There's a problem with what you are saying then. Trump asked Russia to give the media copies of the 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted from her home-brew personal server. The only way there would be "personal" emails from her server residing in a government server is if they weren't personal. They would be "government" emails, sent to members of the government, that she deleted for some reason. Definitely not "personal" emails.
And, furthermore, what's up with the treason accusations? Even if Trump did say to hack her email (which he didn't), the head of our justice department, Hillary, and the FBI have all declared there is nothing on her email server that was classified. No need to worry how insecure it was, or that it was a violation of policy to use it, everything there was as safe as tap water. Furthermore, it is not a government owned server. It's a personal server, so there are definitely no "treason" issues as it's not government property being talked about.
Not siding with either one of these juvenile, puerile, and corrupt imbeciles, I just want all parties to keep their heads when discussing the issues. Hyperbole and sensationalism backed by rabid self interest and self justified irrational beliefs don't help the conversation one bit. All it does is show that some people are so hopelessly wrapped up in the ideology they have been sold that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity and honesty to scratch out a couple of imaginary hash marks on the internet scoreboard of shame.
No we don't. Anyone who tells you differently based on the currently available information is either a paid shill (respectable in a capitalist way) or so completely compromised mentally they cannot be trusted with any information.
Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.
So you are admitting that at least some of the "personal" emails she deleted without oversight, departmental review, or third party vetting are actually not personal. Otherwise why would they be in government email servers if they weren't sent to government email addresses?
So what you are saying is that its completely acceptable for a party organization to become a secret arm of the election committee of a single candidate, divert funds from all other candidates to the anointed candidate, and promise that once that candidate is in office large donors will receive political appointment in a federal government position.
As long as the candidate who gets elected doesn't offer it themselves, its acceptable. Of course that candidate will make the appointment, but they didn't offer it directly. One of their minions did, which makes is completely OK. Nothing to see, move along. Right?
I heard it on NPR on the way to work this morning. Yes...that NPR. National Public Radio. The media outlet played on just about every public radio station in every major market in the United States. You know, the one that many people accuse of being left-leaning, but they listen to it anyways because it is pretty damn spot on most of the time. So, if even news organizations that are considered "left-leaning" are running this story you know for sure that the "right-leaning" ones are running it.
Where the hell do you live and what media outlets are you looking at?
Whatever you are doing, you need to mix it up a bit. The media outlets you are paying attention to are not giving you complete information and you are somehow not surprised by this. You may need to examine how your personal bias is affecting what you listen to and read. Are you cushioning and coddling your delicate sensibilities with an echo chamber of your own creation?
Try this on. Read The Huffington Post in the morning. Then read the Drudge Report at lunch. Pop over to CNN in the afternoon. Then, try on Fox News for contrast. XOR the news stories/headlines. You will might be surprised at what certain sites omit completely.
remember their bureaucracy had it's reset button hit recently with the whole government collapse. It's less entrenched, has less influence, and is less effective at mucking up the machinery. Also, with a scary as fuck, I-will-arrange-your-murder-the-disappearance-of-your-family-and-the-euthanasia-of-your-parakeet, retired-or-is-he intelligence spook running the country with an iron fist and bulging pectorals, people in the bureaucracy would be downright stupid or outright suicidal to play the obstructionist card with him.
Since their corporate value is based on consumer data, what is to say they don't take certain actions to see how their consumers react? Given a Petri dish with over one billion humans in it, who wouldn't be tempted to run some experiments, rather than just observe? They have already been caught doing experiments before. I think its simplistic to assume their actions are based on ideology only.
We have a certain model, a mathematical conception if you will, of how gravitation effects work. Based on that model combined with our observations, some scientists conjecture there needs to be more mass and energy, by a factor of almost 100 times, than what we can observe to make galaxies spin at the observed rate and not fly apart, etc.
You take that as direct empirical evidence of dark matter. I assert that this is not irrefutable empirical evidence of dark matter/energy. Obviously something is going on, but saying the model is 100% correct, and therefore dark matter/dark energy exists as postulated is weak and sloppy thinking. Walking back your position to say that dark matter/dark energy is a "placeholder" is disingenuous on your part and shows you are trying to walk on two sides of the fence here. It's a kludge, tossed into the model to make it work. It points toward something, but what that something is has not been determined yet, obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it is a particle with mass then we have dark matter. I am not convinced that this is the case.
