Good point, I was going on some half remembered data I picked up off of ask.com when Sullington crash landed in the Hudson. Could have been out of date.
A new pilot, working for a regional airline, starts at around $15,000 per year. Working for a national or international carrier, they might make twice that. Think about that next time you board a plane, rather than worrying about the computer.
I don't hate anyone, I hate an ideology that has been demonstrated to lead to less liberty. I noticed you ignored the Adam Smith quote, so I'll repeat it here: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
By definition, libertarianism is government dedicated to protecting the property of the rich from the poor. That is the only legitimate function of government in the eyes of a libertarian, and I find that idea reprehensible. As loss of liberty is such a simple and logical consequence of libertarian ideology, I find it hard to believe those supporting the ideology do so out of anything but selfish reasons.
Oh, I didn't catch this, but your two examples are totally ironic. Aristotle describes The Kyklos, or cycle of government, where democracy inevitably leads to the majority electing a dictator who promises to give them what they want. And water is one of the primary combustion products for most types of fire. So, just as with libertarianism, by ignoring simple chains of cause and effect, you have overlooked the obvious outcomes.
Yep. An increase in individual rights will result in some people being oppressed. Because these 'rights' that are being increased require money and property to take advantage of. Getting rid of child labor, worker safety, and minimum wage laws will help people who own factories, but it will hurt the people who work in them.
The only way to achieve liberty in a libertarian system would be to level the playing field completely before moving to such a system, but that is never going to happen. In fact, libertarians want us to move to their system with the unfairness and imbalance still in place so they can more successfully exploit those imbalances. They want to keep their unfair advantage and remove all obstacles to using that advantage to exploit others.
Maybe that isn't the story that libertarians tell themselves, but their greedy, selfish subconscious minds understand full well what they are working towards. Most non greedy, non selfish people instinctively see this subconscious motivation, which is why so few people choose to become libertarians.
Adam Smith described the problem succinctly: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Libertarians want a government that ONLY protects property, therefore, they want a government who's sole function is the oppression of the poor for the benefit of the owning class.
I know that. I have a stalker again, pissed some idiot off weeks ago and he keeps reposting this.
I can't keep arguing with you because you keep ignoring what I say, claiming that the facts I present are mere opinion. For example, here's a quote I've posted before about ring species:
In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species.
Here's another bit that specifically makes my point:
The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
Here's a bit about salamanders, Dawkins used it to illustrate ring species:
The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.[4] As such it is thought to be an example of incipient speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky,1958).[2][5]
Now, you may claim that when they say, "Can't interbreed" they mean, "Are physically incapable of breeding, but if brought together, could be bred." But this is flat out wrong, scientists have tried to breed the two sorts of salamanders, and they can not produce a feertile offspring.
The limits are biological. Sorry to once again blow your argument out of the water, but you can not show any source that will back up your misinterpretation of ring species.
You simply can't find such a source. Not one. They don't exist, except in your head. get it? You've lost, pack it in, give it up, you are just making yourself look foolish.
Or, you know, you could find one single source that backs up your claim about ring species. I'm waiting.
Wait, noticed in your sig you aren't American. Sorry. In America, 'libertarian' means 'strong property rights individualist anarchist,' not 'anarchist in general.' I myself am a social anarchist of the anarcho-syndicalist variety. Most anarchists are completely anti-authoritarian, and American Libertarians claim to be. But the obvious outcome of American style libertarianism is slavery. I'm convinced most of them know this, and figure the 'man' is keeping them down, out of their natural position as Overlord.
As we non-libertarian anarchists say here, "Libertarians want just enough government to police their slaves."
Hey, I call it like I see it. It's not my fault that people hide from their own dark and twisted motivations. People love to rationalize. Plenty of murderers think they are doing the right thing, but that doesn't make it so.
I don't even know how to have a conversation with someone who just keeps on denying the truth. You keep claiming my sources say something they do not say. It is pathetic. You've lost, epic fail. Anyone can read those sources, you are playing to people who won't even read them, hoping they will take your word for it. Please, read the sources, anyone can see that I am right and you are lying.
Wrong, you will need to show some sources when you make outrageous claims. Why should anyone believe just your word on it? I've shown sources. The wiki article clearly states, "In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species."
Genetic differences prevent interbreeding. It's clear as day, why do you keep arguing? But that's just wikipedia, right? I probably edited it myself, hmmm? Go pick up any biology textbook. You're dead wrong about too many things to count.
Who are you hoping to fool with your lies? You realize, you just look like an idiot to anyone with an education, right? Only people as uneducated as you could possibly buy the crap you're selling.
