Social Just Warriors in Space....and Beyond

[Ducman69]

You're now arguing over the dropout rate of Star Fleet Academy?

*facepalm* In a capitalist society, generally speaking, the more talented you are, the more money you make, the higher your quality of life. In the Communist Star Trek universe, the more talented you are, the more affluent your position, the less drudge/dirty work you do, and the higher your quality of life.

The US isn't the world. And obesity epidemic has a lot to do with the kinds of foods we eat.

*woosh* You're really good at missing obvious points, aren't you? The point is that you can give someone food and medicine, and they can still be poor compared to say some federation noblemen that they transport now and then with highest respect who has people taking orders left and right and gets better accommodations, etc.

What in the hell is all of this? You seem to think Star Trek is real...

What gave it away? Was it the part that I said that the writers put in a bunch of nonsensical inconsistencies that don't make sense?

Let me break this down again really simple.

Star Trek is an inconsistent fiction, where the writers fucked up a lot, in particular in their inability to explain how the economy could work in the Communist utopia propaganda they were peddling. This is quite normal with most socialists, who insist "real socialism hasn't been tried yet" when countries they espoused as socialist examples to strive for like Venezuela collapse in virtually the blink of an eye, and devolve into a Communist dictatorship... again.

Guys, Star Trek isn't 'unlimited resources', it's 'post-scarcity', in the terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

1) That's irrelevant, as post-scarcity only means that basic commodities have become cheap.

2) The first-world today is a 'post-scarcity' world already in practice, in that even our poorest welfare queens have food, water, shelter, security, and healthcare provided by the state... so much so that most are overweight. But guess what... 99.9% of people aren't content with that kind of post-scarcity, and will still want big mansions, Ferraris, boats, and, well, MORE. What prevents this, unless you have a draconian Communist government that stops individuals from accumulating "stuff" no matter how hard they work, and if they do, how do they prevent resentment from their hard work being taken away from them and some sloth that wakes up at 10AM, gets a blowjob from a virtual girl in the holodeck, then plays whatever the latest video game is, before eating some ice cream, and taking a nap and lives an identical lifestyle? That's why socialists experiments fail, as its very demotivational and so per-person productivity massively drops and EVERYONE ends up poor.

3) If some resources are still scarce, then they have value (currency), and there is competition for those scarce resources, and that means greater power to those that control it, and people fighting for power and control is what wars and disparities in "haves" vs "have-nots" is all about. Besides, Maslow was full of crap, as based on his views, every welfare queen or socialist state that has existed so far should have people striving towards and eventually achieving self-actualization, but that's not how people work. If people can't satisfy greed and get "more", then they like to conserve energy and be comfortable. That means that when your Star Fleet boss says you have to wake up at 5AM for training, run ten miles, shower, put on your red shirt, and then be cannon fodder towards some alien menace, or alternatively you can say "fuck you" and do whatever the hell you want to do, most will choose the latter.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

1) Post-scarcity is entirely relevant- in the 'first world', you can still starve to death or freeze to death or die of dehydration on the streets. You can still die from preventable and treatable diseases, even if you're not poor. And thanks for attempting to redefine the term totally away from the context so you can make your argument- otherwise, it falls apart, see below.

2) So no, even the first world isn't post-scarcity in practice (and I'm not arguing that it ever should be). But in Star Trek, rather in the Federation, one gets 'more' by producing more; however, production is not a requirement just to be alive as it generally is in the world today. There are plenty of examples in the show concerning people that do what they do for recognition and fame. Even attaining rank in Star Fleet is prestigious, as Starfleet captains are some of the most influential people in their society.

3) One of the major arguments made in Star Trek is that Federation societies- including Earth and humanity- have moved beyond their basic instincts. You're arguing that people aren't 'ready' for full socialism/communism/whatever, and in our world, I'm not going to argue against that. What I'm arguing is that in the fictional Star Trek universe, humanity *has* changed, and a large part of that change has been the technology to provide everyone with what they need to live.

 

[heatlesssun]

*facepalm* In a capitalist society, generally speaking, the more talented you are, the more money you make, the higher your quality of life. In the Communist Star Trek universe, the more talented you are, the more affluent your position, the less drudge/dirty work you do, and the higher your quality of life.

You don't seem to have seen any of the original series. Like so many things you bring up, there's a Star Trek episode for it. Dr. Richard Daystrom. He revolutionized Federation computer technology with his discovery of duotronics. The episode "The Ultimate Computer" had much to say about human ambition and reward.

*woosh* You're really good at missing obvious points, aren't you? The point is that you can give someone food and medicine, and they can still be poor compared to say some federation noblemen that they transport now and then with highest respect who has people taking orders left and right and gets better accommodations, etc.

