04-13 00:10 < Coldstart> I don't see how it would be dangerous to go through the process and just engage in political activity
2008-04-13 00:11 < Coldstart> There's this one nut putting flyers up in manhattan about making free housing a constitutional right
2008-04-13 00:11 < Coldstart> nobody is stopping him
2008-04-13 00:11 < Golbez> the thing is, china has changed tremendously in the last 30 years
2008-04-13 00:11 < Coldstart> I even saw the guy once
2008-04-13 00:11 < Golbez> we should congratulate that, not complain about it
2008-04-13 00:11 * arcimboldo_ wouldn't like to be without some kind of government that regulates things
2008-04-13 00:11 < zocky> Coldstart, because they're irelevant loonies
2008-04-13 00:11 < zocky> you can go around china chanting slogans too, as long as they think you're an irrelevant loony
2008-04-13 00:12 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- 'things'. can you be more specific, or do you want everything regulated? =p
2008-04-13 00:12 < Coldstart> Well so is anyone who thinks they can do a better job than our greatest political minds who created the constitution
2008-04-13 00:12 < zocky> Coldstart, hahaha
2008-04-13 00:12 < Golbez> hey now, those political minds were great, but they weren't perfect
2008-04-13 00:12 < Golbez> that second amendment could have used a couple more drafts
2008-04-13 00:12 < Coldstart> I didn't say they were perfect
2008-04-13 00:12 < Coldstart> but the system they developed is elegant and it does work
2008-04-13 00:12 < Golbez> the commerce clause could have been reviewed and removed
2008-04-13 00:12 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: I think it is the balance between regulation and freedom that matters ... everybody has a slightly different idea in their head.
2008-04-13 00:13 < Golbez> the system they developed has been usurped for decades, so while what exists might superficially work, it's not the system they wanted.
2008-04-13 00:13 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- let people choose their regulator then! =p
2008-04-13 00:13 < Coldstart> well the president now has more power than the constitution intended, clearly
2008-04-13 00:13 < Golbez> as does congress
2008-04-13 00:13 < zocky> Coldstart, it's great for making a greatly unequal society which bombs other countries around the world. the chinese system is going in the same direction.
2008-04-13 00:13 < arcimboldo_> I like a government that prevents me from being shot by some psycho by not allowing everyone to carry a gun ...
2008-04-13 00:14 < Coldstart> The essence of it is the legislative body and the executive are balanced in power and the judiciary is independent but the other branches pick the judges
2008-04-13 00:14 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- but being stabbed by him is ok? :)
2008-04-13 00:14 < Coldstart> I think it's an elegant system personally
2008-04-13 00:14 < Coldstart> And under the original system, the wars we've had probably would not have happened
2008-04-13 00:14 < zocky> sweden seems to be much better
2008-04-13 00:14 < Coldstart> All these undeclared wars are probably unconstitutional
2008-04-13 00:14 < zocky> as does most of europe
2008-04-13 00:14 < Golbez> Coldstart- that original system was altered almost immediately after it started, though. that's just the unfortunate reality we've had.
2008-04-13 00:14 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: Going at me in order to stab me is a little less easy and comfortable than just holding a gun from 30 meters distance.
2008-04-13 00:15 < Coldstart> I agree it's been altered but not beyond recognition
2008-04-13 00:15 < zocky> you do know that roman empire was called a republic almost till the end?
2008-04-13 00:16 < zocky> the simple fact is, you have people in power who should be in prison
2008-04-13 00:16 < arcimboldo_> It is more us who have changed the meaning of "Republic" into what is today ..
2008-04-13 00:16 < Krimpet> the constitution was abused from the outset. :/ e.g. the [[Alien and Sedition Acts]]
2008-04-13 00:16 < Coldstart> I agree with that
2008-04-13 00:16 < zocky> claiming that the system works is a bit rich in view of that
2008-04-13 00:16 < Golbez> i dunno, we go to undeclared wars, we regulate the hell out of commerce that constitutionally was not supposed to be, we place limits on speech and assembly, we have a central bank and moneyed interests, habeas corpus is now a 'maybe' instead of a guarantee... really, what part of our system is the same as envisioned by the founders?
2008-04-13 00:16 < Coldstart> the checks and balances between the judiciary, executive and legislature
2008-04-13 00:17 < Golbez> Krimpet- not to mention the Whiskey Rebellion
2008-04-13 00:17 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: Who should be in charge of airline security without some form of administration? Or should there be no airliners at all?
