It's interesting that you imagine my implication of intellectual child abuse, where none occurred.
I seriously hope you're not advocating the removal of one of the most basic of human rights..
One of the most basic human rights is the freedom to investigate the world and build (often private) rational theories about how it works. This is removed by organised religion; in the place where such freedom would exist, dogma is forcibly transplanted. Generally this is accompanied by some flavour of "I marinade my children in religion and allow them to choose if they want to soak it up".
Fortunately, the day when there will be no more willing victims to gambol into the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing's cave is dawning. As this becomes clear, the modern-day religios-zealot proclaims, in whining self-defense, "I know what I'm advocating makes no sense at all but I'm as entitled to my arbitrary beliefs as the next guy who, together with a network of like-minded people across the world, working together for centuries have used careful investigation and logic to build a lattice of belief; I'm entitled to this" and "Because I claim this questionable 'right', I also claim the 'right' to corrupt my childrens' minds; to encourage within them at an early age the pattern of blind acceptance of anothers' 'beliefs'; destroying within them the budding ability to reason and leaving them open to such suggestions later in life; I claim that 'right'."
Really, a parallel may be drawn with those who claim "I'm entitled to inject class A drugs directly into my veins, thus slowly killing myself from within and making myself the weak link in the chain as I become vulnerable to viruses to which I would otherwise have a long-fought-for 'natural' immunity". Such a person does not exist in isolation. When they interact with others, the consequences of their way of life often spreads, having disastrous effects. To complete the analogy, the victim of religios zealotry has had their ability-to-reason weakened; as they interact with others, the memes they've been programmed with (prime example 'I'm entitled to my arbitrary and of-questionable-value beliefs", reinforcing the idea that irrationality has equal standing with rationality) often jump to the other, thus spreading the disbelief in the importance of rationality.
Ability to reason and practice of such rationality is what has enabled the human creature to pull itself out of the quagmire of muddy thought. I'm not particularly religious but if I were, I might note that to attempt to discourage the further use of the rational organ sounds like the work of the devil.
Not the state. Your neighbors. You are sucking money out of your neighbors' wallets, and that makes you no better than a thief who steals in the night. Frankly I know I'm going to die. That is certain; no one is immortal. I would rather accept death, and die peacefully, than steal my neighbors' money.
No. You and your neighbours get together and decide that if any one of you falls down, the others will pick you up again. How does it make sense to say, "I'm not picking him up; I'm not on the ground?"
No doubt it's something that can't be understand until experienced. You should try living in a country with socialised healthcare. As a taster, watch Michael Moore's 'Sicko' film.
Why should you subsidise another persons life choices ? Quite aside from the fact that the inevitable result will be MORE PEOPLE and therefore less jobs OR less money per person. That should suit the Republican company bosses - more wage slaves. There is not an inexhaustible fountain of wealth in the world or the USA. It should be divided according to contribution, not blind stupid animal sex.
Without wishing to appear to be defending a politician (*shudder*); you must sympathise with them. What are they to do? Even if they do know what's best long-term, they need votes. If what's best long term is doing the opposite of what every single stupid-ass voter wants you to do to benefit them individually, without regard to how collectively, that behaviour is seen to not scale well, what are you gonna do?
(a) lie to get elected, do the right thing then fail to get re-elected (b) say you'll do the stupid thing, get elected, do it, screw the voters for cash, repeat
There's an idea floating around which says "my belief system is as good as your belief system";
my belief system:
* is arbitrarily plucked out of the air and passed-down unchanged from parent to child, generation upon generation - indeed there is an unchanging manual to facilitate the accurate transmission of the belief system
* is impossible to verify
* is self-inconsistent
* requires that you accept it without question
* is difficult to acquire naturally because there exists no series of logical steps from any belief system known to generate accurate predictions to my belief system
* has measures hard-wired into it which discourage disbelief
* once acquired will leave you unable and unwilling to reason about the world around you, leaving you vulnerable to affiliated belief-systems
* has no benefits to believers short of the warm fuzzy feeling that accompanies certainty
*
copyrights, like patents, have been increasingly used to take away consumer rights
That may be one side-effect but it seems to me that this is just a means-to-an-end.