Huh? Again you seem to have never seen a single Star Trek episode. What you're not getting is that that no one has to work for food that can be replicated at pretty much no cost. You're thinking of basic needs in a society with magical technology in todays terms. But the Federation isn't all powerful, not all needs and wants can be replicated. But basic medicine, which is far more advanced than the best medicine we have today can be done with the push of a button. 300 years ago what would cheap stuff today cost then? That's what you're missing.

Star Trek is an inconsistent fiction, where the writers fucked up a lot, in particular in their inability to explain how the economy could work in the Communist utopia propaganda they were peddling. This is quite normal with most socialists, who insist "real socialism hasn't been tried yet" when countries they espoused as socialist examples to strive for like Venezuela collapse in virtually the blink of an eye, and devolve into a Communist dictatorship... again.

Star Trek is over 50 years old. So what's you're point?

1) That's irrelevant, as post-scarcity only means that basic commodities have become cheap.

2) The first-world today is a 'post-scarcity' world already in practice, in that even our poorest welfare queens have food, water, shelter, security, and healthcare provided by the state... so much so that most are overweight. But guess what... 99.9% of people aren't content with that kind of post-scarcity, and will still want big mansions, Ferraris, boats, and, well, MORE. What prevents this, unless you have a draconian Communist government that stops individuals from accumulating "stuff" no matter how hard they work, and if they do, how do they prevent resentment from their hard work being taken away from them and some sloth that wakes up at 10AM, gets a blowjob from a virtual girl in the holodeck, then plays whatever the latest video game is, before eating some ice cream, and taking a nap and lives an identical lifestyle? That's why socialists experiments fail, as its very demotivational and so per-person productivity massively drops and EVERYONE ends up poor.

3) If some resources are still scarce, then they have value (currency), and there is competition for those scarce resources, and that means greater power to those that control it, and people fighting for power and control is what wars and disparities in "haves" vs "have-nots" is all about. Besides, Maslow was full of crap, as based on his views, every welfare queen or socialist state that has existed so far should have people striving towards and eventually achieving self-actualization, but that's not how people work. If people can't satisfy greed and get "more", then they like to conserve energy and be comfortable. That means that when your Star Fleet boss says you have to wake up at 5AM for training, run ten miles, shower, put on your red shirt, and then be cannon fodder towards some alien menace, or alternatively you can say "fuck you" and do whatever the hell you want to do, most will choose the latter.

I was watching ST:TOS reruns over 40 years ago. It's not a rational thing to me, Star Trek touched my soul and my mind. That show led me on path to want to know. Not that I'm any great mind but as I have said, like many others, this show made me want to learn. It was directly responsible for why I became interested in computers. I hold it in high esteem for that reason. You go on and on about economics and this and that but you don't seem to be able to conceive of child's mind that imagined the possibilities. Not for want or gain but just out of curiosity.

That is why some will see this show as something as left wing propaganda. It gave people hope and encouragement to better themselves, to learn and to at another level understand their place in the universe. Indeed to accept that there is a universe, that the earth isn't 10k years old and that our actions have consequences. You've never considered that people that love this show have a reaction that you can't account for. That's the beauty of Star Trek. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

 

[Ducman69]

1) Post-scarcity is entirely relevant- in the 'first world', you can still starve to death or freeze to death or die of dehydration on the streets.

*rolleyes*

But in Star Trek, rather in the Federation, one gets 'more' by producing more;

How? There's no currency, which means no way to track production and exchange that productivity for scarce goods/services down the road. Even if every single person in America was given a small government flat, food and water rations, and public transportation, people would have a desire for more. I like my car, its fun. I'd like a Ferrari even better. And if I had a Ferrari, I'd enjoy having that new pusher boat-plane in my stable as well... and maybe upgrade my video card, or heck even just an hour back massage. There's obviously a lot more to quality of life than food and medicine.

One of the major arguments made in Star Trek is that Federation societies- including Earth and humanity- have moved beyond their basic instincts.

That humans have stopped being human... like I said, stupid socialist drivel that you hear from college hippies. "Like we should do away with like money maaan, and *inhales deeply and passes it along*, like you know like I could just have like goats and can make cheese and milk, and like if I need some, like, bread then you can make bread and trade me, man"... which of course is how currency evolved, because it makes trading goods and services easier.

What I'm arguing is that in the fictional Star Trek universe, humanity *has* changed, and a large part of that change has been the technology to provide everyone with what they need to live.

Like I said, if you're in a first world country, you ALREADY live in that post-scarcity environment, in which just having basic food, water, and shelter isn't enough. People don't suddenly cease to be people with logical risk/cost/reward decision making capabilities. That's why Star Trek is stupid when it preaches that stuff.

