So you're saying that a lot of people are unsuited to, or dislike, manual labour. Ok, but clearly not everyone, because a lot of people are employed in manual labour jobs, and the work does get done because we have our roads and houses and all. And then there are plenty of jobs that don't involve manual labour.
Again, I ask this question: would the world still be running if, as you say, people didn't work anymore? You'd think that at least some people are working, some of the time, and they are at least working enough that we as a civilisation aren't starving and huddling cold on the streets.
Yeah, like I said, crime expanded onto a new platform with computers. But crime will appear anywhere where there are people; it's inevitable. It's not reasonable to denounce something just because it is susceptible to crime. Should we say that cars are bad because people can crash? That shops are bad because they can get robbed? That fences are bad because they can get graffitied on?
And I do agree with you in saying that people are more easily distracted by the computer than by most other activities. But what about the advantages of computers - don't they far outweigh the disadvantages? I already addressed this point in another post, so I'll just quote it here:
Computers have made it easy to store huge archives of data, and to make this data available to anyone else with a computer. It's possible for entire libraries' worth of information to be accessible by billions of people at a fraction of its previous cost. Communication and collaboration over vast distances is effortless. Planning, writing, drawing, or simulation is much easier on a computer than on traditional media, because it can calculate, replicate, or undo actions so much faster than a human can. All this means that education and research is faster, easier, cheaper, and available to more people - which in turn means much, much faster societal and technological progress.
The downside to all this is, basically, just that people have to keep their priorities in place (like knowing when they should be studying rather than checking Facebook), and have to take precautions against cybercrime. These concerns are important, of course, but do they get anywhere near outweighing the benefits of relying on computers?
Please, instead of trying to sound smart-ass, actually answer my question. I called to question your claim that people today don't work at all, which I find utterly absurd.
Also, note that I agreed that it's possible that people nowadays don't work as hard as people did in the past. You don't need to raise examples of how hard people used to work; I haven't even been disputing that point. What I did dispute is whether or not it's a bad thing for people to work less.
And I'm not sure what performing daily tasks to sustain life, like building fires and tilling fields, has to do with ambition. That's basic survival. Ambition is when you strive for more than the basics, like getting more educated, or getting wealthier, or getting more influential... or coming up with the scientific and technological breakthroughs that are the hallmark of the modern times.
Well, in your other post you said that just because a doctor diagnosed autism, it doesn't mean they have it. I took that to mean that you believe autism is a genuine disorder, but that it is sometimes diagnosed on people who don't have this disorder.
If your argument is that autism isn't actually a disorder, I'll go about replying in a different way.
It's true that many of the symptoms of autism are similar to what you see in neglected or abused children, but that doesn't mean they have the same cause. According to this site, genetics appears to be important. That's hardly attributable to bad parenting:
Causes, incidence, and risk factors
Autism is a physical condition linked to abnormal biology and chemistry in the brain. The exact causes of these abnormalities remain unknown, but this is a very active area of research. There are probably a combination of factors that lead to autism.
Genetic factors seem to be important. For example, identical twins are much more likely than fraternal twins or siblings to both have autism. Similarly, language abnormalities are more common in relatives of autistic children. Chromosomal abnormalities and other nervous system (neurological) problems are also more common in families with autism.
A number of other possible causes have been suspected, but not proven. They involve:
- Diet
- Digestive tract changes
- Mercury poisoning
- The body's inability to properly use vitamins and minerals
- Vaccine sensitivity
(from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Just because the disorder is sometimes wrongly diagnosed on healthy people, that doesn't mean the disorder itself is an excuse. All it means is that doctors should try to be more careful with their diagnosis, and healthy people shouldn't hide under the label of a disorder they don't have.
And common sense? Do you really think society wouldn't have crumbled to pieces and humanity gone extinct by now if nobody worked or had ambition nowadays, as you said?
People work less now than they used to, possibly; people have less ambition now than they used to, possibly. (Personally I don't see the former as necessarily a bad thing, and the latter I find highly suspect.) But to say that work and ambition are gone is such a gross exaggeration that I can't take it seriously.
