The Awesome and Cool Poll Thread - Poll #131: Would you pay more taxes if it meant receiving a pension when you retire?

[R4Y_ANC3L]

It was kinda going on for a while now.
Great! That's what I like to see.
I can wait for PluMGMK to confirm and open the polls again.




I'm the third person who voted "yes", by the way.

[Hunchman801]

Didn't get to vote in the last few polls, and it's a bit late to keep arguing about them, but I'll just throw in a couple ideas.

Regarding religion, no one mentioned their cultural contribution to the world. Almost every piece of art for millennia was inspired by or made for religions, and it gave philosophers food for thought for almost as long. They also were an efficient way of bringing peoples together, leading to the rise of empires and great technological progress. And finally, saying that they preach irrationality is foolish: anyone who's read Saint Augustine, Descartes or Malebranche will realize how complex theological questions are, and not just ontological arguments while we're at it. (Note that I'm not taking a stance on the original question, just remarking that some aspects of it were overlooked.)

As for Che Guevara stamps, I can't wait for the Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot editions. I'm sure the million Cuban exiles all around the world who fled dictatorship, political repression and summary executions appreciate the recognition of his legacy to the world.

raymanpc collective answer:

[...] [french only] and also big pride in homeland otrewise i fuckin burst! you hate the land who give you life? get the fuck out!

Seconded.

[Adsolution]

And finally, saying that they preach irrationality is foolish

What they "preach", by definition, is. The other stuff is more or less an auxiliary effect of pondering the existential.

I agree wholeheartedly that religion has essentially been the single biggest driving force behind art and culture over the last few thousand years. Do I still feel that it is? Not really.

Seconded.

can you make that an actual emoticon? It'd be, like, the pride emoticon and could be used in a lot of funny scenarios

[Master]

Alright, enough faffing about on our part. I'm going to take temporary charge of this thread for now, though Plum is still manager and can take back control of this thread when he's ready.

Going off the backlog, let's kick off with R4Y_ANC3L's poll, "Is it better to date someone attractive and popular or intelligent and smart?"
I'm tweaking it slightly so it's not quite so segmented, so choose two of the traits described. I've also changed "smart" to "fashionable," as I feel there's a bit of an overlap between it and intelligent in some regards, though I don't know, "fashionable" might overlap with "attractive."

[Ambidextroid]

I'm not sure I totally understand how one can be "better" than the other, but if it means what our preference would be then personally I don't think I have too much of a preference for any of these over the other.
I think what's more important is that they're at least a nice person, I'd much rather be in a relationship with someone who's kind but unintelligent/unfashionable etc. than the other way around.

[Keane]

I think fashionable and popular might be the same category actually, if fashionable = hip. I'd switch fashionable with funny.

I picked attractive and smart because those are obviously the two things that probably almost everyone wants in a partner. If (s)he has a large dick and likes Bernie Sanders, I'm down For some reason I don't value humour as being essential to a relationship, obviously we'd have to be somewhere on the same page but I don't think them being able to make me laugh is a determining factor for if I'll like them or not. I'd much rather we enjoy the same music or have a hobby in common.

And finally, saying that they preach irrationality is foolish: anyone who's read Saint Augustine, Descartes or Malebranche will realize how complex theological questions are, and not just ontological arguments while we're at it. (Note that I'm not taking a stance on the original question, just remarking that some aspects of it were overlooked.)

¿I'm not familiar with the latter two but I think Saint Augustine is kind of overrated? Everything I've read of his + the things he's generally quoted on I've found to be very surface level, "to love is to live" kind of statements that anyone can agree to but isn't really enlightening people to some "untold truth" or shifting people's perspectives.

I guess they're significant in that they're pretty much universal, sometimes almost objective truths (minus the religious and women bashing stuff) but I feel like that also makes him not really some extraordinary philosopher, as many other people probably already followed some interpretation of his ideas even if they didn't realise it, and if he didn't write them down someone else eventually would've. I think the Greek philosophers overall delved into much more interesting, unconventional ideas.

[Master]

Cheers Keane, I'll swap fashionable with humour.

[Hunchman801]

What they "preach", by definition, is. The other stuff is more or less an auxiliary effect of pondering the existential.

They preach belief, are you saying that belief is irrational? Rationality has nothing to do with beliefs, but rather with reasonings. All logical results eventually derive from axioms that we have no choice but to believe, yet you wouldn't call math irrational. It is rather well explained on this repository of computer-assisted formalizations of ontological proofs:

In formal logic, every proof is a rigorous derivation of a theorem from a set of assumed axioms, using strict and mathematically well-defined inference rules. In any theory (independently of whether it is about physical objects, such as atoms or planets, or about metaphysical notions, such as gods), the axioms are always assumed without proof. Therefore, they are open for critical debate (including empirical considerations). What formal logic and the automated reasoning systems based on it guarantee is that if you accept the axioms and the inference rules, then you can safely accept the proven theorems. Nothing else.