[Putting a waterwheel in a river isn't intended to stop it flowing, it's to steal energy from the river as the river continues to do its thing.]
The end here being, to allow whoever-buys-the-rights-after-the-artists-are-beyond-caring to continue milking cash from the rest of humanity when they want to discuss what is often some work of genius (eg Lennon's 'Imagine'), whilst they're still alive. These people must not be allowed to stifle the long-term gain of humanity in exchange for short-term financial reward, particularly on the back of someone else's effort.
'John, WR, USA' had me looking for the 'reply to' button: "Does anyone not notice how often evolutionists change their stories to fit the latest finding?"
I think he misses the point that science works this way.
My thoughts almost exactly. I read/posted whilst eating breakfast then spent a good while thinking that it's a shame their 'forum' was so crappy given that they're so mainstream - even if I had replied, the original poster would have had no clue.
It occurred to me that the reason religion is so popular has perhaps been revealed by 'John, WR, USA' - because it offers a view of the world which is unchanging. Perhaps they *Fear Change* ^_^. In my opinion, some people, early-on, decide that change and thus admission of uncertainty is a bad thing. The difference between the 'go with the flow' (be water) vs the 'be a rock' mentalities.
We still have selection pressures, though those selection pressures may be minimal.
[Disclaimer: IANAEB (..Evolutionary Biologist)]
I'd argue (1:) that pressures are *different* but do we really have evidence, given meaningless amount of time we've had the concept 'evolution' compared against the timescales needed to witness evolution, that they're reduced?
Sure, you may not risk getting eaten by a lion every day (2) but doesn't that type of evolutionary pressure really only come into play at the point where you fail to reproduce? Today, there are many complex social pressures (3) and equally scary (4) ways of being rendered unable to reproduce.
Aren't things like global curriencies and communication mechanisms like the internet, ways in which certain individuals can increase their dominance over their peers, within a far wider catchment area than was possible in times-gone-by ? and doesn't this type of thing lead to the idea that maybe selection pressure is greater today than it's ever been?
*shrug* ?
(1) - using the vast amounts of data gathered during the few moments I spent thinking about this:) (2) - at least in the part of the UK where I live (3) - I suppose I'm implicitly arguing that social pressures have followed a trend leading to them being more complex and significant as time passed, leading to today - as we know modern humans are at the pinacle of evolution, aren't we?, *raised eyebrows* (4) - without necessarily involving physical injury/death
It's difficult to see how a geneticist could actually make such an absurd statement. I suspect either there is major misrepresentation going on, or he's about to have his proverbial testicles handed to him by any number of researchers showing that the claim is factually false and conceptually retarded.
You think that's absurd? Read some of the comments. From a quick reading of about twenty, there were four or five who simply don't believe in evolution at all!
Here are a few examples (because I *know* you're not gonna RTFA):
Why doesn't the eminent scientist come out and admit that evolution has been the ultimate of hoax's. There is not a single scrap of transpeciation in the fossil record, not one on this entire earth that has been recorded. Just a couple examples of micro adaptation - thats it!
David, Smithers,
That anyone believes in this made up religion of evolution still amazes me. So little evidence, so much faith required to buy in. Does anyone not notice how often evolutionists change their stories to fit the latest finding? Study creation, it makes sense and fits the same evidence. I dare you.
John, WR, USA
Pathetic. Anyone who in this day and age of genetics believe we humans evolved from ape's (sic) need to wake up.
Caroline Carter, London, UK
One problem is that the academic elite is completely sold out to Darwinian evolution, and to oppose it is academic death because Darwinism is a religion that will not tolerate dissent. Robert Moore, Canton, U.S.A.
It seems that there's still lots of randomness of _belief_.
Real democracy requires that everyone who's eligible to vote keeps themselves fully informed so that they are able to play an active part in the process.
Who the fuck are you, pompous asshole, to define reality for anyone?
*ooh* *ouch*, that hurt.