Here are some possibilities:
1) Everything is right with the model and we just need to try really hard to detect weakly interacting massive particles. This still leaves out the "energy" part of the dark conundrum, but hey, any detection would be awesome since we haven't had any yet. We can deal with the biggest part later, lets just get on the board here, right? 2) The model is way off, possibly due to some unknown problem with our understanding of gravitation at the macro-scale, and as a result there is no dark matter or dark energy. Not too far fetched, since we don't even know what causes gravity yet. 3) The observations are off. This is actually still a model error, but it would be a problem with our model of the observed information. 4) The model needs some tweaking. There is dark matter/energy, but the proportions are not what we expect, their interactions are not what we expect. 5) Our models are correct, but there is not way to directly observe dark matter/energy. The "placeholder" is recognized as a kludge and we go on about our business, quietly freaked out by the problem like the double slit experiment.
You analogy of sonar is completely wrong. That is direct observation. Definitely not what we have going on here. We do not have direct observation of dark matter/dark energy. We haven't bounced anything off of it. We haven't isolated it.
Look up inductive and abductive reasoning and tell me how I am wrong. Your analogy skills need lots and lots of help.
Um, you do realize that scientists do have experimental evidence that dark matter exists indirectly, right?
So, um...indirect experimental evidence is not actually empirical. It is absolutely, completely un-the-same as experimental evidence.
The case for dark matter is more inductive or abductive reasoning. Given certain premises based on our current understanding of gravity and our observations of the universe, dark matter makes sense. However, our observations could be wrong, or our models could be incorrect.
I have nothing to go on other than my own impertinence and pigheadedness, but I am convinced that simply adding mass to the equation is not what is needed to solve it. Yes, our models look right when we add that mass, but I think it's something else going on. Something fundamental, misunderstood, and/or some emergent interaction of other forces.
Safety is an illusion that we are selling our freedoms for.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you stated with the exception of the above statement. Safety is a state of being you generate. It is a status of prepared existence. No you cannot prepare for every occurrence. No need to worry if you will get shot by a sniper, blown up by a nuclear strike, or hit by a falling meteor. You can't prevent or minimize those things. You cant avoid lightning strikes either and they are much more likely.
Recognizing what you can avoid, minimize, or eliminate with precautions, premeditation, constructive habits, and (dare I say it!) forearming yourself is where safety begins. Training and rigorous execution of the aforementioned is how safety is generated. Expecting safety from external sources is complete insanity. Just about every other person, law enforcement included, will put their life ahead of yours. This is natural and should be expected. Add in that old truth "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" and the list of parties responsible for your safety when it really matters drops precipitously. So when life and limb are on the line, how then can you have the expectation of safety from someone other than yourself? The hard truth is that in almost every circumstance you can't. To expect otherwise is to surrender your self determination to the hands of "fate" and the tender mercies of criminals.
An exception to this would be certain friends, my children, and my wife when I am with them. I will put myself in harms way, lay down my life if necessary, to prevent harm to them. While this dedication to the life of others may not be rare among friends and family, it is exceedingly rare with strangers. I can't stress this enough: Do not expect strangers and law enforcement to save you when the shit hits the fan. Rely on yourself, train yourself, take precautions, act intelligently, and know that you will win no matter what. And if winning means dying to save those you love or those you decide should live, act decisively and without restraint.
Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel strongly about.
This is incredibly interesting to me. Thank you for the link and details. I have self-defined free will as the ability to control your own brain. Or, another way to put it is, not the ability to affect and change the outside world, but the ability to choose your internal worldview, moods, thoughts, and to change the landscape of your experience, and thereby control the habits, actions, and how existence occurs to self (the experience of experience.) The application of recursion to experience: the self experiencing the self experiencing the self.
There is an amazing amount of automation, habits if you will, that your brain is great at performing without conscious thought (Check this article out for a primer on habits and how they relate to conscious thought: NY Times.) There are also many thoughts that are circulated in the mind that are simply reflexive, a product of a though generating meat-machine (see cognitive behavioral therapy for details.) Gaining control over these reflexive habitual actions and thoughts is what I see as a demonstration of free will. You will continue to have reflexes and habits for life. That's just how your mind/body works. It is the control of these things, the self-administered reconditioning as a result of examination and resolve, that shows the exercise of free will.