Luckily, they didn't always harp on it, so it was easy to roll your eyes and ignore the Commi-propaganda. Especially in the latest movies which are pretty much all sci-fi action and no preachy-nonsense.

 

[Ducman69]

You don't seem to have seen any of the original series.

So I'm a liar? Thanks, fuck you too I guess. *shrugs* That episode also doesn't somehow alleviate all the logical contradictions in Star Trek, because my entire point is that one episode will contradict another or a movie.

What you're not getting is that that no one has to work for food that can be replicated at pretty much no cost.

Which part of my post-scarcity replies were confusing you? I've said multiple times that even if you provide food, water, and shelter, it doesn't MATTER if that's free, because ships, cars, houses, swimming pools, spas, etc. aren't all free. The only person "not getting it" is you, because you don't want to.

Star Trek is over 50 years old. So what's you're point?

How many times do you want me to break it down for you? Just scroll up. Yes, its an old show, and the numerous writers that worked on it have fucked up with inconsistencies that contradict previous episodes, most notably in attempting to promote a currency free Communist utopia that makes no sense.

It's not a rational thing to me, Star Trek touched my soul and my mind.

I can tell you're not rational, so stop trying to argue my rational obvious points. You like the leftist propaganda, even if it doesn't make sense, because it makes you feel good. You're not the first person to experience confirmation bias that likes to hear what they want to believe. Heck, that's the foundation of most religions...

 

[IdiotInCharge]

*rolleyes*

So facts don't matter? Got you.

How? There's no currency, which means no way to track production and exchange that productivity for scarce goods/services down the road. Even if every single person in America was given a small government flat, food and water rations, and public transportation, people would have a desire for more. I like my car, its fun. I'd like a Ferrari even better. And if I had a Ferrari, I'd enjoy having that new pusher boat-plane in my stable as well... and maybe upgrade my video card, or heck even just an hour back massage. There's obviously a lot more to quality of life than food and medicine.

Currency- as in money- isn't the only way to track resources. Especially what are essentially 'state' resources. Hell, even modern resources aren't tracked in terms of money- that figure is applied and attached, but you still want to know how many cars you have on your dealership lot or how many boxes of cereal you have in the warehouse, not just what they're worth.

That humans have stopped being human... like I said, stupid socialist drivel that you hear from college hippies. "Like we should do away with like money maaan, and *inhales deeply and passes it along*, like you know like I could just have like goats and can make cheese and milk, and like if I need some, like, bread then you can make bread and trade me, man"... which of course is how currency evolved, because it makes trading goods and services easier.

It's their argument, not mine, but they do make it and they do support it, regardless of feasibility. We can view it as an ideal, and not necessarily a 'socialist' one.

Like I said, if you're in a first world country, you ALREADY live in that post-scarcity environment, in which just having basic food, water, and shelter isn't enough. People don't suddenly cease to be people with logical risk/cost/reward decision making capabilities. That's why Star Trek is stupid when it preaches that stuff.

No, we don't live in post-scarcity, not even in the first world. See first response above for more.

And again, they're not preaching- they're presenting, based on altered assumptions, as necessary for any science fiction. Literally, their society is different because their technology has advanced and allowed for that- and do note, these are ideals that they aspire to in the fiction, yet don't always achieve.

Luckily, they didn't always harp on it, so it was easy to roll your eyes and ignore the Commi-propaganda. Especially in the latest movies which are pretty much all sci-fi action and no preachy-nonsense.

Communism asserts state control over all individuals. This is not what's happening in Star Trek- indeed, any Starfleet officer can just walk away, and many contemplate doing so. Those that stay do so because they wish to serve (and possibly want the fame and prestige and access to more resources beyond basic needs that come with advancing in rank).

 

[heatlesssun]

I can tell you're not rational, so stop trying to argue my rational obvious points. You like the leftist propaganda, even if it doesn't make sense, because it makes you feel good. You're not the first person to experience confirmation bias that likes to hear what they want to believe. Heck, that's the foundation of most religions...

And once again there is a Star Trek episode about this. Khan Noonien Singh. He and his kind thought they were better than everyone else. And all they did was bring destruction and despair across space and time. A genetically engineered super race that thought had all the answers but had none. Star Trek conceived of so many things we think about today before we were born it's beyond scary.

 

[heatlesssun]

What I really don't get in Ducman69'a outrage over Star Trek is why he can't accept that many people gained enormous hope from this show. It's not like he's offering any. I guess he thinks hope costs money that's coming out of his pocket?

 

[Ducman69]

What I really don't get in Ducman69'a outrage over Star Trek is why he can't accept that many people gained enormous hope from this show. It's not like he's offering any. I guess he thinks hope costs money that's coming out of his pocket?