So, does that mean that you disagree? if so, why? btw, I'm not a USAnian (I assume that's what you were implying by suggesting that I have a senator.)
Yah. I hinted that I too believe that it's too much work for the averge guy but it's just not working the way it is. The specialist seems to have forgotten why [s]he exists and the general public are seen as a nuicance to be lied-to, controlled and if necessary imprisoned and tortured.
Something needs to change.
'Fortunately', I live in the UK/am English; although, as you can see, USAnian foolishness is spreading like wildfire so the disctinction is somewhat unnecessary.
You know, it's fine explaining how things are and how it would be difficult to enact change. My question to you is do you think change would be beneficial? Surely there must be a better way of ensuring that everyone is collectively involved in shaping the societies in which they live. Oh wait, that's not to the benefit of those in power; is it?
I'm really arguing that ideally there would be no need for candidates. The people would maintain full awareness of the issues. After all, that's what it's all supposed to about, right, issues? As it is, voting is meaningless, even if the votes were correctly counted (yet another level of misdirection/red-herring). We should be voting on the issues; then some administrative branch should carry out the will of the people.
that means that you've just taken away the freedom to vote for who you want.
For my mind you pay far too much consideration to the candidate. The way I see it, in the current system, the candidate is supposed to be an agent, entrusted to deal with the issues in a way that sits comfortably with the voter, rather than the sham we have at the moment where every powermonger has their own tame politicians. I feel dirty just thinking about the levels of corruption. What happened to the wise, right-thinking politican who would be a parent to the populace? Invading a foreign country as a favour to your business buddies and calling it foreign policy should and does make many people around the world sick to the bottom of their souls. Oooh, gotta nip this rant in the bud..</rant>
At what point in time did the candidate become the focus of voting-decisions? Who cares what the candidate is like as long as they do what they say they'll do? Remember the issues! Of course, most people, myself included, are too lazy to take time to track the issues so we try to find someone like ourselves to do it for us, hence a foolish descent into personal-popularity contest. Bah. People suck.
Then again, I want to end suffrage rights entirely.
Me too; in the sense of the last paragraph..
Of course, who has the time to fully involve themselves in every issue? There would be noone to keep the country running if everyone were fully-immersed in politics. What we really need is to find people who genuinely care about the fellow men as a whole and are sufficiently robust of character to resist the corrupting influence of power then elect them to political office.
Democracy is such that everyone has the right to have their say and make their vote, even if it's an "unintelligent" vote. That's one of the core fundamentals of democracy
Real democracy requires that everyone who's eligible to vote keeps themselves fully informed so that they are able to play an active part in the process. In a real democracy, every vote would be worthwhile. Of course neither US nor UK citizens live in a real democracy.
"Voters in AK, AR, AZ, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, PA, TN, TX, and VA must register to vote by tomorrow, October 6, in order to vote in November.
What kind of shitty vote-rigging software are they using?! November is over three weeks away ffs!
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, so that people are allowed the freedom to be prevented from thinking for themselves, so that they are more compliant?
What did I win?
It's interesting that you imagine my implication of intellectual child abuse, where none occurred.
One of the most basic human rights is the freedom to investigate the world and build (often private) rational theories about how it works. This is removed by organised religion; in the place where such freedom would exist, dogma is forcibly transplanted. Generally this is accompanied by some flavour of "I marinade my children in religion and allow them to choose if they want to soak it up".
Fortunately, the day when there will be no more willing victims to gambol into the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing's cave is dawning. As this becomes clear, the modern-day religios-zealot proclaims, in whining self-defense, "I know what I'm advocating makes no sense at all but I'm as entitled to my arbitrary beliefs as the next guy who, together with a network of like-minded people across the world, working together for centuries have used careful investigation and logic to build a lattice of belief; I'm entitled to this" and "Because I claim this questionable 'right', I also claim the 'right' to corrupt my childrens' minds; to encourage within them at an early age the pattern of blind acceptance of anothers' 'beliefs'; destroying within them the budding ability to reason and leaving them open to such suggestions later in life; I claim that 'right'."