In 1937? Uh huh. Anyway, I said, "convinced," not "voted in despite a veto." But that's beside the point. The point is, a recession or a depression means a falling GDP. If the GDP is not falling, it is a recovery, not a recession. The recovery started when FDR's policies were enacted. And the GDP grew very fast. In fact, during FDR's administration, the stock markets went up an average of 16% annually. No Republican president has ever done that well.
Thank you for noticing! I do troll libertarians for the good of the community. I make sure to keep an open mind, you know, just in case one of them starts making sense.
The community needs to be made aware of the scourge of libertarianism. These libertarians want to do away with all regulation, which would allow them to buy and sell slaves for their sweatshops; keep people in extreme poverty so they had to accept slavery; and practice their evil brand of economic oppression unhindered.
I'm not a cuck, I don't get off on the feelings of jealousy. I'm polyamorous, which means the relationships aren't primarily about sex, but emotional closeness. We have relationships with other people, not just sex. My wife and I have to actually like the person the other is dating. Merrill is our longest term friend with benefits, at a year and a half now. We haven't had a three way in months. Mostly, we have dinner together, maybe play some cards or watch TV. Merrill and I geek out about math and programming while Jenny roles her eyes and tries to bring the conversation back around to pop culture, acting, and movies.
I work different hours than the two of them, so often he'll come over, the two of them will have sex, go run some errands, and be back in time for dinner. Sometimes, if Jenny is feeling particularly horny, she'll have sex with one of us and then the other. It's a lot more casual than you might think. I'm not jealous because, although Merrill is more physically her type (he's 6'8") Jenny and I have been partners for nine years. We're each other's best friend, confidant, cheerleader, and financial partner, as well as lovers. I take joy in her joy with Merrill.
I like him a lot, so I'm happy that he's happy. I'm not gay (tried it, not my cup of tea) but I'd still do a guy if he was into me. Merrill isn't gay at all. But we have the kind of non-sexual intimacy that sharing a woman brings. I like it. Jenny is a little more jealous than I am, so I keep my girls on the side more casual and circumspect. I'm still hoping I find a woman that she likes as much as I like Merrill.Anyway, google 'open relationships' or 'polyamory' if you are curious. You'll find a lot more couples doing polyamory or other forms of open relationship than you will find are into cuckolding.
Pick and choose your data much? It says exactly what I'm claiming: speciation has been observed.
Here's my favorite:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
You are so closed minded about evolution, it's scary. You've decided what's true and what isn't, and you won't let facts get in your way.
Oh. My. God. Nope, wrong again. It specifically says biologically unable to breed. Not migration patterns and preferences, please. Did you just skim it looking for certain words? Migration patterns, physical barriers, and preferences, plus mutations over time, have left them unable to breed physically. Fact.
For instance, you claim: "No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life."
This is as patently false as claiming the earth is flat. Learn basic biology before attempting to discuss it. I mean, you are claiming the exact opposite of observed fact. It is patently obvious that you didn't even read the article on ring species.
Wrong. Facts are facts. Speciation is an observed fact, not a theory or opinion. You are simply ignoring the facts. Your opinions aren't even unique or new, plenty of ignorant people hold the exact same opinions you do. And those opinions have been proven over and over again to be false opinions based on wishful thinking, not observation.
Go to talkorigins, you will see all your opinions debunked with hard science.
If you'd even read the wiki article on ring species, you would know you are dead wrong about facts, not opinion. Whether an animal is genetically capable of mating with another is a fact, not an opinion.
Same with speciation, we have observed dozens of incontrovertible speciation events, both in the lab and in the wild. These aren't opinions, and just claiming they are won't make the facts go away.
I am the one presenting facts, facts that first year biology students know.
Well sonny, let me tell you bout the time the wife and I met some aliens. They landed on our farm one night and introduced themselves. Nice people. We got to talkin' and of course the conversation turned to sex. Now, the wife and I are open minded, so we thought, you know, in the name of science and interspecies understanding, we should give it a try. So the lady alien and I go off the the saucer while the male alien takes my wife to the bedroom.
Next morning, the wife and I talk about it. She says the alien had such a tiny penis, she started to laugh. Well, he says they aren't built like us. If she wants it thicker, just pull on his left ear. If she wants it longer, just pull on his right ear. So she gets it set up the way she likes and they have a great time.
"How was it for you?" she asks.
I say, "Pretty good, but that alien damn near pulled my ears off!"
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, I was going on some half remembered data I picked up off of ask.com when Sullington crash landed in the Hudson. Could have been out of date.
A new pilot, working for a regional airline, starts at around $15,000 per year. Working for a national or international carrier, they might make twice that. Think about that next time you board a plane, rather than worrying about the computer.