2008-04-13 00:17 < zocky> Coldstart, they don't actually exist
2008-04-13 00:17 < Golbez> we didn't even make it to the 19th century
2008-04-13 00:17 < Coldstart> ok the veto doesn't exist?
2008-04-13 00:17 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- hire the mossad, they seem to know what they're doing. :P
2008-04-13 00:17 < arcimboldo_> And who should take care of the nuclear wapons?
2008-04-13 00:17 < arcimboldo_> and the uranium im the nuclear plants?
2008-04-13 00:18 < zocky> Coldstart, the limits on the executive don't actually exist
2008-04-13 00:18 < Golbez> Coldstart- do you know that FDR one threatened to add 6 new justices to the supreme court just so they would vote 'yes' on a violation of a constitution that he wanted? They did it anyway, to prevent him from altering the court.
2008-04-13 00:18 < Coldstart> The only limit congress has on the executive is the power to override a veto
2008-04-13 00:18 < Coldstart> Thats' it
2008-04-13 00:18 < zocky> Coldstart, there are some checks that can work if the congress majority opposes the president, and none if it doesn't.
2008-04-13 00:18 < Golbez> How's that for checks and balances?
2008-04-13 00:18 < Coldstart> Golbez : I'm aware of the court packing episode in FDR's administration
2008-04-13 00:18 < Coldstart> FDR is not one of my favorite presidents
2008-04-13 00:19 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- i dunno, who? at what point did I say "throw random questions at me and I'll say we should live without any regulation at all"? I asked you to be specific, because your statement was vague.
2008-04-13 00:19 < Coldstart> zocky : but that's the essence of the system. They need a supermajority
2008-04-13 00:19 < Golbez> Actually that's not true
2008-04-13 00:19 < Golbez> the congress has one other limit on the executive: the power to impeach.
2008-04-13 00:20 < Coldstart> I forgot about impeachment
2008-04-13 00:20 < zocky> Coldstart, and then they can do whatever they want?
2008-04-13 00:20 < Coldstart> Well if the president vetos something, and they don't override it, then yeah the veto sticks
2008-04-13 00:20 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: I was probably getting too much into "arguing with Ron Paul supporters like the nuts that are hanging out at #politics" mode, sorry.
2008-04-13 00:20 < zocky> no, I mean if the congress supports the president, or is simply being obedient
2008-04-13 00:20 < zocky> then the president can basically do whatever he wants
2008-04-13 00:21 < Coldstart> Yes
2008-04-13 00:21 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- I'm not a nut, though I am an anarchist and a Ron Paul supporter. I am just better at expressing my opinions than most Ronulans are. Also, more civil. :P
2008-04-13 00:21 < Coldstart> and at the next election, if the people don't like it, they can elect a new congress and president
2008-04-13 00:21 < zocky> does that sound like a really good plan to you?
2008-04-13 00:21 < Coldstart> It's based on the will of the people at the ballot box
2008-04-13 00:21 < Coldstart> If they want to give the president that much power, it's what they voted for
2008-04-13 00:22 < zocky> well, chinese politicians are also elected in some way
2008-04-13 00:22 < Golbez> Coldstart- the people re-elected Bush, so isn't that a support for his war?
2008-04-13 00:22 < zocky> and they do whatever they want once they're in power
2008-04-13 00:22 < Coldstart> So yeah, it's a good plan. If it goes wrong they will fix it at the next election
2008-04-13 00:22 < zocky> how's that really different?
2008-04-13 00:22 < Golbez> zocky- ehhh that's a bit of a stretch. =p
2008-04-13 00:22 < Coldstart> It is a majority support for the war, yes
2008-04-13 00:22 < Coldstart> I don't support the war
2008-04-13 00:22 < Coldstart> but I was kind of outvoted
2008-04-13 00:22 < zocky> Coldstart, how does that limit the power of the government then?
2008-04-13 00:22 < Fennec> quick! advocate violent armed overthrow!
2008-04-13 00:22 < Coldstart> zocky : we already established I don't think the olympics should be here either given the us govt's crimes
2008-04-13 00:22 < zocky> if you have the power you can do whatever you want?
2008-04-13 00:23 < zocky> break laws, break procedures?
2008-04-13 00:23 < Coldstart> Well, duh
2008-04-13 00:23 < Coldstart> Well you're not supposed to break laws
2008-04-13 00:23 < zocky> yeah, but what's stopping the american president from breaking laws?