Really, a parallel may be drawn with those who claim "I'm entitled to inject class A drugs directly into my veins, thus slowly killing myself from within and making myself the weak link in the chain as I become vulnerable to viruses to which I would otherwise have a long-fought-for 'natural' immunity". Such a person does not exist in isolation. When they interact with others, the consequences of their way of life often spreads, having disastrous effects. To complete the analogy, the victim of religios zealotry has had their ability-to-reason weakened; as they interact with others, the memes they've been programmed with (prime example 'I'm entitled to my arbitrary and of-questionable-value beliefs", reinforcing the idea that irrationality has equal standing with rationality) often jump to the other, thus spreading the disbelief in the importance of rationality.
Ability to reason and practice of such rationality is what has enabled the human creature to pull itself out of the quagmire of muddy thought. I'm not particularly religious but if I were, I might note that to attempt to discourage the further use of the rational organ sounds like the work of the devil.
No. You and your neighbours get together and decide that if any one of you falls down, the others will pick you up again. How does it make sense to say, "I'm not picking him up; I'm not on the ground?"
No doubt it's something that can't be understand until experienced. You should try living in a country with socialised healthcare. As a taster, watch Michael Moore's 'Sicko' film.
Without wishing to appear to be defending a politician (*shudder*); you must sympathise with them. What are they to do? Even if they do know what's best long-term, they need votes. If what's best long term is doing the opposite of what every single stupid-ass voter wants you to do to benefit them individually, without regard to how collectively, that behaviour is seen to not scale well, what are you gonna do?
(a) lie to get elected, do the right thing then fail to get re-elected
(b) say you'll do the stupid thing, get elected, do it, screw the voters for cash, repeat
?
Was it ever? If you are holding an apple, is it necessary to remind everyone you see "this is what an apple looks like" ?*
(*) It's late and I've run out of car analogies
That's not the way it works. The way it works is:
1) Arbitrarily choose an idea
2) Believe it without need of reason or justification
Lol. I love that this got a +1 insightful. Perhaps more are waiting?
There's an idea floating around which says "my belief system is as good as your belief system";
my belief system:
* is arbitrarily plucked out of the air and passed-down unchanged from parent to child, generation upon generation - indeed there is an unchanging manual to facilitate the accurate transmission of the belief system
* is impossible to verify
* is self-inconsistent
* requires that you accept it without question
* is difficult to acquire naturally because there exists no series of logical steps from any belief system known to generate accurate predictions to my belief system
* has measures hard-wired into it which discourage disbelief
* once acquired will leave you unable and unwilling to reason about the world around you, leaving you vulnerable to affiliated belief-systems
* has no benefits to believers short of the warm fuzzy feeling that accompanies certainty
*
Can you guess what I believe?(*)
* - I don't actually entertain this belief system
troll in what way? Wake up mods!
That may be one side-effect but it seems to me that this is just a means-to-an-end.
[Putting a waterwheel in a river isn't intended to stop it flowing, it's to steal energy from the river as the river continues to do its thing.]
The end here being, to allow whoever-buys-the-rights-after-the-artists-are-beyond-caring to continue milking cash from the rest of humanity when they want to discuss what is often some work of genius (eg Lennon's 'Imagine'), whilst they're still alive. These people must not be allowed to stifle the long-term gain of humanity in exchange for short-term financial reward, particularly on the back of someone else's effort.
+1 grouchyoldman :)
My thoughts almost exactly. I read/posted whilst eating breakfast then spent a good while thinking that it's a shame their 'forum' was so crappy given that they're so mainstream - even if I had replied, the original poster would have had no clue.
It occurred to me that the reason religion is so popular has perhaps been revealed by 'John, WR, USA' - because it offers a view of the world which is unchanging. Perhaps they *Fear Change* ^_^. In my opinion, some people, early-on, decide that change and thus admission of uncertainty is a bad thing. The difference between the 'go with the flow' (be water) vs the 'be a rock' mentalities.
+1 rofl
Maybe.. but can a cockroach post on slashdot? (AC/FrsitPsot-spammers don't count :)
[Disclaimer: IANAEB (..Evolutionary Biologist)]
I'd argue (1 :) that pressures are *different* but do we really have evidence, given meaningless amount of time we've had the concept 'evolution' compared against the timescales needed to witness evolution, that they're reduced?
