quote:

---

Originally written by Naldiin:

I want to see Vogel's idea of what the center of economics, power and learning of an entire world would look like.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by FALKO:

and what about erika? is she going to be a good girl again? somehow i dont think so!

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drassk:

For what it's worth, Solodric, BAMC's opinion on an OS he's never used and once got advised not to shouldn't hold so much weight.

...

The short of it, though, is that the only reason to run Linux is really if you're going to do more with your system than play games and sit around on instant messenger. If you want to learn to program, produce content (graphics, 3D stuff), or tinker with your system, then Linux is much more conducive to it than Windows.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drassk:

Don't take what the unwashed idiot says seriously; he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The truth is more or less what he said it was, only it needs to be framed in such a way as to make me feel superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Solodric:

Hey, I don't use linux at the moment, but I'm probably switching soon. Is there any chance of more games being converted over to Linux in the future?

---

quote:

---

Hey, dude, I've played Hugo too, but I could never figure out how to get past that **** dog in the first one. How? It drove me crazy. ;)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dahak:

We have female humans, female sliths, but no female nephils (that I can tell).

How about one?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by The Creator:

quote:

---

Quick and important question, C: do you consider the idea of equality of opportunity an essentially desirable one?

---

Leaving aside the fact that it's practically impossible to implement? No, I don't. If one person has enough, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that the next has more.

---

quote:

---

1) Everything we do influences something else, so if we want to get anything done, I think it's fair to say that indirect consequences are rarely worth worrying about. Unless you're prepared to argue that I'm responsible for every business that goes bankrupt because I didn't spend there.

---

quote:

---

Because it's theirs.

---

quote:

---

I'm unconvinced that this is the way things work. More importantly, I don't believe that it is inherently wrong for someone to get more than he deserves.

---

quote:

---

I'm not certain exactly what you're asking here. I absolutely agree that generousity to those less fortunate is a good thing. But the definition of generousity is that you choose to do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Only if you assume that anyone deserves more than the basic essentials of life. And if there aren't enough resources in the world to even give everyone that much without eliminating the possibility of anyone at all having much more than that, then inequality is the least of our problems.

---

quote:

---

[You are allowed to do what you want with your property w]ithin reason. For example, 'owning' a farm doesn't make it legal to detonate a nuclear device on it; you'd be harming your neighbors. The same can be said of 'owning' money, or really anything; there's a limited supply of all goods, money being a special case of this, and hoarding actually hurts people who would otherwise receive parts of it (circular economy & all that).

---

quote:

---

What's so wrong with making people give as much to the children of others as to their own? If they succeed, they're still doing well for their children.

---

quote:

---

Again, the question is not one of rights but of merit. Yes, it's possible to lose your money and yes, it's possible for the rich not to give, but the fact remains that, as it stands, no matter how badly the children of the rich screw up, they will almost certainly die richer than the children of the poor. They are given more opportunity than the children of the poor, they are given more money than the children of the poor, and they just have more advantages than the children of the poor. They don't have to work as hard, they have more time to invest in planning for the future, and they usually get all they could ask for by way of family connections. Why do they deserve any of these things, personally? Why are they allowed to make more of themselves than anyone else just because of their last name?

---

quote:

---

I'm entirely curious as to what would motivate a devout Christian to believe the right of a corpse to manage its finances ranks above the right of a child not to subside on baked beans and love. I do happen to recall there being a generalized belief about sins of the fathers and the Son in particular having words about rich men and needles...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by The Creator:

I suppose it could be argued that there's a difference between "fair" and "reasonable".

