"hunters tend to be one of the most conservation-oriented groups out there"
On the other hand, hunters, and the money they spend on hunting related stuff, have had a negative impact on predator restoration efforts. Some state wildlife managers have decided that we can't have wolves competing for live targets (prey animals) and thus reducing the money their harvest brings in.
French inferiority complex. Well earned though they may be, surrendering to them is a sign of French weakness. Here's an idea French speakers...why not just put on your big boy pants and do something that would actually give people the urge to use the French language voluntarily. Viva la Lafayette!
I kind of agree. Even without the personal baggage, I'd feel better if our stamps honored contributions to humanity, not stylistic creativity, monopolistic business strategies, or modern day robber baron philosophy. I recognize his contribution to technological progress, I just don't think, on balance, that we should honor him with a stamp. That's just my gut reaction...I could be wrong.
Ohio rubes and marks need to buy only internal combustion cars I guess. More and more it seems to me as though Republicans (or perhaps it's only their big business sponsors) regard us not as free individuals, but rather as consumers and serfs. They seem to believe that we shouldn't have job flexibility (how awful that because of the ACA we might be free to change jobs, or even quit our jobs), should not control our family size (no birth control for you, they need more consumers and serfs), should not have a clean environment (clean air and water regulation is OK..., but not if it interferes with, or reduces, their profit margin). Democrats are about as bad...maybe only marginally less obvious about it is all. Libertarians are pretty much Republicans only without the urge to stick their noses into our bedrooms and bodies. It wasn't always this bad. Was it?
An unborn child has as many, or as few, rights as the mother says it does. It is really no one else's business, unless she chooses to make it someone else's business. The right to mind our own business is something I believe most Americans, Libertarian or otherwise, cherish. As awful as abortion sometimes is, losing the right to mind our own business would be even more awful. As qualified as you may think you are to mind a woman's business for her, it is not your place to do so (unless she relinquishes that right to you). Not in America. Maybe in some other culture, perhaps in the shadow some radically paternalistic religion, but so far at least, not in America. I pray it is ever so.
I don't see that libertarion enters that part. Only IF you believe it's "her body" and only hers, then THAT libertarian wouldn't interfere.
OK then..We may infer that you do NOT believe that a woman's body is her's alone. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we may end this conversation as there is no point in trying to find common ground, as I believe that if women are equal, free, and to have equal protection, and privacy rights equal to mine, her body is most certainly her's alone. Can't really have it both ways. Libertarian philosophy is pretty much right in line with that.
I thought I was clear. If not I apologize. Yes, I believe a woman has (should have)the right to terminate her pregnancy, at any time, for any reason. And yes, I think she is taking a human life when she does so. A terrible tragedy, and not the choice I would encourage her to make. But I honestly don't believe it can be otherwise if women are to be free. I love and respect women. I respect them enough to insist that they have the right to make their own decisions, just as I insist on the right to make my own decisions. It's a Golden Rule thing, maybe you don't understand. And just to be clear you have not stated whether you believe women should have equal rights or not. You keep dancing around it very nicely though. In any case, and back to the original point, sticking your nose into someone else's (very personal) business is not in the Libertarian philosophy.
Yes, I read every emotional word you wrote. And I must point out that you still have not clearly stated that you do not believe women should have equal rights. Why not just say what you believe?
If I were a woman and if I became pregnant, I'd like to think that abortion is not the choice I would make. But I have to insist that it would be my choice to make. Not yours, nor even a majority of my neighbors. In a free country, with equal rights, it would have to be mine alone. I will continue to work with (vote for) anyone to help make this the kind of world where no woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy (murder her unborn child if you insist on using that terminology). But I'm not such a control freak that I would deny people the freedom to choose to do something I would not. Denying choice to women is not Libertarian (my original observation if we could stay on topic).
A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy. Her internal organs are pushed around and rearranged. She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery. She risks injury and, on admittedly rare occasions, death in the birth process. Telling her she has no choice in this is draconian, paternalistic, unspiritual, and, if you are concerned with such things, inconsistent with the principle that women should have equal rights. If you do not believe that women are entitled to equal rights, then say so, plainly, and without equivocation. That would be honest..but it's not Libertarian.
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means. Nor do I think people who call themselves libertarians really are libertarians. Many of them, for instance, are down with the small gov thing, but have no hesitation to stick their noses into a woman's health care decisions. Also do you guys really want to liquidate our National Parks, Federal Interstate system, etc, etc? Cause true libertarians believe that private business should own and run just about everything. As an unashamed Progressive I believe that there are some things that only big government can do well. History shows us what happened when free enterprise took care of (or, all to often, did not) everything, and it wasn't pretty. I for one do not want to go back.
It WAS ecconomicaly feasible...as long as they could use hydrogen to give buoyancy. Once they woke up to the fact that hydrogen was a bit too flamable, the much rarer (and more expensive) helium alternative made airships impractical. Oh the humanity!