Another way to consider this is: What mechanism is responsible for an addict that stops using? In light of the structural and neuro-chemical deficit I and other addicts are operating from, where does that ability to simply stop come from? Definitely not the part of the brain that is already compromised and abnormal. It is responsible for perpetuating addiction. I posit that free will is as inherent to the human mind as recursion is to linguistics, and they are both part and parcel of the same complexity payload that generates both sentience and consciousness in our brains. Through structured self-experience of the self we can gain access to generate wholly new actions and patterns in our own operating medium, specifically the structural and neuro-chemical pathways in our own brains.
Just over a year ago I made a decision to stop consuming alcohol. I had been consuming some alcohol daily for over 25 years. I wonder if the same parts of the brain that these researchers looked at are the same as the ones I used to make that decision to stop drinking.
I also wonder if those parts of the brain these researchers are calling the "free will" center of the brain are what I use when I consider the decision I made and, so far, keep making the decision to not drink.
I would consider what I did an exercise of free will. I am skeptical that what they are testing for in this study is actually free will.
Yes he had a choice you fool. Take a stand, speak up, make your reservations heard by the people and garner support; manufacture opposition. Its not like he didn't have a thousand news outlets hanging on every word. He was the president.
The other choice was to take money from the business interests, screw the people, and toe the line that our elected officials always do, namely voting as a block for laws that infringe on the rights of citizens.
Easy choice for the would-be aristocrats. They know who supports them monetarily and they know that they can get so much more back than just votes from them. And, unlike the electorate, business and corporate interests will hold them accountable for their actions.
I see Hillary as Lawful Evil. She does things that are obviously evil, like provably lying to the FBI during their investigation, but gets away with it because she has followed the letter of the law. Also, a Lawful Evil individual would insinuate themselves in a position where they could dictate the law and empower their evil tendencies.
As for Trump, is there such a thing as Chaotic Stupid?
In the study you are referring to the participants were violent homophobes. Meaning specifically, they had a history of committing physically violent acts against homosexual men. This is an important distinction from people who act in a way that is inimical to homosexuality in general. They are just assholes.
Zero of his bills made it to the floor for consideration? That's fucking amazing! I give him a 10 out of 10. If only every other congressperson has the same success rate this country could catch its breath and gain some stability.
Damn right!! Now out of the same respect you have for yourself and your precious body and lungs I require you show me the same respect.
Never again use any consumer products that have perfumes or scents in them, including but not limited to:
1) Dryer sheets (I can't fucking exercise outside in neighborhoods because of these damn things) 2) Clothes detergent 3) Soap 4) Shampoo 5) Conditioner 6) Perfume and cologne 7) "Body sprays" 8) Air fresheners 9) Hair products (from mousse to wax) 10) Cleaning products
All of these can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and subsequent sinus and respiratory infections. Many of the fragrances are carcinogenic as well as the medium used to disperse them.
With your obviously heartfelt sentiments expressed above you have to get behind this, otherwise all you are is an arrogant self-centered hypocrite.
...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances.
Agreed, for the sake of argument. Now you have to stop operating any petroleum consuming devices in my vicinity. Cars, motor boats, lawnmowers, etc., all have to go. Don't even THINK about running anything on diesel! Also, no more dryer sheets, colognes, or perfumes. Keep your toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic smells in their tanks and bottles, thank you.
One of the lessons of religion is in your reply. Your mind is preoccupied with a certain world view. As a result you become myopic to the truth in front of you. You can't even see reality when it is spelled out for you in plain language on a page. You ignore the meaning of words and insert your own. All you see is your internal state superimposed on external reality.
That is a great lesson to learn more about, especially for someone with your proclivities toward prejudice and pejorative condemnation.
Another lesson, apropos of your completely failed translation of the sentence you quoted, is how some people will react without thinking when they encounter certain subjects. You seem to be triggered by religion.
I could try to educate you about how my post was a criticism of large religious groups and their past actions. I could mention that the overall thrust of the post was to point toward a post-religious future. I could also indicate where I was taking cues from Dawkins, Jung, and Campbell in my post.
And, I could wipe your ass for you as well, but if I did you would never learn to do it for yourself. Grow up.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a problem with what you are saying then. Trump asked Russia to give the media copies of the 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted from her home-brew personal server. The only way there would be "personal" emails from her server residing in a government server is if they weren't personal. They would be "government" emails, sent to members of the government, that she deleted for some reason. Definitely not "personal" emails.
