I've been thinking about that. It is exactly what is going on. I think, for a long time, people (at least, the "masses") have been cultured to be honest, etc. Actually, lies are natural, everything is subjective anyway. Now that there is so much info out there to be had, it will become a big advantage to avoid mistaking too many lies for truth. I mean, both my parents are pretty educated, they still believe things they read...as if it was magic to get someone to publish your work. Most people my age would have been ridiculed for that even 5 years ago.
Right, this is pretty much what I thought. I can imagine mechanisms for this to occur (and this is biology so it probably does to some extent, for some species) but didn't think there was evidence for it.
1) You don't know what you are talking about 2) You are delusional and think the what you just posted was offering useful information 3) You're social circles do not contain anyone who argues with you 4) etc 5) Some combination of the above
At least offer a link to a "journal" article so we know what you mean.
Hmm, maybe I am wrong here. For example, I think the when other people believe something it is evidence. I acknowledge that it is crappy evidence and arguing from consensus is a fallacy, etc. Still I cannot deny that it is used as evidence in science and in my every day life.
What you describe is not science, it is logic. Data/evidence/whatever it is noisy. If you trust your tools and data 100% you are not dealing with science.
Welfare consists of the "entitlements": Medicare, medicaid, and social security. And I agree that they both do corporatism and warfare. My original post was about the party "platforms" not what they actually do. I even flat out said the corporations are getting to write the laws because the platforms are not coherent so the rational choice for a huge swath of people is to just not bother. It's either that or vote irrationally based off herd mentality or cronyism.
My point was that, using science, you can never "prove" anything. It is all a matter of plausibility. You can't even trust your own eyes and brain 100%. I believe the same as you by the way.
Right now, the warfare party is clearly the republicans, while the welfare party is the democrats. You can tell this by listening to what they speak about, and which reason is used for the government to grow larger and spend more money. You are choosing to use a technical definition of welfare when the context should have been sufficient to indicate was using it as a broad term:
Welfare refers to a broad discourse which may hold certain implications regarding the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizens without the stigma of charity.
The post you were responding to was clearly anti-corporatism so I'm not sure why you kept going on about that as if you were arguing against me. What do you think I have missed since 2006?
You are looking for a deductive argument against the existence of god, but will accept the possibility of logical contradictions. You are working outside the framework of logic, so logic cannot be used to argue either for or against your point... Just sayin.
Science says: "Given the evidence, how plausible is it that a christian god exists?" "Given the evidence, how plausible is it that ancient Egyptian gods exists?" "Given the evidence, how plausible is it that the flying spaghetti monster exists?" "Given the evidence, how plausible is it that no God exists?" etc.
The likelihoods of each of these possibilities are then compared, and the most plausible theory you can think of is accepted as the best, given the current evidence.
So that is what mimes are thinking about... Seriously though, on the other hand, I wonder if a society without "sheeple" could even be successful at a large scale.
I think a limited government with strong military is just as utopian as a government that can fairly distribute wealth.
Also, the two current political parties do not really have coherant platforms. That is why no one is motivated to vote and the corporations get to write the laws.
Murray Rothbard on why voter turnout was so high in the 1890s:
Thus, the Republican leaders would go to their rank and file and say: "Just as we need Big Paternalistic Government on the local and state level to stamp out sin and compel morality, so we need Big Government on the national level to increase everyone's purchasing power through inflation, keeping out cheap foreign goods (tariffs), or keeping out cheap foreign labor (immigration restrictions)."
And for their part, the Democratic leaders would go to their constituents and say: "Just as the Republican fanatics are trying to take away your liquor, your beer parlors, and your parochial schools, so the same people are trying to keep out cheap foreign goods (tariffs), and trying to destroy the value of your savings through inflation. Paternalistic government on the federal level is just as evil as it is at home."
Compare this to the current choices. Which should the government spend huge amounts of money on, warfare or welfare? Oh sorry, warfare got renamed "Defense" and welfare is now "Social Insurance"
I see. Thank you for your feedback. As I said, my current opinion is based off a few radio interviews and then the last debate.
A problem for me is that when I hear centrist, it sounds like "kick the can down the road". Also, what exactly is he going to "get done"... some vague "rightish" things? I still don't know after reading your post.
The last one was my first real exposure to Romney... He just seemed like a nothing. The republican version of Obama, trying to associate himself with hopeful ideals rather than any kind of policy (his advisors think we are all idiots). If he is nominated it will be a joke. Really, I know of no actual person (who not a talking head or politician) who is excited at all about him. Hes like the "company man" or something. Groomed for this job and paid his dues to whoever is pulling the strings. Really it just creeps me out. The more I see, I realize the president doesn't matter so much in the big scheme of things anyway though.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been thinking about that. It is exactly what is going on. I think, for a long time, people (at least, the "masses") have been cultured to be honest, etc. Actually, lies are natural, everything is subjective anyway. Now that there is so much info out there to be had, it will become a big advantage to avoid mistaking too many lies for truth. I mean, both my parents are pretty educated, they still believe things they read...as if it was magic to get someone to publish your work. Most people my age would have been ridiculed for that even 5 years ago.