Sure, you may not risk getting eaten by a lion every day (2) but doesn't that type of evolutionary pressure really only come into play at the point where you fail to reproduce? Today, there are many complex social pressures (3) and equally scary (4) ways of being rendered unable to reproduce.
Aren't things like global curriencies and communication mechanisms like the internet, ways in which certain individuals can increase their dominance over their peers, within a far wider catchment area than was possible in times-gone-by ? and doesn't this type of thing lead to the idea that maybe selection pressure is greater today than it's ever been?
*shrug* ?
(1) - using the vast amounts of data gathered during the few moments I spent thinking about this :)
(2) - at least in the part of the UK where I live
(3) - I suppose I'm implicitly arguing that social pressures have followed a trend leading to them being more complex and significant as time passed, leading to today - as we know modern humans are at the pinacle of evolution, aren't we?, *raised eyebrows*
(4) - without necessarily involving physical injury/death
You think that's absurd? Read some of the comments. From a quick reading of about twenty, there were four or five who simply don't believe in evolution at all!
Here are a few examples (because I *know* you're not gonna RTFA):
It seems that there's still lots of randomness of _belief_.
+1 switched-on cookie
+1 underrated.
*ooh* *ouch*, that hurt.
So, does that mean that you disagree? if so, why? btw, I'm not a USAnian (I assume that's what you were implying by suggesting that I have a senator.)
Yah. I hinted that I too believe that it's too much work for the averge guy but it's just not working the way it is. The specialist seems to have forgotten why [s]he exists and the general public are seen as a nuicance to be lied-to, controlled and if necessary imprisoned and tortured. Something needs to change.
'Fortunately', I live in the UK/am English; although, as you can see, USAnian foolishness is spreading like wildfire so the disctinction is somewhat unnecessary.
You know, it's fine explaining how things are and how it would be difficult to enact change. My question to you is do you think change would be beneficial? Surely there must be a better way of ensuring that everyone is collectively involved in shaping the societies in which they live. Oh wait, that's not to the benefit of those in power; is it?
I'm really arguing that ideally there would be no need for candidates. The people would maintain full awareness of the issues. After all, that's what it's all supposed to about, right, issues? As it is, voting is meaningless, even if the votes were correctly counted (yet another level of misdirection/red-herring). We should be voting on the issues; then some administrative branch should carry out the will of the people.
For my mind you pay far too much consideration to the candidate. The way I see it, in the current system, the candidate is supposed to be an agent, entrusted to deal with the issues in a way that sits comfortably with the voter, rather than the sham we have at the moment where every powermonger has their own tame politicians. I feel dirty just thinking about the levels of corruption. What happened to the wise, right-thinking politican who would be a parent to the populace? Invading a foreign country as a favour to your business buddies and calling it foreign policy should and does make many people around the world sick to the bottom of their souls. Oooh, gotta nip this rant in the bud..</rant>
At what point in time did the candidate become the focus of voting-decisions? Who cares what the candidate is like as long as they do what they say they'll do? Remember the issues! Of course, most people, myself included, are too lazy to take time to track the issues so we try to find someone like ourselves to do it for us, hence a foolish descent into personal-popularity contest. Bah. People suck.
Me too; in the sense of the last paragraph..
Of course, who has the time to fully involve themselves in every issue? There would be noone to keep the country running if everyone were fully-immersed in politics. What we really need is to find people who genuinely care about the fellow men as a whole and are sufficiently robust of character to resist the corrupting influence of power then elect them to political office.
You've seen futurama, right? There's no reason why he can't run apple from a jar. Stupid FUD-mongers are just trying to cause a panick.
Real democracy requires that everyone who's eligible to vote keeps themselves fully informed so that they are able to play an active part in the process. In a real democracy, every vote would be worthwhile. Of course neither US nor UK citizens live in a real democracy.
What kind of shitty vote-rigging software are they using?! November is over three weeks away ffs!