To answer Alec's question directly: Several reasons come to mind immediately. First, if someone owns something, by definition it is theirs to decide what is done with it.
Within reason. For example, 'owning' a farm doesn't make it legal to detonate a nuclear device on it; you'd be harming your neighbors. The same can be said of 'owning' money, or really anything; there's a limited supply of all goods, money being a special case of this, and hoarding actually hurts people who would otherwise receive parts of it (circular economy & all that).
Once the person is dead, their wishes concerning their property should be kept.
Why? They can't take it with them.
If someone wants to leave everything to charity and let their kids make it on their own, fine. If they want to leave a modest sum so their kids can survive and get a decent start, fine. If they want to leave a large sum so their kids can set up a business and get a good start, fine. If they want to leave a very large sum so their kids don't ever have to worry about chasing the dollar and can instead devote their lives to something they really believe in, fine. It's not really possible to argue this point without debating whether ownership itself is moral - a whole other can of worms.
I suppose from the parent's perspective, you're perfectly accurate. But is it fair for the parents who can't afford to leave their children millions not to be able to? I'd buy this logic if you felt it would be appropriate to inherit however much your parents wanted you to, irrespective how much they made, but of course you're not advocating driving the state into debt so any old fool can leave his children five million.

Secondly, I believe that every child is entitled to the best that their parents can give them.
What did they do to deserve that, exactly? By the same logic, replacing stairways on federal property with ramps is an affront because stairways deserve to be used, not good because the legless deserve a chance to work on federal property.

Keep in mind here that by "the best", I don't necessarily mean "the most". For example, while they did do the whole feeding/clothing thing, my parents made a point of never giving me pocket money.
How nice. What about those who are born into a family, by no fault of their own, can't afford to make any such point and won't be giving their children pocket money whether or not they want to?

Likewise, while many parents might buy a cheap car and/or pay for driving lessons for their kids when they get old enough, mine didn't. Not because they couldn't, but because they believed that by denying me the easy road they were giving me something more valuable. My grandfather gave his kids a decent sum of money to get started when they needed it instead of waiting for him to die. I don't know if I'll inherit anything, but wouldn't be surprised if I didn't.
Again, I don't get it. Supposing your parents suddenly felt generous - why would you have the right to their money any more than anyone else? What'd you do to merit it?

I argue neither that giving large amounts of stuff to your kids (before or after death) is good or bad. I think that's a decision each parent must make for themselves. However, I argue that parents should be allowed to do the best job they know how to do for their children, whether that involves giving them stuff or not. The government shouldn't be allowed to mess with that.
What's so wrong with making people give as much to the children of others as to their own? If they succeed, they're still doing well for their children.

So short answer: I believe that person X should be allowed to get more from his parents (whether that is quality of upbringing, education, possessions, whatever) than person y because I think that the amount each person has a right to be given is infinite (that is, I do not believe it's a violation of human rights if someone is not given an infinite amount, but I do believe it is if they are given less than their parents wanted to give them and would otherwise have been able to). In practice, some people will always have more capability, better upbringing, more money than other people, and I do not see this as inherently wrong. I do think that there are those who receive less than is acceptable (in any of those categories), and that efforts should be made to improve their lot.
Again, the question is not one of rights but of merit. Yes, it's possible to lose your money and yes, it's possible for the rich not to give, but the fact remains that, as it stands, no matter how badly the children of the rich screw up, they will almost certainly die richer than the children of the poor. They are given more opportunity than the children of the poor, they are given more money than the children of the poor, and they just have more advantages than the children of the poor. They don't have to work as hard, they have more time to invest in planning for the future, and they usually get all they could ask for by way of family connections. Why do they deserve any of these things, personally? Why are they allowed to make more of themselves than anyone else just because of their last name?

Hmm, that didn't turn out to be a short answer. Let's try again. I do think that one kid getting millions while another starves in the street is a bad thing, but not because of the gulf between them. If the poorer kid has loving parents, a roof over his head and food in his stomach, I see nothing wrong with the situation. Disparity in "starting points" is not inherently wrong, evil, or bad. Having a particularly bad "starting point" (say, being locked in a cupboard for the first 15 years of life) is.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.
I'm entirely curious as to what would motivate a devout Christian to believe the right of a corpse to manage its finances ranks above the right of a child not to subside on baked beans and love. I do happen to recall there being a generalized belief about sins of the fathers and the Son in particular having words about rich men and needles...

---