It can be a valuable tool if used well. It has its dangers, but that's what parents are for - to explain to them what the dangers are and how to avoid them. The internet is one of the safest places for kids to experiment independence in, provided they understand a few very obvious rules and the reasoning behind them.
Everything you've said is true, but it's only one part of the story.
Computers have made it easy to store huge archives of data, and to make this data available to anyone else with a computer. It's possible for entire libraries' worth of information to be accessible by billions of people at a fraction of its previous cost. Communication and collaboration over vast distances is effortless. Planning, writing, drawing, or simulation is much easier on a computer than on traditional media, because it can calculate, replicate, or undo actions so much faster than a human can. All this means that education and research is faster, easier, cheaper, and available to more people - which in turn means much, much faster societal and technological progress.
The downside to all this is, basically, just that people have to keep their priorities in place (like knowing when they should be studying rather than checking Facebook), and have to take precautions against cybercrime. These concerns are important, of course, but do they get anywhere near outweighing the benefits of relying on computers?
Surveys suggest that office workers spend about 80% of their work time on work-related tasks. And common sense tells me that a lot of people do work, or we'll have no food to eat, no clothes to wear, no homes to live in, and the human race would have died out. So yeah, while there certainly are freeloaders here and there, there are more people who genuinely work.
I'm sure some people do feel that way and laze around in all their free time... but take a look at the internet, and see how much self-published literature, music or artwork have cropped up (most of it sucks, but that's another point); take a look at how many hobby clubs have sprung up; take a look at the entire industry of self-help manuals. Ambition is alive, and I think the advent of the internet as a new communication and educational medium has only boosted it. In the past most people, especially women, were happy to think of themselves as "ordinary folk" who will never amount to anything special, but now lots of people want to be the next star, and work towards that goal.
Some people seem to do badly at school no matter how hard they try, so they tell themselves that they just don't have the talent. But in many cases that's not true.
I've been tutoring classmates for years, and I've come to think that the real reason they do badly is that they're not working the right way. It's not that they don't have talent, or they're not studying hard enough... they're just not studying effectively.
I had a friend in law school who spent 2 hours every evening reading her textbook, but she kept failing the tests. She told me she had no talent for law and might as well quit. But when I looked at her test the real reason was obvious. The test was conducted in essay format, and she didn't know how to write essays. Most of the time she wrote irrelevant answers, and even when she was writing the right thing, her answer was completely unorganised. She should have been practising analysing test questions and writing essays, not memorising textbooks.
I had another friend, this time from philosophy class. He could write well, but he was barely passing. I looked at his assignments, and again found that it wasn't about talent. The problem was that there was, well, no philosophy in his assignments. He wasn't arguing for a position; he was just writing long introductions to the topics. I suggested that he read articles from academic journals, figure out how they argued, and copy them. He got A- at the end of the semester, a big jump up from C.
That's just 2 examples; I could list more. (I'm an example as well: I used to think I was hopeless at physical education, but eventually realised the reason I kept losing was simply that I didn't practise enough, even though I thought I did.) My point is, a lot of people think that they have no talent at something when in fact they just haven't been doing it the right way. "Talented" people are just people who work hard and work right.
Firstly, the actual situation is nowhere close to nobody working; the global unemployment rate is somewhere around 10%, which means 90% of people who are able to work are working.
Secondly, not working for wages or a salary isn't equivalent to a lack of ambition or dreams... many ambitions are completely unrelated to paid employment.
I would explain how each of those six examples are most certainly arguable, whether or not they are opinions (e.g. "Abortion should be illegal", "Computers have made life easier", and "You can't debate for your life" are all opinions, and all capable of being debate topics), but it seems to me like you've lost interest in arguing this with me. I won't push you on this any further unless you wish me to; I think the real reason you chose to leave all those debates dangling is evident to the both of us, whatever you claim.
But on another note, I'm starting to think that you're probably not a troll after all. A genuine troll would probably have given outrageous explanations for my 6 examples, rather than hunt around for a reasonable defence of their actions.