What I really don't get about Heatlesssun, who I like to refer to in the third person, is why he can't accept that I said I like the show, have watched every Star Trek episode and movie of the franchise, and merely pointed out that I don't care for the Communist propaganda sprinkles that show up now and then.

 

[Ducman69]

So facts don't matter?

Not to you, apparently, since you're convinced that we have people starving to death in the streets of Houston.

Currency- as in money- isn't the only way to track resources. Especially what are essentially 'state' resources. Hell, even modern resources aren't tracked in terms of money- that figure is applied and attached, but you still want to know how many cars you have on your dealership lot or how many boxes of cereal you have in the warehouse, not just what they're worth.

Wow. Currency is used so that you can more easily trade goods and services. It can be paper, cows, coins, gold bars, latinum, it doesn't matter, as long as it has a reasonably consistent value.

Communism asserts state control over all individuals. This is not what's happening in Star Trek- indeed, any Starfleet officer can just walk away, and many contemplate doing so.

The only difference is that in practice Communist countries had to resort to jailing people that refused to work or having a system where you don't get your housing/food voucher without working, because almost everyone would prefer not to work. If the choice is go play basketball or go pickup everyone's trash or maintain the sewer system or fix air-conditioners in the hottest part of the day, people will just go play basketball. But Communists governments don't just pluck you out of your home and assign you a random job either, and the job openings were available to you that you can apply to based on your aptitude. Take the appropriate training, pass a test, pick from available positions in preference, and based on your score is how you get dibs.

Communist proponents today also don't like talking about forcing you to work, or you go to jail, so they like to leave that part out, as Star Trek did in their propaganda promoting Communist ideals.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

You're seriously stuck on your anti-commie shtick, so far that you've totally veered off topic. Let it go.

 

[Ducman69]

You're seriously stuck on your anti-commie shtick, so far that you've totally veered off topic. Let it go.

I made a simple comment, and you kept challenging it ad nauseam. Why not take your own advice and drop it?

Besides: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...is-just-true-communism-arriving/#23f64161ef64

And Gene Roddenberry's wife said he was a Maoist, which really there are various flavors of extreme-leftism but are all essentially commi (marxism, lenninism, maoism, etc).

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The article argues for 'true communism', which is nothing like what we describe as communism. Changing your definitions again, huh?

And further- regardless of what Roddenberry's proclivities were reported to be, we're arguing what was actually in the universe he birthed, which is decidedly not communism as we know it.

 

[M76]

Huh? The Federation is a powerful multi-species, multi-cultural interplanetary utopia dedicated to the ideals of freedom, equality and self-determination of all sentient life forms throughout the cosmos with a level of science and technology that's essentially magic compared to present reality. ST:TOS was indeed all about social justice particularly for it's time.

The idea of such vastly different species living together under a single government working in peace and cooperation to protect and help one another is the core of concept of the Star Trek universe, as much of the story of Start Trek is about maintaining those ideals and the conflicts involved. From the Prime Directive to Section 39.

It still doesn't make it even similar to what social justice means now.
Social justice is the opposite of freedom and self determination. Social justice dictates that every group must be made equal in every aspect of life (ofc only the desirable ones) by top down intervention. Which of course means subsidizing groups based on race and gender. And I don't think social justice warriors would stop at equality of outcome, they'd push on until the last white people have been removed from government and any position of influence. And they'd ideologize it by something like: "White people must not be allowed to control anything because they're inherently racist" The irony of which is so thick it could drown a whale.

 

[heatlesssun]

It still doesn't make it even similar to what social justice means now.
Social justice is the opposite of freedom and self determination. Social justice dictates that every group must be made equal in every aspect of life (ofc only the desirable ones) by top down intervention. Which of course means subsidizing groups based on race and gender. And I don't think social justice warriors would stop at equality of outcome, they'd push on until the last white people have been removed from government and any position of influence. And they'd ideologize it by something like: "White people must not be allowed to control anything because they're inherently racist" The irony of which is so thick it could drown a whale.

One can define social justice however they like. But there have always been people fighting for it and people disagreeing with those fighting for it. I don't agree with every cause people fight for but having some understanding of what the society I now live I'm was like when my parents grew up, social justice has it's place. I have benefited for those struggles in ways that are basic as using public restrooms. And it has nothing to do with transgender rights.

 

[heatlesssun]

What I really don't get about Heatlesssun, who I like to refer to in the third person, is why he can't accept that I said I like the show, have watched every Star Trek episode and movie of the franchise, and merely pointed out that I don't care for the Communist propaganda sprinkles that show up now and then.

And that very same show sparked my interest in computers and encouraged me to get into a good career that I've been working in for neatly 30 years. Countless people have witnessed about how Star Trek encouraged them to get into STEM fields. That kind of profound and positive impact is something I will always respect in a world full of negativity and cynicism.