It used to drive me insane when I was at a catholic school. Now, really who cares. If you believe in god, you'll be easier to manipulate. Your loss.
See, here is someone who appears to know what they are talking about. Thank you.
That gave me a headache... You mixed up the caller and customer.
Maybe hes an actor?
Right, this is pretty much what I thought. I can imagine mechanisms for this to occur (and this is biology so it probably does to some extent, for some species) but didn't think there was evidence for it.
Your comment was so vague that either:
1) You don't know what you are talking about
2) You are delusional and think the what you just posted was offering useful information
3) You're social circles do not contain anyone who argues with you
4) etc
5) Some combination of the above
At least offer a link to a "journal" article so we know what you mean.
Right, eventually the humans will also be concidered pests and the microarray analyzing robots will inherit the earth.
There are examples of epigenetic modifications of somatic cells (that increase fitness) being transferred to gametes?
I'm interested, what would be an example of one of these tech advancements that should be restrained? And how would you know if one was beforehand?
Hmm, maybe I am wrong here. For example, I think the when other people believe something it is evidence. I acknowledge that it is crappy evidence and arguing from consensus is a fallacy, etc. Still I cannot deny that it is used as evidence in science and in my every day life.
What you describe is not science, it is logic. Data/evidence/whatever it is noisy. If you trust your tools and data 100% you are not dealing with science.
What about the God Particle?
Welfare consists of the "entitlements": Medicare, medicaid, and social security. And I agree that they both do corporatism and warfare. My original post was about the party "platforms" not what they actually do. I even flat out said the corporations are getting to write the laws because the platforms are not coherent so the rational choice for a huge swath of people is to just not bother. It's either that or vote irrationally based off herd mentality or cronyism.
My point was that, using science, you can never "prove" anything. It is all a matter of plausibility. You can't even trust your own eyes and brain 100%. I believe the same as you by the way.
Right now, the warfare party is clearly the republicans, while the welfare party is the democrats. You can tell this by listening to what they speak about, and which reason is used for the government to grow larger and spend more money. You are choosing to use a technical definition of welfare when the context should have been sufficient to indicate was using it as a broad term:
The post you were responding to was clearly anti-corporatism so I'm not sure why you kept going on about that as if you were arguing against me. What do you think I have missed since 2006?
You are looking for a deductive argument against the existence of god, but will accept the possibility of logical contradictions. You are working outside the framework of logic, so logic cannot be used to argue either for or against your point... Just sayin.
Alot of people here have science wrong...
Science says:
"Given the evidence, how plausible is it that a christian god exists?"
"Given the evidence, how plausible is it that ancient Egyptian gods exists?"
"Given the evidence, how plausible is it that the flying spaghetti monster exists?"
"Given the evidence, how plausible is it that no God exists?"
etc.
The likelihoods of each of these possibilities are then compared, and the most plausible theory you can think of is accepted as the best, given the current evidence.
So that is what mimes are thinking about... Seriously though, on the other hand, I wonder if a society without "sheeple" could even be successful at a large scale.
I think a limited government with strong military is just as utopian as a government that can fairly distribute wealth.
Also, the two current political parties do not really have coherant platforms. That is why no one is motivated to vote and the corporations get to write the laws.
Murray Rothbard on why voter turnout was so high in the 1890s:
Compare this to the current choices. Which should the government spend huge amounts of money on, warfare or welfare?
Oh sorry, warfare got renamed "Defense" and welfare is now "Social Insurance"
I see. Thank you for your feedback. As I said, my current opinion is based off a few radio interviews and then the last debate.
A problem for me is that when I hear centrist, it sounds like "kick the can down the road". Also, what exactly is he going to "get done"... some vague "rightish" things? I still don't know after reading your post.
Ah so I see you support the welfare party over the warfare party. Literally.
The last one was my first real exposure to Romney... He just seemed like a nothing. The republican version of Obama, trying to associate himself with hopeful ideals rather than any kind of policy (his advisors think we are all idiots). If he is nominated it will be a joke. Really, I know of no actual person (who not a talking head or politician) who is excited at all about him. Hes like the "company man" or something. Groomed for this job and paid his dues to whoever is pulling the strings. Really it just creeps me out. The more I see, I realize the president doesn't matter so much in the big scheme of things anyway though.
So it seems we are at odds...
You don't even know what deflation means...