And, furthermore, what's up with the treason accusations? Even if Trump did say to hack her email (which he didn't), the head of our justice department, Hillary, and the FBI have all declared there is nothing on her email server that was classified. No need to worry how insecure it was, or that it was a violation of policy to use it, everything there was as safe as tap water. Furthermore, it is not a government owned server. It's a personal server, so there are definitely no "treason" issues as it's not government property being talked about.
Not siding with either one of these juvenile, puerile, and corrupt imbeciles, I just want all parties to keep their heads when discussing the issues. Hyperbole and sensationalism backed by rabid self interest and self justified irrational beliefs don't help the conversation one bit. All it does is show that some people are so hopelessly wrapped up in the ideology they have been sold that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity and honesty to scratch out a couple of imaginary hash marks on the internet scoreboard of shame.
No we don't. Anyone who tells you differently based on the currently available information is either a paid shill (respectable in a capitalist way) or so completely compromised mentally they cannot be trusted with any information.
You put your trash on the street last night.
Put the keyboard down bro, and back away slowly.
Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.
So you are admitting that at least some of the "personal" emails she deleted without oversight, departmental review, or third party vetting are actually not personal. Otherwise why would they be in government email servers if they weren't sent to government email addresses?
Protofascist? What definition of fascist are you using?
If anyone is a fascist it is Clinton. The evidence is there in her collusion with banking and large business interests.
So what you are saying is that its completely acceptable for a party organization to become a secret arm of the election committee of a single candidate, divert funds from all other candidates to the anointed candidate, and promise that once that candidate is in office large donors will receive political appointment in a federal government position.
As long as the candidate who gets elected doesn't offer it themselves, its acceptable. Of course that candidate will make the appointment, but they didn't offer it directly. One of their minions did, which makes is completely OK. Nothing to see, move along. Right?
I heard it on NPR on the way to work this morning. Yes...that NPR. National Public Radio. The media outlet played on just about every public radio station in every major market in the United States. You know, the one that many people accuse of being left-leaning, but they listen to it anyways because it is pretty damn spot on most of the time. So, if even news organizations that are considered "left-leaning" are running this story you know for sure that the "right-leaning" ones are running it.
Where the hell do you live and what media outlets are you looking at?
Whatever you are doing, you need to mix it up a bit. The media outlets you are paying attention to are not giving you complete information and you are somehow not surprised by this. You may need to examine how your personal bias is affecting what you listen to and read. Are you cushioning and coddling your delicate sensibilities with an echo chamber of your own creation?
Try this on. Read The Huffington Post in the morning. Then read the Drudge Report at lunch. Pop over to CNN in the afternoon. Then, try on Fox News for contrast. XOR the news stories/headlines. You will might be surprised at what certain sites omit completely.
Selling government positions to high paying donors for one.
I don't know which is worse: having an isolationist like Trump or a warmonger like HRC...
Just ask yourself, would you re-elect Bush for a third term to put us back into a ground war in the Middle East? If so, then vote for Hillary.
They're still editing them!
And deleting the "personal" ones....
remember their bureaucracy had it's reset button hit recently with the whole government collapse. It's less entrenched, has less influence, and is less effective at mucking up the machinery. Also, with a scary as fuck, I-will-arrange-your-murder-the-disappearance-of-your-family-and-the-euthanasia-of-your-parakeet, retired-or-is-he intelligence spook running the country with an iron fist and bulging pectorals, people in the bureaucracy would be downright stupid or outright suicidal to play the obstructionist card with him.
Just a thought...
Since their corporate value is based on consumer data, what is to say they don't take certain actions to see how their consumers react? Given a Petri dish with over one billion humans in it, who wouldn't be tempted to run some experiments, rather than just observe? They have already been caught doing experiments before. I think its simplistic to assume their actions are based on ideology only.
We have a certain model, a mathematical conception if you will, of how gravitation effects work. Based on that model combined with our observations, some scientists conjecture there needs to be more mass and energy, by a factor of almost 100 times, than what we can observe to make galaxies spin at the observed rate and not fly apart, etc.
You take that as direct empirical evidence of dark matter. I assert that this is not irrefutable empirical evidence of dark matter/energy. Obviously something is going on, but saying the model is 100% correct, and therefore dark matter/dark energy exists as postulated is weak and sloppy thinking. Walking back your position to say that dark matter/dark energy is a "placeholder" is disingenuous on your part and shows you are trying to walk on two sides of the fence here. It's a kludge, tossed into the model to make it work. It points toward something, but what that something is has not been determined yet, obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it is a particle with mass then we have dark matter. I am not convinced that this is the case.