 

[Ducman69]

And that very same show sparked my interest in computers and encouraged me to get into a good career that I've been working in for neatly 30 years. Countless people have witnessed about how Star Trek encouraged them to get into STEM fields. That kind of profound and positive impact is something I will always respect in a world full of negativity and cynicism.

Again, what does any of that have to do with my comment regarding nonsensical commi-sprinkles showing up from time to time in the franchise, and furthermore, why is that particular specific aspect critical to your enjoyment of the films/shows?

I would imagine that most people liked the show and particularly got interested in science not because of occasionalyl preaching of communism, but because its a show about space ships, exploration, and new technologies, not politics. After all, Maoism in China had a massively regressive effect on technological development and contributed to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people before it was finally abandoned for a mostly capitalistic economy which drastically improved the quality of life of the average Chinese citizen with per capita GDP exploding upwards, and that cash influx helped modernize the country.

 

[heatlesssun]

Again, what does any of that have to do with my comment regarding nonsensical commi-sprinkles showing up from time to time in the franchise, and furthermore, why is that particular specific aspect critical to your enjoyment of the films/shows?

I would imagine that most people liked the show and particularly got interested in science not because of occasionalyl preaching of communism, but because its a show about space ships, exploration, and new technologies, not politics. After all, Maoism in China had a massively regressive effect on technological development and contributed to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people before it was finally abandoned for a mostly capitalistic economy which drastically improved the quality of life of the average Chinese citizen with per capita GDP exploding upwards, and that cash influx helped modernize the country.

Let's see. A powerful, peaceful, prosperous, multi-species, multi-ethic, multi-cultural civilization spanning thousands of light years across the galaxy with science and technology that might as well be magic to us. But hey communism. If a civilization as advanced as the Federation were to reveal itself or be discovered some how generally to current population of Earth, the level of panic and chaos that would ensue is incalculable. From the return of Jesus to the rise of the anti-Christ to the end of the world to we're being invaded by aliens to communism and everything in between.

The very existence of a civilization like the Federation is antithetical to countless current beliefs from political to social to economic to religious. The concept of the Prime Directive is based on the idea that lesser civilizations would be completely ripped apart by the knowledge that far more powerful completelythere out there, even far more powerful than the Federation, if they haven't advanced on their own enough to be able to swallow the idea of just how big a pond the universe and how small they are.

 

[Ducman69]

Let's see. A powerful, peaceful, prosperous, multi-species, multi-ethic, multi-cultural civilization spanning thousands of light years across the galaxy with science and technology that might as well be magic to us.

You did it again. In what way is promoting Communism with a few lines sprinkled into the franchise now and then by the writers, and contradicted in others, intrinsic to any of that? Would the show lose any value to you had some leftist writers disregarded politics and didn't try to promote communist ideals? If the crew were paid in latinum or credits to use at their discretion, for services/goods aside from the free food/housing, would that ruin the show?

As I said, I like the shows overall (except Voyager which sucked), just not the commi stuff, but that wasn't harped on 24x7 so it was easy to disregard.

You're also wrong BTW, in that the Federation may encompass different humanoid races, but they are "separate but equal", each with their own place, their own culture, and act independently save for shared interests (typically militarily). The humans are controlled by a handful of people in San Francisco, primarily through a benevolent communist dictatorship in the form of Starfleet, with Earth for humans, Vulcan for Vulcans, Andoria for Andorians, Tellerite for whiny Tellerites, etc. with only a handful of token aliens on each other's ships, and otherwise practicing segregation, as their cultures are by and large completely incompatible. Klingons wouldn't be happy or harmonious on Vulcan, and Vulcans would not be happy on Andoria. But again, none of that has anything to do with the only aspect I touched upon with the Franchise, regarding the contradictions in how the Star Trek economy is supposed to work and distaste for pushing leftist pinko propaganda on rare occasions on the show as subtext to try and influence kids.

 

[sir-gold]

Our poor today don't struggle over food, and in fact the obesity epidemic in the United States has affected our lowest poverty level people more than any other group.

Obesity is caused by eating low-quality cheap food.

Someone who spends $5 a day on the Mcdonalds dollar menu is going to be more obese that someone who spends $50 a day on seafood and steak at a fancy restaurant

 

[Ducman69]

Obesity is caused by eating low-quality cheap food.

Someone who spends $5 a day on the Mcdonalds dollar menu is going to be more obese that someone who spends $50 a day on seafood and steak at a fancy restaurant

Yeah, that's bullshit.