Look.. 1. Each and every one of us has a responsibility, to each and every one of us , to drive fully engaged with the process of operating our vehicle. Until (fully) self driving cars are a reality this will not change. 2. Occasionally glancing at a dash mounted, voice enabled GPS is not equivalent to studying an HUD map (when you should be driving) 3. We do not need to accommodate the rude and self-centered people who can't (or won't) embrace their responsibilities to the people they share the world with. On the occasion when we do (in moments of weakness) allow these pukes a "live and let live" attitude, we participate in making the world a less elegant, and less safe, place to live. It's past time for all of us to call these pukes on their selfishness. That's part our responsibility to each other too. 4. You kids today.....
I agree that something less than death was called for. It's tragic on many levels, but it probably would have been beter if he had been killed before he was able to pass his genes on. Hopefully his daughter is young enough that she has not had time to learn any of her father's self-centered, and inconsiderate behavior. I blame theatre owners and managers too. I also blame us. If we, collectivly, had been less tolerant of cel phone related rudeness, perhaps the victim would have been less inclined to be so inconsiderate. Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of this kind of thing.
Seems to me that if Charter Schools would be required to accept any student, "regardless of academic level" they could no longer be considered Charter schools. It may not be so stated, but my impression is that Charter Schools are a triage stratagy, employed in the face of lowered education funding and widespread lack of parental involvment, and are designed to allow exceptional students a chance to reach their full potential. I would prefer that all public schools received the resources they need. But until we (all of us) demand that from our legislators, giving interested, capable, and (let's be honest) lucky students a place to strive for excellence is better than no student having such a place.
Yes, It's not just electronic communication either. A senior manager where my wife once worked wrote the code for the entry door keypad...on the keypad, because memorizing it (or writing it down on a piece of paper he would have to dig out of his pocket) was too much trouble. True story. (I'm sure you all have stories as bad or worse than this one.)
Wait just a nanosecond. I'm just a self educated layman, but didn't Einstein come up with an explanation for how gravity works (mass distorts space-time)? Whereas Newton believed gravity worked because...what? Einstein did a lot more than just come up with a better equation didn't he? Heck, even the concept of space-time is very important concept, that, while illustrated through equations, took us far beyond the Newtonian understanding of the Cosmos. It's much more than just refining the math. Don't you think?
I hope you are not arguing that a bunch of closely spaced cars, traveling at high speed, often through interchanges with merging traffic, and drivers distracted by cell phones, is just as safe as well spaced cars, driven by engaged, and considerate drivers? If you have never encountered cruise control cretins in your travels, consider yourself lucky!
It's even more complicated than that. Cruise control is all too often a safety hazard on the interstate. Safety requires space, the more the better, between vehicles. All to often cruise control is the reason cars remain in close proximity, mile after mile. Sometimes a cruise control cretin will bogart the passing lane simply because his cruise control is oh so slowly allowing his vehicle to pass an only very slightly slower one. Safe driving requires constant adjustment of velocity in order to maximize space between vehicles. Driving safely is space and energy management.
I like music. I like Rock, Jazz, Clasical, Ambient, Bluegrass, New Age, just about any genre. I really like artists who write their own music. Not so much singers who are little more than a pretty voice. But I never got on the Beatles (the group or their various solo works) bandwagon. With rare exception, if something made the "top ten", that meant it was played at least once an hour, every hour, 24/7, (on the radio, pretty much the only way to listen to music when I was a kid) until I quickly got tired of it. Rejecting the Beatles was my way of rebelling against the groupthink of the time. Also my impression was that people who listened to the same song, over and over, were rather simple. Not a fair assesment I know, but I've never outgrown that.
Well, it would depend a bit on the complexity of the argument/issue one is trying to be objective about I guess. Some issues are complex. A person with higher intellect would have an easier time evaluating rational arguments (pro and con) than someone with a lower intellect. It's less work for the "smarter" person. What emperical evidence refutes that?
Is memory that short? We were on the brink of global financial meltdown. GM was but one of the massive dominos teetering. Widespread bank failure seemed to be a real possibility. It's hard or maybe even impossible to prove a negative but, at the time, global depression seemed to be a very real possibility. The stimuli employed in averting that depression may have been our best investment since the Marshal Plan, or The New Deal. There is no scientific way to prove its effectivness but I am grateful we spent that money.
I think ability to be "objective" depends on a lot of personality factors and training, much more so than intelligence
Yes. I agree. And I think I said "it was complicated". But logic suggests that the higher the IQ, the easier it is to be objective, to evaluate complex rational argument. The lower the IQ, the more difficult that becomes.
Slashdot Mirror
"hunters tend to be one of the most conservation-oriented groups out there"
On the other hand, hunters, and the money they spend on hunting related stuff, have had a negative impact on predator restoration efforts. Some state wildlife managers have decided that we can't have wolves competing for live targets (prey animals) and thus reducing the money their harvest brings in.
French inferiority complex. Well earned though they may be, surrendering to them is a sign of French weakness. Here's an idea French speakers...why not just put on your big boy pants and do something that would actually give people the urge to use the French language voluntarily. Viva la Lafayette!