Here are some possibilities:
1) Everything is right with the model and we just need to try really hard to detect weakly interacting massive particles. This still leaves out the "energy" part of the dark conundrum, but hey, any detection would be awesome since we haven't had any yet. We can deal with the biggest part later, lets just get on the board here, right?
2) The model is way off, possibly due to some unknown problem with our understanding of gravitation at the macro-scale, and as a result there is no dark matter or dark energy. Not too far fetched, since we don't even know what causes gravity yet.
3) The observations are off. This is actually still a model error, but it would be a problem with our model of the observed information.
4) The model needs some tweaking. There is dark matter/energy, but the proportions are not what we expect, their interactions are not what we expect.
5) Our models are correct, but there is not way to directly observe dark matter/energy. The "placeholder" is recognized as a kludge and we go on about our business, quietly freaked out by the problem like the double slit experiment.
You analogy of sonar is completely wrong. That is direct observation. Definitely not what we have going on here. We do not have direct observation of dark matter/dark energy. We haven't bounced anything off of it. We haven't isolated it.
Look up inductive and abductive reasoning and tell me how I am wrong. Your analogy skills need lots and lots of help.
Um, you do realize that scientists do have experimental evidence that dark matter exists indirectly, right?
So, um...indirect experimental evidence is not actually empirical. It is absolutely, completely un-the-same as experimental evidence.
The case for dark matter is more inductive or abductive reasoning. Given certain premises based on our current understanding of gravity and our observations of the universe, dark matter makes sense. However, our observations could be wrong, or our models could be incorrect.
But I fucking told you so!!
I have nothing to go on other than my own impertinence and pigheadedness, but I am convinced that simply adding mass to the equation is not what is needed to solve it. Yes, our models look right when we add that mass, but I think it's something else going on. Something fundamental, misunderstood, and/or some emergent interaction of other forces.
Safety is an illusion that we are selling our freedoms for.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you stated with the exception of the above statement. Safety is a state of being you generate. It is a status of prepared existence. No you cannot prepare for every occurrence. No need to worry if you will get shot by a sniper, blown up by a nuclear strike, or hit by a falling meteor. You can't prevent or minimize those things. You cant avoid lightning strikes either and they are much more likely.
Recognizing what you can avoid, minimize, or eliminate with precautions, premeditation, constructive habits, and (dare I say it!) forearming yourself is where safety begins. Training and rigorous execution of the aforementioned is how safety is generated. Expecting safety from external sources is complete insanity. Just about every other person, law enforcement included, will put their life ahead of yours. This is natural and should be expected. Add in that old truth "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" and the list of parties responsible for your safety when it really matters drops precipitously. So when life and limb are on the line, how then can you have the expectation of safety from someone other than yourself? The hard truth is that in almost every circumstance you can't. To expect otherwise is to surrender your self determination to the hands of "fate" and the tender mercies of criminals.
An exception to this would be certain friends, my children, and my wife when I am with them. I will put myself in harms way, lay down my life if necessary, to prevent harm to them. While this dedication to the life of others may not be rare among friends and family, it is exceedingly rare with strangers. I can't stress this enough: Do not expect strangers and law enforcement to save you when the shit hits the fan. Rely on yourself, train yourself, take precautions, act intelligently, and know that you will win no matter what. And if winning means dying to save those you love or those you decide should live, act decisively and without restraint.
Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel strongly about.
This is incredibly interesting to me. Thank you for the link and details. I have self-defined free will as the ability to control your own brain. Or, another way to put it is, not the ability to affect and change the outside world, but the ability to choose your internal worldview, moods, thoughts, and to change the landscape of your experience, and thereby control the habits, actions, and how existence occurs to self (the experience of experience.) The application of recursion to experience: the self experiencing the self experiencing the self.
There is an amazing amount of automation, habits if you will, that your brain is great at performing without conscious thought (Check this article out for a primer on habits and how they relate to conscious thought: NY Times.) There are also many thoughts that are circulated in the mind that are simply reflexive, a product of a though generating meat-machine (see cognitive behavioral therapy for details.) Gaining control over these reflexive habitual actions and thoughts is what I see as a demonstration of free will. You will continue to have reflexes and habits for life. That's just how your mind/body works. It is the control of these things, the self-administered reconditioning as a result of examination and resolve, that shows the exercise of free will.