Logic is at the very heart of the scientific method, which consists of formulating theories (i.e. sets of axioms), using them for obtaining predictions (i.e. theorems) and revising them when necessary.

I agree wholeheartedly that religion has essentially been the single biggest driving force behind art and culture over the last few thousand years. Do I still feel that it is? Not really.

I agree, and I was only referring to their past contribution.

can you make that an actual emoticon? It'd be, like, the pride emoticon and could be used in a lot of funny scenarios

Haha sure, I'll add it.

[Adsolution]

That is completely true, you're right. I was trying to use the word in a more scientific context, implying that there isn't really anything tangible about religion capable of forming a seemingly accurate model of reality, accurate beyond a reasonable doubt, compared to what we know about the world now, and that we've now obviously established a much better method for doing just that.

Philosophy is another method of attempting to explain the unexplained, which is totally fine, because it, by its very nature, doesn't claim to be anything more than an idea. Religion unfortunately isn't a philosophy, but it does carry with it a number of (non-exclusive) philosophies.


@topic:

This is kind of a lame topic, but, uh, I'll say Intelligent and Humour(ous). I don't think I could be in a relationship with someone uncomfortable with us calling each other niggers, and looks aren't as important to me for guys. They definitely wouldn't hurt, but I find it to be a much more necessary trait for girls to have if I'm to find them attractive, probably because I couldn't picture myself genuinely falling in love with a girl.

[Ray502]

I don't mean to sound shallow, but I can't see myself having a relationship with someone who is not physically attractive, especially when it comes to getting married and even having kids. Personality is at #1 in qualities I'm looking for, but still I want to find someone who in my eyes, is attractive. She doesn't have to be supermodel pretty or pretty like the media deems. She only has to be pretty to me.

And she has to be of the intelligent kind. Popularity means pretty much nothing to me and humor, eh, not a deal-breaker if she wasn't.

[R4Y_ANC3L]

Looking Back at it now. This topic that I thought of is Kinda needless in a way.

Anyways.
I Would form a relationship with a someone who is attractive.
I Would like how she looks, based on her physical appearance and quantities.

Intelligent as well.
I Would like someone who is very smart. I Don't really care if she is popular or not. She is herself.
She Would be Good enough to perform with more intellect rather than action.

[Adsolution]

I'm actually surprised by the lack of humour-lovers here.

[R4Y_ANC3L]

I had "Humour" as one of my chosen votes at first but I changed my mind that time.
Although, forming a relationship with a person who has a sense of humour wouldn't be a bad thing as long as there is no facetious behaviour.

[PluMGMK]

I'm back! Thank you very much Master for stepping in for a while.

I don't know about a life after death poll. We already have the religion thread after all.
I don't know about this water poll either, but since the water-charge refund cheque will shortly be coming in the post, here goes…

[Master]

Hmm, this is something I can't comment on, I'm not sure how many members here are homeowners at this point. I'm just going to go for usage-basis, but folks who are more knowledgeable than I on the matter could convince me otherwise.

As for our next poll, something I hear a lot of amongst my peers is the debate in regards to the worthiness of STEM degrees vs Arts degrees. And how some feel that STEM degrees should receive preferential treatment (eg. reduced tuition fees, more funding). Given how we've got members who have been involved in a variety of disciplines that fall under either roof, or even both, I do wonder if there's potential for a poll based on this for next week.

[R4Y_ANC3L]

This is probably "N/A" for me. I may not be a homeowner.
But I do know that general water taxes encourage people to use their water supplies sparingly.

[Master]

Not entirely related, but I thought it was bizarrely interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -and-pipes

[Adsolution]

To me, the most reasonable option would be:

Bills for excessive usage, combined with general taxation for some minimum allowance.

since I think everyone should have free access to some water, and it therefore makes sense that using more than the base amount you're provided with is when you should start having to pay.

No one voted for that though, so can someone give me a counter argument before I actually vote?

[PluMGMK]

So the solution that was so resoundingly rejected by the Irish people actually attracted the most support here. I knew it…

Well, the next poll which I'm about to put up is about STEM versus Arts. Should Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics-related degrees and projects be preferentially funded/promoted over those in the Arts?

[Keane]

That depends on the context: is there a shortage of people getting degrees in those fields? If there is then sure, the same goes for any other field. If there isn't then I can't think of any reason why specifically STEM degrees need more promotion.

However I'm guessing people who make that argument probably aren't thinking in those terms and just going "they're more important so we owe them more", but we already do that through the much higher overall salaries people in STEM fields make. I guess you could extend that to also lowering tuition fees, but personally I think studying should be as cheap as possible for everyone and no degree should be treated as a privilege.

So the solution that was so resoundingly rejected by the Irish people actually attracted the most support here. I knew it…

Quickie last-minute response: I picked general taxation + bills for excessive usage because water is precisely the kind of thing that tax money is for, it doesn't make any sense to me that there'd be an additional bill to pay for something so basic and necessary. Those Irish people are smart not to take notes from the US's supremely homosexual tax spending.