I'm not sure what you object to about the quote. Which part of it do you believe is untrue?
I don't hate anyone, I hate an ideology that has been demonstrated to lead to less liberty. I noticed you ignored the Adam Smith quote, so I'll repeat it here: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
By definition, libertarianism is government dedicated to protecting the property of the rich from the poor. That is the only legitimate function of government in the eyes of a libertarian, and I find that idea reprehensible. As loss of liberty is such a simple and logical consequence of libertarian ideology, I find it hard to believe those supporting the ideology do so out of anything but selfish reasons.
Oh, I didn't catch this, but your two examples are totally ironic. Aristotle describes The Kyklos, or cycle of government, where democracy inevitably leads to the majority electing a dictator who promises to give them what they want. And water is one of the primary combustion products for most types of fire. So, just as with libertarianism, by ignoring simple chains of cause and effect, you have overlooked the obvious outcomes.
Yep. An increase in individual rights will result in some people being oppressed. Because these 'rights' that are being increased require money and property to take advantage of. Getting rid of child labor, worker safety, and minimum wage laws will help people who own factories, but it will hurt the people who work in them.
The only way to achieve liberty in a libertarian system would be to level the playing field completely before moving to such a system, but that is never going to happen. In fact, libertarians want us to move to their system with the unfairness and imbalance still in place so they can more successfully exploit those imbalances. They want to keep their unfair advantage and remove all obstacles to using that advantage to exploit others.
Maybe that isn't the story that libertarians tell themselves, but their greedy, selfish subconscious minds understand full well what they are working towards. Most non greedy, non selfish people instinctively see this subconscious motivation, which is why so few people choose to become libertarians.
Adam Smith described the problem succinctly: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Libertarians want a government that ONLY protects property, therefore, they want a government who's sole function is the oppression of the poor for the benefit of the owning class.
I know that. I have a stalker again, pissed some idiot off weeks ago and he keeps reposting this.
I can't keep arguing with you because you keep ignoring what I say, claiming that the facts I present are mere opinion. For example, here's a quote I've posted before about ring species:
In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species.
Here's another bit that specifically makes my point:
The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
Here's a bit about salamanders, Dawkins used it to illustrate ring species:
The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.[4] As such it is thought to be an example of incipient speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky,1958).[2][5]
Now, you may claim that when they say, "Can't interbreed" they mean, "Are physically incapable of breeding, but if brought together, could be bred." But this is flat out wrong, scientists have tried to breed the two sorts of salamanders, and they can not produce a feertile offspring.
The limits are biological. Sorry to once again blow your argument out of the water, but you can not show any source that will back up your misinterpretation of ring species.
You simply can't find such a source. Not one. They don't exist, except in your head. get it? You've lost, pack it in, give it up, you are just making yourself look foolish.
Or, you know, you could find one single source that backs up your claim about ring species. I'm waiting.
Wait, noticed in your sig you aren't American. Sorry. In America, 'libertarian' means 'strong property rights individualist anarchist,' not 'anarchist in general.' I myself am a social anarchist of the anarcho-syndicalist variety. Most anarchists are completely anti-authoritarian, and American Libertarians claim to be. But the obvious outcome of American style libertarianism is slavery. I'm convinced most of them know this, and figure the 'man' is keeping them down, out of their natural position as Overlord.
As we non-libertarian anarchists say here, "Libertarians want just enough government to police their slaves."
Hey, I call it like I see it. It's not my fault that people hide from their own dark and twisted motivations. People love to rationalize. Plenty of murderers think they are doing the right thing, but that doesn't make it so.
I don't even know how to have a conversation with someone who just keeps on denying the truth. You keep claiming my sources say something they do not say. It is pathetic. You've lost, epic fail. Anyone can read those sources, you are playing to people who won't even read them, hoping they will take your word for it. Please, read the sources, anyone can see that I am right and you are lying.
Wrong, you will need to show some sources when you make outrageous claims. Why should anyone believe just your word on it? I've shown sources. The wiki article clearly states, "In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species."
Genetic differences prevent interbreeding. It's clear as day, why do you keep arguing? But that's just wikipedia, right? I probably edited it myself, hmmm? Go pick up any biology textbook. You're dead wrong about too many things to count.
Who are you hoping to fool with your lies? You realize, you just look like an idiot to anyone with an education, right? Only people as uneducated as you could possibly buy the crap you're selling.
Please do your research before making unsupported claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Employment recovered just as quickly as any other indicator.