Another way to consider this is: What mechanism is responsible for an addict that stops using? In light of the structural and neuro-chemical deficit I and other addicts are operating from, where does that ability to simply stop come from? Definitely not the part of the brain that is already compromised and abnormal. It is responsible for perpetuating addiction. I posit that free will is as inherent to the human mind as recursion is to linguistics, and they are both part and parcel of the same complexity payload that generates both sentience and consciousness in our brains. Through structured self-experience of the self we can gain access to generate wholly new actions and patterns in our own operating medium, specifically the structural and neuro-chemical pathways in our own brains.
Just over a year ago I made a decision to stop consuming alcohol. I had been consuming some alcohol daily for over 25 years. I wonder if the same parts of the brain that these researchers looked at are the same as the ones I used to make that decision to stop drinking.
I also wonder if those parts of the brain these researchers are calling the "free will" center of the brain are what I use when I consider the decision I made and, so far, keep making the decision to not drink.
I would consider what I did an exercise of free will. I am skeptical that what they are testing for in this study is actually free will.
Yes he had a choice you fool. Take a stand, speak up, make your reservations heard by the people and garner support; manufacture opposition. Its not like he didn't have a thousand news outlets hanging on every word. He was the president.
The other choice was to take money from the business interests, screw the people, and toe the line that our elected officials always do, namely voting as a block for laws that infringe on the rights of citizens.
Easy choice for the would-be aristocrats. They know who supports them monetarily and they know that they can get so much more back than just votes from them. And, unlike the electorate, business and corporate interests will hold them accountable for their actions.
I see Hillary as Lawful Evil. She does things that are obviously evil, like provably lying to the FBI during their investigation, but gets away with it because she has followed the letter of the law. Also, a Lawful Evil individual would insinuate themselves in a position where they could dictate the law and empower their evil tendencies.
As for Trump, is there such a thing as Chaotic Stupid?
In the study you are referring to the participants were violent homophobes. Meaning specifically, they had a history of committing physically violent acts against homosexual men. This is an important distinction from people who act in a way that is inimical to homosexuality in general. They are just assholes.
Zero of his bills made it to the floor for consideration? That's fucking amazing! I give him a 10 out of 10. If only every other congressperson has the same success rate this country could catch its breath and gain some stability.
Damn right!! Now out of the same respect you have for yourself and your precious body and lungs I require you show me the same respect.
Never again use any consumer products that have perfumes or scents in them, including but not limited to:
1) Dryer sheets (I can't fucking exercise outside in neighborhoods because of these damn things)
2) Clothes detergent
3) Soap
4) Shampoo
5) Conditioner
6) Perfume and cologne
7) "Body sprays"
8) Air fresheners
9) Hair products (from mousse to wax)
10) Cleaning products
All of these can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and subsequent sinus and respiratory infections. Many of the fragrances are carcinogenic as well as the medium used to disperse them.
With your obviously heartfelt sentiments expressed above you have to get behind this, otherwise all you are is an arrogant self-centered hypocrite.
...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances.
Agreed, for the sake of argument. Now you have to stop operating any petroleum consuming devices in my vicinity. Cars, motor boats, lawnmowers, etc., all have to go. Don't even THINK about running anything on diesel! Also, no more dryer sheets, colognes, or perfumes. Keep your toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic smells in their tanks and bottles, thank you.
Man I like this idea!
One of the lessons of religion is in your reply. Your mind is preoccupied with a certain world view. As a result you become myopic to the truth in front of you. You can't even see reality when it is spelled out for you in plain language on a page. You ignore the meaning of words and insert your own. All you see is your internal state superimposed on external reality.
That is a great lesson to learn more about, especially for someone with your proclivities toward prejudice and pejorative condemnation.
Another lesson, apropos of your completely failed translation of the sentence you quoted, is how some people will react without thinking when they encounter certain subjects. You seem to be triggered by religion.
I could try to educate you about how my post was a criticism of large religious groups and their past actions. I could mention that the overall thrust of the post was to point toward a post-religious future. I could also indicate where I was taking cues from Dawkins, Jung, and Campbell in my post.
And, I could wipe your ass for you as well, but if I did you would never learn to do it for yourself. Grow up.