2008-04-13 00:23 < Coldstart> but there's a political problem that the conservatives don't care and they seem to be winning a lot of elections now
2008-04-13 00:23 < Coldstart> I already told you, nothing
2008-04-13 00:23 < Coldstart> Because the courts aren't going after him
2008-04-13 00:23 < zocky> and I already told you, that's a bad plan
2008-04-13 00:23 < Coldstart> Ok, you make a better plan
2008-04-13 00:24 < Coldstart> the plan is good. Its excustion is poor
2008-04-13 00:24 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: Some key justifications for government: Protecting against crime, holding up a reasonable justice system, ensuring a basic living standard and an education system that gives everyone their fair chance in life.
2008-04-13 00:24 < Golbez> so where are the checks and balances if 1) the president can break the law, 2) congress is on board, and 3) the courts don't care?
2008-04-13 00:24 < zocky> well, I can think of some countries where people live free lives and presidents don't break laws and don't attack foreign countries
2008-04-13 00:24 < Coldstart> Like I said, under that circumstance it does (has) broken down
2008-04-13 00:24 < zocky> so obviously better plans exist
2008-04-13 00:24 < Coldstart> Ok, what's a better plan
2008-04-13 00:24 < Coldstart> that can't be corrupted
2008-04-13 00:24 < arcimboldo_> and making some things work that can only work as a joint effort.
2008-04-13 00:24 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- some key, few-word responses: 1) The market can do it, 2) I'll agree to that one, 3) A government can't maintain a standard of living, only an economy can do that, and 4) The market can do education better.
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> just look at which aren't corrupted
2008-04-13 00:25 < Coldstart> ok, name one
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> sweden
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> canada
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> netherlands
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> spain
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> portugal
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> france
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> germany
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> austria
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> denmark
2008-04-13 00:25 < Golbez> they haven't been corrupted *yet*. That doesn't mean they are fundamentally immune to corruption.
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> norway
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> any more?
2008-04-13 00:25 < Golbez> please stop flooding, use commas.
2008-04-13 00:25 < Coldstart> I don't know the systems in those countries, but I'm sure they aren't perfect either
2008-04-13 00:25 < Coldstart> The problem with the us is after world war ii they were the big kid on the block and all the power went to the govt's head
2008-04-13 00:25 < zocky> Coldstart, maybe not, but they don't bomb people and they don't kidnap people and torture them
2008-04-13 00:25 < Coldstart> Now the tide is finally turning and they're scared
2008-04-13 00:26 < White_Cat> zocky I can say most of those are pretty corrupted
2008-04-13 00:26 < Coldstart> I already agreed the US govt is corrupt
2008-04-13 00:26 < Coldstart> What point are you making exactly?
2008-04-13 00:26 < White_Cat> denmark is leaking corruption
2008-04-13 00:26 < zocky> my point is that american system sucks
2008-04-13 00:26 < Golbez> zocky- most of them used to. =p
2008-04-13 00:26 < Golbez> they got over it
2008-04-13 00:26 < zocky> it's not the current government that corrupted it
2008-04-13 00:26 < Golbez> america is younger and will get over it
2008-04-13 00:26 < White_Cat> even shakespere agrees
2008-04-13 00:26 < Coldstart> So
2008-04-13 00:26 < zocky> it's the inherent inequality that makes it corrupt
2008-04-13 00:26 < arcimboldo_> Golbez: The belief that the market/the economy can do everything should have died after the Irish famine in the 1840s at the latest.
2008-04-13 00:26 < kanzure> inequality?
2008-04-13 00:26 < Coldstart> Ok, cand you be specific
2008-04-13 00:26 < Golbez> it doesn't suck, it's just that the voters are idiots.
2008-04-13 00:26 < kanzure> What is inequality?
2008-04-13 00:26 < zocky> the inherent "every man for himself" phylosophy
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> so what we should be socialists
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> ?
2008-04-13 00:27 < kanzure> I think that the inequality problems are solved by stuff like http://reprap.org/
2008-04-13 00:27 < zocky> which inevitably causes inequality in wealth and therefore in power
2008-04-13 00:27 < White_Cat> zocky I dont know
2008-04-13 00:27 < zocky> the system is inherently anti-democratic
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> so you are advocating communism then?