Obesity is caused by consuming too many calories, and someone eating $5 a day of McDonalds dollar menu is likely to be extremely thin, as that's only about 1K calories of food and most people need 2K to maintain their weight.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Science teacher loses 56 lbs eating only at McDonalds to explain basic physics of calories in vs calories burned.

Furthermore, you can buy more calories of canned veggies, spaghetti, potatoes, eggs, and milk for your dollar than you can at a fast food restaurant, so that argument is moot.

 

[heatlesssun]

You did it again. In what way is promoting Communism with a few lines sprinkled into the franchise now and then by the writers, and contradicted in others, intrinsic to any of that? Would the show lose any value to you had some leftist writers disregarded politics and didn't try to promote communist ideals? If the crew were paid in latinum or credits to use at their discretion, for services/goods aside from the free food/housing, would that ruin the show?

As I said, I like the shows overall (except Voyager which sucked), just not the commi stuff, but that wasn't harped on 24x7 so it was easy to disregard.

You're also wrong BTW, in that the Federation may encompass different humanoid races, but they are "separate but equal", each with their own place, their own culture, and act independently save for shared interests (typically militarily). The humans are controlled by a handful of people in San Francisco, primarily through a benevolent communist dictatorship in the form of Starfleet, with Earth for humans, Vulcan for Vulcans, Andoria for Andorians, Tellerite for whiny Tellerites, etc. with only a handful of token aliens on each other's ships, and otherwise practicing segregation, as their cultures are by and large completely incompatible. Klingons wouldn't be happy or harmonious on Vulcan, and Vulcans would not be happy on Andoria. But again, none of that has anything to do with the only aspect I touched upon with the Franchise, regarding the contradictions in how the Star Trek economy is supposed to work and distaste for pushing leftist pinko propaganda on rare occasions on the show as subtext to try and influence kids.

The Star Trek universe has always been in conflict with traditional conservatism. Multi-culturalism, science over religion, etc.

 

[heatlesssun]

Obesity is caused by consuming too many calories, and someone eating $5 a day of McDonalds dollar menu is likely to be extremely thin, as that's only about 1K calories of food and most people need 2K to maintain their weight.

And processed carbs and sugar are full of calories. Remove those from peoples' diets and the obesity epidemic would disappear.

 

[Ducman69]

And processed carbs and sugar are full of calories. Remove those from peoples' diets and the obesity epidemic would disappear.

I love it, LMAO!

I will argue that a banana is yellow, and you will retort that I'm wrong because syrup goes well on pancakes, as if that has anything to do with bananas... with a straight face, lol!

Water is free, and sodas are expensive. Potatoes are cheaper than french fries. Poor people would save money drinking water, so poverty is not an excuse for drinking Mt Dew. And you are correct, poor people often make expensive and stupid decisions with regard to nutrition.

 

[Derangel]

You love straw-man arguments, don't you? Water is free, and sodas are expensive. Poor people would save money drinking water, so poverty is not an excuse for drinking Mt Dew.

Water is only free if you rent or live in a community that pays the water bill. If you own your own home in a city you pay for your water usage.

 

[Ducman69]

Water is only free if you rent or live in a community that pays the water bill. If you own your own home in a city you pay for your water usage.

If you are going to McDonalds, like the original argument, it saves money getting water over ordering a soda. I assure you, renters will pay less for a gallon of water than they do a gallon of Mt Dew. If you would like to show the class how you would save money on your water bill if you hooked up a soda machine to your bathtub and dishwasher, I would be happy to check your math.

 

[jedijeb13]

I know some people from Russia and Ukraine and a few other countries in that area. Poor or well off, they are all much thinner than we are here in the US. If they come here and eat any of our food, they gain weight really fast. They also will tell you that everything we eat is too sweet. When it comes to food here, sweet sells for the most part, and if sales drop, the food companies begin with adding a little more sugar to make people choose their food over others. Over the decades this has led to every prepackaged food item including sugar in its recipe, even if it really isn't needed.

Since I can't have sugar in my diet anymore, I have replaced it with things like Splenda, and over time reduced what I put in and to me now it taste sweet, but if my sister eats my cooking she complains it is not sweet enough. Same thing with salt, cook with less and less salt over time and you will not need as much for taste. Food companies have gone the easy route and just add salt and sugar instead of trying to actually improve the natural flavors to sell products.

The reason the poor are over weight is because food companies have found they can pawn off cheap foods with added sugar and salt and because the nutritional values is so low you need to eat more of it to gain the same energy value. All calories are not equal, some the body will just process into fat instead of energy, others will go more quickly into energy. Equal calories of sugar and protein, sugar will give an instant energy boost that last for a short time then get converted into fat when not used, protein converts into enegry more slowly and gives a long lasting sustained level of energy that the body can use before it needs to store the excess energy in fat. So if you eat the same number of calories in a cheesburger and fries at McDonalds or the same number of calories in baked fish and broccoli, one will be much more likely to be turned into excess fat than the other.