I don't know the statistics, and didn't find any studies relating precisely to the correspondence between the ages of thieves and the household wealth of their victims... but I did find these:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15304/
"In 2004, people with lower incomes tended to report more crime than higher-income people did. While 35% of people with household incomes of less than $20,000 a year reported some crime, only 21% of people with household incomes of more than $75,000 a year reported some crime. In previous years, household income has not been as highly correlated with crime rates."
But note that this counts all crimes, not just theft.
--------------------------------------
I also found this, which related specifically to theft. An older study (from the 90s), but should still be pretty relevant:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/
"Households with low incomes were generally burglarized at higher rates than households with higher annual incomes across all areas of residence. Generally, within each type of area, motor vehicle theft rates were similar for all levels of income. However, in all areas of residence, households in high-income categories were generally more likely to be the victims of thefts than households in low-income categories."
The wording confused me somewhat, but I'm taking it to mean that poor households get burgled more often than rich households, whereas rich households get their cars stolen more often than poor households.
--------------------------------------
But then there's these statistics from Canada (the previous ones were US), which said that rich people are more likely to be property theft victims than poor people:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/
"In contrast to their higher rates of violent victimization, Canadians living in low-income households were less likely to be the victims of personal property theft and property-related household crimes."
--------------------------------------
...so yeah, I'll just have to say that my Googling hasn't found conclusive data either way. But there is plenty of data to show that poor people do get targeted; it's not true that they have "nothing worth stealing".
It has downsides, but do the downsides outweigh the upsides?
Crime existed before computers were around; computers didn't invent theft, theft simply moved onto a new platform. Sabotage, scams, and the like were all around before the advent of computers.
Distraction from studying also existed in many forms before we had computers. Computers just gave us an alternative distraction, nothing more. And unlike many other distractions (like partying or playing sports), computers can also help you with your study.
Meeting with the Dalai Lama is quite different from actually supporting Tibetan independence. The latter would be a violation of China's sovereignty, and I wouldn't blame China for protesting it. But the former is just... the President having a talk with somebody.
It's just a sexual preference... I don't see how performing particular types of sex acts would empower women.
And even if it somehow did, surely it would not only empower women, but also men and transsexuals, since sadomasochism can be performed by people of any sex.
I personally also believe that good/evil, right/wrong etc are concepts independent of religious thought, but this would go against the idea that evil is the absence of God's love. To say that good is where God is, and evil is where God isn't, is to tie religion inextricably with these concepts.
Or alternately, publicly display downvoters' names (say, list the voters in the post title, in between the poster's name and the points), so the person who got downvoted can challenge them to explain their vote.
Publicly displaying upvoters would be nice too... when I read a particularly good post, I'd wish there was a way I could specifically tell the poster that I enjoyed reading it without having to add a reply that says nothing more than "I agree".
I don't see any merits for keeping the voting system anonymous on a debate site.
(1) You made an accusation, I argued that it was unfounded... and you consider there to be nothing to dispute over?
(2) The debate topic is abuot upvotes and downvotes, and specifically mentioned you as someone who gets downvoted a lot. In my post I explained (upon your challenge, too!) why, in my opinion, your posts draw downvotes so often. That is hardly off-topic.
(3) In this debate I first challenged you to elaborate on your stance, then acknowledged that I had misunderstood your original post, then asked two questions, which you did not answer. I don't see where any whining at all came in, let alone enough whining that might reasonably get you annoyed enough to ignore my posts.
And how about debates 4, 5, and 6, which you also provided no responses for?
I'm not afraid of death itself. It seems most likely that death is simply permanent unconsciousness. That's not scary or unpleasant at all; it's just... nothing. Literally. I'll regret having to die, because it means I won't be able to do all the stuff I enjoy doing, but I don't fear it.
I'm afraid of the process of dying though - afraid that it'll be painful, gross, just generally horrible. If I end up with some debilitating terminal illness, I'll probably go straight for the euthanasia option if it exists.
EDIT: omg. Peekaboo(666) - my 666th post is about death! It wasn't deliberate o_o
Ugh, I don't want any kind of extreme weather. My favourite climate would be one that is perpetually comfortably warm (not hot), neither humid nor dry, has little or no wind, is not sunny, not rainy, definitely not snowing... basically, just balanced.
I know it makes for boring scenery, but I'll take comfort over eye-candy any day.