2008-04-13 00:27 < White_Cat> current system is based on consumerism
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> well we have a mixed system
2008-04-13 00:27 < kanzure> zocky: Check out http://reprap.org/ as an alternative -- I think this breaks your 'divide' argument.
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> The income tax is a communist idea
2008-04-13 00:27 < White_Cat> so long as consumer is happy everything works out
2008-04-13 00:27 < zocky> Coldstart, I'm not aware of communist party ever being in power in say, sweden
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> So is social security medicare, etc
2008-04-13 00:27 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- and for the defense, i proffer World War II.
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> I'm not talking about sweeden
2008-04-13 00:27 < Coldstart> I'm talking about you
2008-04-13 00:28 < White_Cat> Coldstart "you"?
2008-04-13 00:28 < Coldstart> Surely you know the definition of you
2008-04-13 00:28 < White_Cat> it can mean many things
2008-04-13 00:28 < Coldstart> in this case it means zocky
2008-04-13 00:28 < Coldstart> who seems to think if we don'
2008-04-13 00:28 < Coldstart> t have a communist system
2008-04-13 00:29 < Coldstart> we're doomed to bomb and torture people
2008-04-13 00:29 < zocky> i advocate a system which prevents people from becoming insanely rich, because one person being rich means the same thing as other people being poor
2008-04-13 00:29 < Coldstart> of course the USSR had a communist system and they never harmed anybody
2008-04-13 00:29 < Golbez> no it doesn't
2008-04-13 00:29 < White_Cat> You is the second-person personal pronoun (subject case) in Modern English.
2008-04-13 00:29 < Golbez> that's a moronic stance
2008-04-13 00:29 < Messedrocker> never harmed anybody?
2008-04-13 00:29 < Coldstart> I am being sarcastic
2008-04-13 00:29 < Golbez> if i have $100 that doesn't mean one hundred other people only have $1.
2008-04-13 00:29 < Messedrocker> oh good
2008-04-13 00:29 < Coldstart> about the never harmed anybody
2008-04-13 00:29 < zocky> soviet union never harmed anybody in the way that US harmed vietnam or iraq
2008-04-13 00:29 < Coldstart> lol
2008-04-13 00:29 < Golbez> if I make $20 million a year, and everyone else makes $100,000, are they poor?
2008-04-13 00:29 < White_Cat> zocky really?
2008-04-13 00:30 < White_Cat> Afganistan?
2008-04-13 00:30 < Coldstart> Stalin killed more people than Hitler
2008-04-13 00:30 < zocky> White_Cat, really
2008-04-13 00:30 < Coldstart> You seem to be confused
2008-04-13 00:30 < zocky> White_Cat, no, they harmed afghanistan no more than NATO is harming it now
2008-04-13 00:30 < Golbez> zocky- except Afghanistan, Hungary, Romania, Poland, the Baltics...
2008-04-13 00:30 < White_Cat> Checkoslavakian republic?
2008-04-13 00:30 < Golbez> Czechoslovakia.
2008-04-13 00:30 < Golbez> East Germany.
2008-04-13 00:30 < Golbez> Ukraine.
2008-04-13 00:30 < White_Cat> oh I get it
2008-04-13 00:30 < zocky> ummm.... can you tell the difference between thousands imprisoned and millions dead?
2008-04-13 00:30 < Coldstart> Another communist country that turned into mass murder, Cambodia also
2008-04-13 00:30 < White_Cat> USSR harmed everyone under them equaly
2008-04-13 00:30 < Golbez> zocky- I can, how many millions died in the Holodomor?
2008-04-13 00:31 < White_Cat> zocky millions were killed under stalin
2008-04-13 00:31 < Coldstart> zocky : you seem to be unaware of the death toll of the USSR's communist period
2008-04-13 00:31 < Coldstart> Not imprisoned
2008-04-13 00:31 < Coldstart> DEAD
2008-04-13 00:31 < zocky> Golbez, holodomor as a purposeful crime is ukrainian nationalist propaganda
2008-04-13 00:31 < White_Cat> zocky USSR killed people to illustrate a point
2008-04-13 00:31 < Golbez> ...
2008-04-13 00:31 < Golbez> yeah, well that conversation is over
2008-04-13 00:31 < Golbez> let's talk about baseball
2008-04-13 00:31 < zocky> Coldstart, encyclopedias say 1.1 millon dead under stalin, mostly party members
2008-04-13 00:31 < Coldstart> I don't think that figure is right
2008-04-13 00:32 < White_Cat> I think the figure is right
2008-04-13 00:32 < Golbez> zocky- what about the crushing of the Hungarian revolution?