 

[Ducman69]

So if you eat the same number of calories in a cheesburger and fries at McDonalds or the same number of calories in baked fish and broccoli, one will be much more likely to be turned into excess fat than the other.

Wrong, you can feel more full with a greater quantity of lower calorie food, but if you eat 1800 calories of either and burn 2000 calories a day, you will lose weight either way. You can't violate the laws of thermodynamics, and all-else-equal, eating less food costs less. Either way, baked chicken and broccoli, cooked at home, is cheaper than McDonalds, so poor fat people are responsible for making stupid decisions, not cost restricted into eating more expensive calorie dense foods, which was the original point.

The Star Trek universe has always been in conflict with traditional conservatism. Multi-culturalism, science over religion, etc.

I missed this gem. Not only did you completely ignore answering how sprinkling the promotion of communist ideals into the series improves the aspects of the show you said you enjoy (pro-tip: it doesn't), lets talk about liberal utopia vs conservative utopia.

The Star Trek universe involves culturally homogeneous societies (Earth for humans, Kronos for Klingons, Vulcan for Vulcans), where the humans all pretty much dress and act the same (particularly in Star Fleet with tidy clean uniforms, and Troy rightfully told to shape up and wear a uniform too if she's going to be a bridge officer), the Klingons act Klingon, and the Vulcans act Vulcan, etc. to achieve harmony within their societies. There is no multi-culturalism, because each race has a monolithic culture, and "when in Rome" rules apply, with Picard and Riker expected to act Klingon when on Kronos to respect their culture and visa versa.

There is almost non-existent criminality, with law and order very strongly promoted and peace keepers and police are highly respected (no BLM shenanigans where they are throwing fire bombs at police in defense of a criminal). The nuclear family unit, marriage, and monogamy (particularly when children are involved) are promoted, with no hit it and quit it fathers or weird open sex fetishes. Personal responsibility and accountability are expected and promoted, and there is no entitled non-working dependent class mooching off of the government. The individual's rights and desires are very much respected.

And those rights even come into bare with a pro-life political leaning the majority of the time, where promoting abortion is unfathomable (although in one episode briefly entertained when Troy was raped by an alien in TNG, but otherwise in, say, Enterprise for example they couldn't destroy the augment embryos since they were innocent fertilized lives and they risked life and limb to return an alien embryo when Trip was accidentally impregnated).

With regard to religion, yes in TNG in particular they are very much pro-Atheist like myself (a conservative BTW), but overall they certainly entertain religion and don't portray it as a negative, such as the value the pagan-type Valhalla inspired religion of the Klingons, the Buddhist-inspired religion of the Vulcans and their meditation to center themselves spiritually, Chakotay going on his religious spirit quests and the like, and with regard to the Bajorans we find out that their religious beliefs are not only valid but in fact their "Gods" really do exist as benevolent aliens that appear to exist outside of linear time and have communicated with and guided the Bajoran people from the "celestial temple" in the wormhole, which is why their prophecies came true in DS9.

Now, granted, they eschew capitalism for a vague form of very loosely and inconsistently described post-scarcity economy in favor of some form of big-government socialism, most likely a benevolent military Communist dictatorship (Starfleet), that somehow lacks currency required for trade, but certainly there's a lot for Conservatives to like in Star Trek, and for Liberals to dislike.

 

[heatlesssun]

I missed this gem. Not only did you completely ignore answering how sprinkling the promotion of communist ideals into the series improves the aspects of the show you said you enjoy (pro-tip: it doesn't), lets talk about liberal utopia vs conservative utopia.

It also promoted things like racial and gender quality, even while not promoting them at times. Bottom line, people who love the show have always heard of these kinds of complaints, nothing new and considering the overall positive and encouraging messages that got me interested in my career, "it's communist" is irrelevant to me. It's science fiction in a time where we're all going to be dead anyway.

 

[Ducman69]

It also promoted things like racial and gender quality, even while not promoting them at times.

They do, which conservatives want.

What Star Trek never did though, which is where conservatives and liberals differ, is that they NEVER held women or blacks to a different standard, or were given any kind of preferential treatment, like what we'd call "affirmative action". You were either the most qualified person for the job, or you weren't, and they didn't have different standards to "promote diversity".

Which, speaking of, they had no concept of entertaining the liberal idea of racial quotas on the ship, where they said "well, Riker might be next in line for the captain's chair, but we really need more female or black captains, so lets give racial/gender preference to an underrepresented group".

Star Trek is as much a mix of a conservative utopia as it is a liberal one.

