View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:02 pm



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:19 am
Posts: 395
Reply with quote
Post Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
So guys here's where we hash out our collective ignorance (mine included, le gasp) of politics. Bunch of little minds is better than one little minds, ya know.

So I'll start off by asking a question. I figured that, with what little I know of the way patent and copyright laws work, after the inventor or creator or whatever dies, it's free for everyone forever to do what they want with it, unless it's bought or bequeathed. But, as I recall seeing that companies are technically people or something like that, they could buy and sell patents. Why is this legal? Seems like a bad idea.


Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:16 pm
Profile
DRL Developer
DRL Developer

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:29 am
Posts: 4107
Location: Russia
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Patents on something the patenter didn't invent shouldn't be legal imo.

Genes etc.


Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:19 am
Posts: 395
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Absolutely agreed. I'm interested in a logical rebuttal to this.


Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:38 pm
Profile
Data Realms Elite
Data Realms Elite
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:27 pm
Posts: 4521
Location: Constant motion
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
I agree with it, but a patent is as close to proof of invention as anything. I think patents should be free, as it will encourage inventors to lock in their designs before large companies can move in.


Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:19 am
Posts: 395
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Inventors sell patents, and companies can stipulate in contracts that they own anything you invent while you work for them.


Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:36 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4074
Location: That quaint little British colony down south
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Lizardheim wrote:
Patents on something the patenter didn't invent shouldn't be legal imo.

Genes etc.
Problem is that research into things like that becomes charity, essentially. Expensive, time-consuming charity.


Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:28 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:19 am
Posts: 395
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
411570N3 wrote:
Lizardheim wrote:
Patents on something the patenter didn't invent shouldn't be legal imo.

Genes etc.
Problem is that research into things like that becomes charity, essentially. Expensive, time-consuming charity.

This is actually a lot of what's wrong with the research industry today. Pharma companies don't seem to understand that you can't measure and quantify the unknown. Putting deadlines on research is just... dumb.


Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4074
Location: That quaint little British colony down south
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Deadlines are necessary because you are putting research teams and resources into the research, both of which are highly expensive. If you don't limit the outlay, make that money back and do so in a reasonably time-frame then you end up exhausting your ability to continue existing as a company.


Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:17 pm
Profile WWW
happy carebear mom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 am
Posts: 7094
Location: b8bbd5
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Clearly what needs to happen is we need to find a source of temporally unlimited* energy, distribute it to everyone on earth equally, and let the science flow. That or virtual reality.
*(fancy phrase to mean essentially unlimited according to our human timeframe)


Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:39 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:09 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Being The Great Juju
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Sarah Palin is dumb. Yes? Yes.


Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:19 am
Posts: 395
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Ragdollmaster wrote:
Sarah Palin is dumb. Yes? Yes.

What an excellent point, allow me to discuss it: Don't make stupid posts like this. Spawn discussion, don't spew ♥♥♥♥. I'm sure you expected everyone to go HAHA LOL UR SO RIGHT XD but that's not going to happen. Instead, this is me ridiculing you for attempting to beat the ♥♥♥♥ out of the dead horse that bandwagon is. Idiot.
Quote:
Deadlines are necessary because you are putting research teams and resources into the research, both of which are highly expensive. If you don't limit the outlay, make that money back and do so in a reasonably time-frame then you end up exhausting your ability to continue existing as a company.

This is a good point. I've been thinking about this a lot. As I understand it, corporations are required to maximize profit for their shareholders, regardless of benefit to society as a whole. I've been told herpes is curable, but there's more money in treatment than a cure obviously, so nobody has ever researched it far enough to find a cure. This is just one example. I can't think of a way that situations like this would be avoidable in a capitalist system. This just solidifies my faith in socialism.


Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:09 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Being The Great Juju
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Homophanim wrote:
Ragdollmaster wrote:
Sarah Palin is dumb. Yes? Yes.
I'm sure you expected everyone to go HAHA LOL UR SO RIGHT XD


Kinda, yeah. It seemed really, really witty.

Honestly, whyumadbro?



But if you insist, I'll elaborate on that non-existent point: How should we determine who gets to be a "politician" and who doesn't? It seems like a great deal of people holding office somewhere aren't there based on their merit, they're there because they can lie and persuade really well. Then, when people find out that they're total d-bags, they get thrown out of office as quickly as possible (which unfortunately can take a while in most cases since a lot of positions are held for 2, 4, or 6 years) Then someone else who's even better at lying replaces that d-bag and the cycle continues. Very few things are actually accomplished by people who are essentially figureheads that don't know what they're doing. I'm all for democracy and people getting a choice in their candidates, but it's the process of picking the candidates that irks me; instead of intelligent people who can do what needs to be done, anyone who wants to can run for an elected position. "BUT THIS IS AMERICA! OBVIOUSLY WE CAN ALL BE WHATEVER WE WANT TO BE! LAND OF THE FREE DAH DAH DAH"- yeah, OK, sure, and everyone could also be a space cowboy if they wanted to. Point being, some people just aren't suited for office, yet they somehow lodge their butts in there by persuading the public that they really can do a good job. How do we weed the morons out? Setting up a merit-based system of examinations (in the style of old China or somthin') is about all I can come up with. Your guys' thoughts on this?


Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:24 pm
Profile
Data Realms SUPER Elite
Data Realms SUPER Elite

Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:06 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: Over there.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
You destroy the source.

The source is (nowadays) Fox and the Heritage Foundation (back when). Now I don't mean to be mean to any republicans here, but this is where you are wrong. Fox and HF have been on the front line in recruiting ignorant people for ages. They are why people say things like "MURCA." If you got rid of Fox, got rid of HF, got rid of the idea that everybody else in the world is evil, then we get the country back.

Back when, before HF, We'd've called Reagan a republican. If you go by today's standards, he's a democrat. Same with Nixon and Eisenhower. HF and Fox have made it so that Republicans are nearing on Fascists. If it weren't for them, we'd have better education, better healthcare, better everything.

If you approach a typical Republican and say that France is a country which has higher taxes than us, but also has craploads of free, paid, vacation time and better pay in general, and then ask why our taxes should be lowered if it will only mean you get less money and get less free time, do you know the first thing they'll say?

It'll be this: OH, THOSE FRANKS 'VE NEVER WON A WAR! OH THOSE FRANKS EAT SNAILS! I'M NOT GONNA LET DEM TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM FRIES! NOOO WAY. STUPID FRENCH.

It goes to name calling. In fact, American taxes have been lower than they ever have. Ever. Since the days when we didn't have taxes, we've never had taxes so low. And it's ruining the country. They can't think up a good reason why they should have stupid children, make less, work more, and just live in an absolute shithole. They can't! There's no reason why they should! Yet that's what Fox and HF have made them believe, that they should!

These idiots have such a powerful influence that they can and will vote for anybody who thinks like they do. Why would you want your politicians to be regular people. I want mine to be smarter than me so they can make better decisions. I don't want an average Joe in there. They make bad decisions. But because they have so much power, there will always be those average Joes.




Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:19 am
Posts: 395
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Ragdollmaster wrote:
Homophanim wrote:
Ragdollmaster wrote:
Sarah Palin is dumb. Yes? Yes.
I'm sure you expected everyone to go HAHA LOL UR SO RIGHT XD


Kinda, yeah. It seemed really, really witty.

Honestly, whyumadbro?

Because the point of the topic is discussion, not to make dumb jokes. I pity you if you think that was witty.
Witty - Noun: Mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence
How the ♥♥♥♥ is making fun of Sarah Palin demonstrative of keen intelligence? It's ♥♥♥♥ Sarah Palin for christ's sake, not exactly unknown that she's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
Quote:
But if you insist, I'll elaborate on that non-existent point: How should we determine who gets to be a "politician" and who doesn't? It seems like a great deal of people holding office somewhere aren't there based on their merit, they're there because they can lie and persuade really well. Then, when people find out that they're total d-bags, they get thrown out of office as quickly as possible (which unfortunately can take a while in most cases since a lot of positions are held for 2, 4, or 6 years) Then someone else who's even better at lying replaces that d-bag and the cycle continues. Very few things are actually accomplished by people who are essentially figureheads that don't know what they're doing. I'm all for democracy and people getting a choice in their candidates, but it's the process of picking the candidates that irks me; instead of intelligent people who can do what needs to be done, anyone who wants to can run for an elected position. "BUT THIS IS AMERICA! OBVIOUSLY WE CAN ALL BE WHATEVER WE WANT TO BE! LAND OF THE FREE DAH DAH DAH"- yeah, OK, sure, and everyone could also be a space cowboy if they wanted to. Point being, some people just aren't suited for office, yet they somehow lodge their butts in there by persuading the public that they really can do a good job. How do we weed the morons out? Setting up a merit-based system of examinations (in the style of old China or somthin') is about all I can come up with. Your guys' thoughts on this?

Any system is prone to corruption, there never will be a government without it without complete transparency, which as you should be aware is a laughable idea. Take a look at lobbying some time. It makes more sense to be productive at the basic level, the voters. Education has always produced positive results, be it birth rates or poverty levels or anything like that. Knowledge is power.


Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:53 am
Posts: 136
Location: Doing something stupid somewhere
Reply with quote
Post Re: Politics question/debate topic, Ron Paul is inarguable
Add to ragdollmaster's point - politicians also accepted the right money.

Nonseq is right. But i would go a little bit further - i would say that large (probably multi-national) companies are pulling the strings of half the senators in the government. Who is it easier to get money from; an uneducated idiot or an informed idiot? The more desperate people are, the the more poor they get, the less knowledgable they become; then the commercials showing shiny happy people start to become more effective - "if you want to be like them, buy this and this, and also this." These companies have insane amounts of money at their disposal, and they use it to get what they want.

Homophanim wrote:
I can't think of a way that situations like this would be avoidable in a capitalist system. This just solidifies my faith in socialism.


The voters have power, yes. But the companies have money. Which goes farther in this world?


Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.
[ Time : 0.025s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]