In 1937? Uh huh. Anyway, I said, "convinced," not "voted in despite a veto." But that's beside the point. The point is, a recession or a depression means a falling GDP. If the GDP is not falling, it is a recovery, not a recession. The recovery started when FDR's policies were enacted. And the GDP grew very fast. In fact, during FDR's administration, the stock markets went up an average of 16% annually. No Republican president has ever done that well.
Thank you for noticing! I do troll libertarians for the good of the community. I make sure to keep an open mind, you know, just in case one of them starts making sense.
The community needs to be made aware of the scourge of libertarianism. These libertarians want to do away with all regulation, which would allow them to buy and sell slaves for their sweatshops; keep people in extreme poverty so they had to accept slavery; and practice their evil brand of economic oppression unhindered.
There is no interpretation as to whether two animals can biologically breed. Whether they can or can't is a fact, not an opinion.
I'm not a cuck, I don't get off on the feelings of jealousy. I'm polyamorous, which means the relationships aren't primarily about sex, but emotional closeness. We have relationships with other people, not just sex. My wife and I have to actually like the person the other is dating. Merrill is our longest term friend with benefits, at a year and a half now. We haven't had a three way in months. Mostly, we have dinner together, maybe play some cards or watch TV. Merrill and I geek out about math and programming while Jenny roles her eyes and tries to bring the conversation back around to pop culture, acting, and movies.
I work different hours than the two of them, so often he'll come over, the two of them will have sex, go run some errands, and be back in time for dinner. Sometimes, if Jenny is feeling particularly horny, she'll have sex with one of us and then the other. It's a lot more casual than you might think. I'm not jealous because, although Merrill is more physically her type (he's 6'8") Jenny and I have been partners for nine years. We're each other's best friend, confidant, cheerleader, and financial partner, as well as lovers. I take joy in her joy with Merrill.
I like him a lot, so I'm happy that he's happy. I'm not gay (tried it, not my cup of tea) but I'd still do a guy if he was into me. Merrill isn't gay at all. But we have the kind of non-sexual intimacy that sharing a woman brings. I like it. Jenny is a little more jealous than I am, so I keep my girls on the side more casual and circumspect. I'm still hoping I find a woman that she likes as much as I like Merrill.Anyway, google 'open relationships' or 'polyamory' if you are curious. You'll find a lot more couples doing polyamory or other forms of open relationship than you will find are into cuckolding.
Pick and choose your data much? It says exactly what I'm claiming: speciation has been observed.
Here's my favorite:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
You are so closed minded about evolution, it's scary. You've decided what's true and what isn't, and you won't let facts get in your way.
Your opinions, not the facts as witnessed by thousands of field researchers.
I gave you a link to dozens of examples. Here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Bigot. My wife and I have an open marriage, it works quite well for us, and it is in no way freakish. Enjoy your closed mind.
Oh. My. God. Nope, wrong again. It specifically says biologically unable to breed. Not migration patterns and preferences, please. Did you just skim it looking for certain words? Migration patterns, physical barriers, and preferences, plus mutations over time, have left them unable to breed physically. Fact.
For instance, you claim: "No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life."
This is as patently false as claiming the earth is flat. Learn basic biology before attempting to discuss it. I mean, you are claiming the exact opposite of observed fact. It is patently obvious that you didn't even read the article on ring species.
Wrong. Facts are facts. Speciation is an observed fact, not a theory or opinion. You are simply ignoring the facts. Your opinions aren't even unique or new, plenty of ignorant people hold the exact same opinions you do. And those opinions have been proven over and over again to be false opinions based on wishful thinking, not observation.
Go to talkorigins, you will see all your opinions debunked with hard science.
If you'd even read the wiki article on ring species, you would know you are dead wrong about facts, not opinion. Whether an animal is genetically capable of mating with another is a fact, not an opinion.
Same with speciation, we have observed dozens of incontrovertible speciation events, both in the lab and in the wild. These aren't opinions, and just claiming they are won't make the facts go away.
I am the one presenting facts, facts that first year biology students know.
Well sonny, let me tell you bout the time the wife and I met some aliens. They landed on our farm one night and introduced themselves. Nice people. We got to talkin' and of course the conversation turned to sex. Now, the wife and I are open minded, so we thought, you know, in the name of science and interspecies understanding, we should give it a try. So the lady alien and I go off the the saucer while the male alien takes my wife to the bedroom.
Next morning, the wife and I talk about it. She says the alien had such a tiny penis, she started to laugh. Well, he says they aren't built like us. If she wants it thicker, just pull on his left ear. If she wants it longer, just pull on his right ear. So she gets it set up the way she likes and they have a great time.
"How was it for you?" she asks.
I say, "Pretty good, but that alien damn near pulled my ears off!"