2008-04-13 00:32 < Coldstart> And lets assume it is
2008-04-13 00:32 < Coldstart> 1.1 million dead
2008-04-13 00:32 < White_Cat> those are just the people that died under stalins direct rule
2008-04-13 00:32 < Messedrocker> hmm
2008-04-13 00:32 < zocky> the whole inflation of victims of stalin began after 1990
2008-04-13 00:32 < Coldstart> Not exactly a great showing for communism, eh?
2008-04-13 00:32 < Messedrocker> Stalin killed 10% the amount of people Hitler did
2008-04-13 00:32 < White_Cat> zocky yes because we then had access to documents
2008-04-13 00:32 < Coldstart> I guess the distribution of wealth didn't do much to keep the government from committing mass murder
2008-04-13 00:32 < zocky> i'm old enough to remember history as was reported before that
2008-04-13 00:32 < zocky> it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were talking about
2008-04-13 00:33 < zocky> that was internal repression of political enemies
2008-04-13 00:33 < White_Cat> zocky I like inflation in body counts :)
2008-04-13 00:33 < zocky> i'm not saying it was right, it wasn't
2008-04-13 00:33 < Golbez> The funny thing here is, no one is downplaying America's responsibility or body counts. Yet you feel obligated to defend Stalin's indefensibles.
2008-04-13 00:33 < zocky> what I'm saying is that the way america is organized, rich industrialists control the government
2008-04-13 00:33 < White_Cat> zocky in korea and vietnam russia helped kill millions
2008-04-13 00:33 < zocky> and they need wars to make profit
2008-04-13 00:33 < Golbez> I'll agree with that, but that's not an indictment against being rich. That's an indictment against having a government. :>
2008-04-13 00:33 < White_Cat> alas via chineese soldiers
2008-04-13 00:34 < Coldstart> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Number_of_victims
2008-04-13 00:34 < zocky> Golbez, I'm not defending them at all, i'm putting them in perspective
2008-04-13 00:34 < White_Cat> zocky well
2008-04-13 00:34 < White_Cat> I agree with you on one thing
2008-04-13 00:34 < White_Cat> the body count is exagarated over time
2008-04-13 00:34 < Coldstart> You said the source of killings is economic inequality
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> But in communist states, there were also killings
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> Even if it was only 1.1 million by Stalin
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> Your argument fails
2008-04-13 00:35 < zocky> Coldstart, no, I said the source of american wars is inequality
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> That doesn't change what I just wrote
2008-04-13 00:35 < zocky> i didn't say that communism or whatever doesn't cause any killing
2008-04-13 00:35 < White_Cat> zocky the excuse is that yes
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> Ok, so what is the way to stop the killing then
2008-04-13 00:35 < zocky> that was your conjecture
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> Since the US system is terrible
2008-04-13 00:35 < White_Cat> inequality in freedom or wealth
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> and so is the communist system
2008-04-13 00:35 < Coldstart> So what is your plan
2008-04-13 00:35 * Golbez yawns and moves on to the next topic: Baseball.
2008-04-13 00:36 < Golbez> So, how bout them Cubs?
2008-04-13 00:36 < Coldstart> Since everyone else is a moron execpt for you
2008-04-13 00:36 < White_Cat> Golbez I dont know anything about baseball
2008-04-13 00:36 < arcimboldo_> Hm ... baseball is a US-only topic of interest ...
2008-04-13 00:36 < zocky> Coldstart, as I said repeatedly, there are plenty of countries where nobody is killing anybody, and which aren't invading other countries
2008-04-13 00:36 < Fennec> how about them Giants? apparently the stadium has been purged of all Barry Bonds references.
2008-04-13 00:36 < Golbez> arcimboldo_- the japanese and cubans would like a word with you
2008-04-13 00:36 < zocky> the idea that the only alternative to US is USSR was yours
2008-04-13 00:36 < arcimboldo_> I agree there are two or three exceptions ...
2008-04-13 00:36 < Golbez> Fennec- lol, really?
2008-04-13 00:36 < White_Cat> Golbez no they dont
2008-04-13 00:36 < White_Cat> cubans have no access to the net
2008-04-13 00:36 < Coldstart> So we should adopt the sweedish system of government then
2008-04-13 00:36 < arcimboldo_> But overall Europe there is hardly any interest in American Cricket.