 

[heatlesssun]

What Star Trek never did though, which is where conservatives and liberals differ, is that they NEVER held women or blacks to a different standard, or were given any kind of preferential treatment, like what we'd call "affirmative action".

Maybe because Star Trek:TOS was set 300 years into the future where human existed had been redefined by social, scientific and technological advancements beyond current understanding? And even many of those would not be particularly popular in traditional conservatism. The whole concept of Star Trek is antithetical to conservatism. That's just what it is.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Yeah, we're still trying to address inequality of opportunity by adjusting after the fact, something they didn't need to do in Federation societies.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yeah, we're still trying to address inequality of opportunity by adjusting after the fact, something they didn't need to do in Federation societies.

Humans had warp drive and knowledge of extraterritorial life 200 years before ST:TOS. We're no where near that amount of time from the ending of legalized racism in the US.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Humans had warp drive and knowledge of extraterritorial life 200 years before ST:TOS. We're no where near that amount of time from the ending of legalized racism in the US.

Sure, and from the Enterprise prequel, we see that even a single generation after the first warp flight and arrival of the Vulkans that bigotry hadn't yet been fully stamped out. It will still take us generations regardless.


[though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'legalized racism', as that could be taken more than one way]

 

[heatlesssun]

[though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'legalized racism', as that could be taken more than one way]

Jim Crow was very prevalent in the South until the CRA. That certainly was legal and institutional racism.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Jim Crow was very prevalent in the South until the CRA. That certainly was legal and institutional racism.

Got it, actually didn't realize that you were essentially counting the years from the CRA to make the comparison.

Also 'legal racism' could also apply (awkwardly but similarly) to stuff like affirmative action when it applies to race and equalizes differing qualifications. I'm a proponent of limiting affirmative action to financial circumstances as much as possible so as to keep its benefits, giving those a chance that never had the opportunity to earn one, while eradicating any semblance of racial prejudice, which I believe would help protect the ideal going forward.

 

[Ranulfo]

Heh, I do enjoy debates on Star Trek's economy and politics. The writers in TNG never tried too hard to be consistent on that front, contradictions abound throughout that series. I think some disliked DS9 because it got to real or rather, less utopian and hopeful but that is what I liked about that series the most.

My favorite preachy episode of TNG though is Riker having the hots for an alien babe who was genderless but was leaning towards being female and having the hots for Riker. Prime directive drama ensues. I think the message was supposed to be about pro-gay relationships or something and now probably works well with all the 64 genders stuff going on, namely Riker would be viewed as a gender assuming evil cis-gender. It has truly the best scene in Trek with Riker pontificating that enseminating a husk in a field wasn't very romantic.

 

[dangerouseddy]

didn't politics and the economy have to rebuilt after most of the worlds population was wiped out in a nuclear war?

 

[heatlesssun]

didn't politics and the economy have to rebuilt after most of the worlds population was wiped out in a nuclear war?

Most of the worlds population wasn't wiped out I believe. The most specific reference I can think of comes from Star Trek: First Contact where Riker makes reference to 600 million dead, which nonetheless is an incredibly large number of people. After that level of devastation and destruction you'd have to think that there had to be a lot of rethinking of ideas and how things got to that point.

 

[Ducman69]

Maybe because Star Trek:TOS was set 300 years into the future where human existed had been redefined by social, scientific and technological advancements beyond current understanding? And even many of those would not be particularly popular in traditional conservatism. The whole concept of Star Trek is antithetical to conservatism. That's just what it is.

So your argument is that current day leftist agenda with identity-politics is made obsolete in the future, including "legalized racism" in the form of affirmative-action type policies (like the fact that Asians and whites have to score considerably higher than a black applicant all else equal for an equal chance at being accepted to medical school), which is why it gives way to a in large-part conservative utopia?

But then you say its antithetical to conservatism, after just having read how its in many ways a conservative utopia, and justify it with the detailed explanation of "That's just the way it is". That's not an argument.

I'd love to hear what you think a conservative futuristic Utopia would look like, and how it would differ from Star Trek.

I can tell you what I think a liberal futuristic Utopia would look like and differ, in that I think it would look something like the swinging 70s, with lots of drug experimentation (extremely discouraged in Star Trek, where even alcohol is outlawed), the uniform dress code of humans would be replaced with far out wild clothing with everyone trying to look as different and weird as possible for "artistic self-expression" with lots of body modification and the like, authoritarianism and discipline from the Star Trek world would be replaced with more "feels before reals" long-haired laid back lounging, and authority figures like the police state of Starfleet would be shouted down and dismantled, and identity-politics would still be at the forefront where equal opportunity takes a back seat to equality, where the less capable are given participation awards and quotas for females, aliens, and other perceived groups defined as "minorities", with different standards for different people based on what group they are assigned.