I kind of agree. Even without the personal baggage, I'd feel better if our stamps honored contributions to humanity, not stylistic creativity, monopolistic business strategies, or modern day robber baron philosophy. I recognize his contribution to technological progress, I just don't think, on balance, that we should honor him with a stamp. That's just my gut reaction...I could be wrong.
Ohio rubes and marks need to buy only internal combustion cars I guess. More and more it seems to me as though Republicans (or perhaps it's only their big business sponsors) regard us not as free individuals, but rather as consumers and serfs. They seem to believe that we shouldn't have job flexibility (how awful that because of the ACA we might be free to change jobs, or even quit our jobs), should not control our family size (no birth control for you, they need more consumers and serfs), should not have a clean environment (clean air and water regulation is OK..., but not if it interferes with, or reduces, their profit margin). Democrats are about as bad...maybe only marginally less obvious about it is all. Libertarians are pretty much Republicans only without the urge to stick their noses into our bedrooms and bodies. It wasn't always this bad. Was it?
wearing these? And will they be liable if they are involved in a crash while driving distracted by same?
An unborn child has as many, or as few, rights as the mother says it does. It is really no one else's business, unless she chooses to make it someone else's business. The right to mind our own business is something I believe most Americans, Libertarian or otherwise, cherish. As awful as abortion sometimes is, losing the right to mind our own business would be even more awful. As qualified as you may think you are to mind a woman's business for her, it is not your place to do so (unless she relinquishes that right to you). Not in America. Maybe in some other culture, perhaps in the shadow some radically paternalistic religion, but so far at least, not in America. I pray it is ever so.
I don't see that libertarion enters that part. Only IF you believe it's "her body" and only hers, then THAT libertarian wouldn't interfere.
OK then..We may infer that you do NOT believe that a woman's body is her's alone. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we may end this conversation as there is no point in trying to find common ground, as I believe that if women are equal, free, and to have equal protection, and privacy rights equal to mine, her body is most certainly her's alone. Can't really have it both ways. Libertarian philosophy is pretty much right in line with that.
I thought I was clear. If not I apologize. Yes, I believe a woman has (should have)the right to terminate her pregnancy, at any time, for any reason. And yes, I think she is taking a human life when she does so. A terrible tragedy, and not the choice I would encourage her to make. But I honestly don't believe it can be otherwise if women are to be free. I love and respect women. I respect them enough to insist that they have the right to make their own decisions, just as I insist on the right to make my own decisions. It's a Golden Rule thing, maybe you don't understand. And just to be clear you have not stated whether you believe women should have equal rights or not. You keep dancing around it very nicely though. In any case, and back to the original point, sticking your nose into someone else's (very personal) business is not in the Libertarian philosophy.
Yes, I read every emotional word you wrote. And I must point out that you still have not clearly stated that you do not believe women should have equal rights. Why not just say what you believe?
If I were a woman and if I became pregnant, I'd like to think that abortion is not the choice I would make. But I have to insist that it would be my choice to make. Not yours, nor even a majority of my neighbors. In a free country, with equal rights, it would have to be mine alone. I will continue to work with (vote for) anyone to help make this the kind of world where no woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy (murder her unborn child if you insist on using that terminology). But I'm not such a control freak that I would deny people the freedom to choose to do something I would not. Denying choice to women is not Libertarian (my original observation if we could stay on topic).
A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy. Her internal organs are pushed around and rearranged. She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery. She risks injury and, on admittedly rare occasions, death in the birth process. Telling her she has no choice in this is draconian, paternalistic, unspiritual, and, if you are concerned with such things, inconsistent with the principle that women should have equal rights. If you do not believe that women are entitled to equal rights, then say so, plainly, and without equivocation. That would be honest..but it's not Libertarian.
libertarian
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means. Nor do I think people who call themselves libertarians really are libertarians. Many of them, for instance, are down with the small gov thing, but have no hesitation to stick their noses into a woman's health care decisions. Also do you guys really want to liquidate our National Parks, Federal Interstate system, etc, etc? Cause true libertarians believe that private business should own and run just about everything. As an unashamed Progressive I believe that there are some things that only big government can do well. History shows us what happened when free enterprise took care of (or, all to often, did not) everything, and it wasn't pretty. I for one do not want to go back.
It WAS ecconomicaly feasible...as long as they could use hydrogen to give buoyancy. Once they woke up to the fact that hydrogen was a bit too flamable, the much rarer (and more expensive) helium alternative made airships impractical. Oh the humanity!
Look..
1. Each and every one of us has a responsibility, to each and every one of us , to drive fully engaged with the process of operating our vehicle. Until (fully) self driving cars are a reality this will not change.
2. Occasionally glancing at a dash mounted, voice enabled GPS is not equivalent to studying an HUD map (when you should be driving)
3. We do not need to accommodate the rude and self-centered people who can't (or won't) embrace their responsibilities to the people they share the world with. On the occasion when we do (in moments of weakness) allow these pukes a "live and let live" attitude, we participate in making the world a less elegant, and less safe, place to live. It's past time for all of us to call these pukes on their selfishness. That's part our responsibility to each other too.
4. You kids today.....
and you think this is a good thing?
I agree that something less than death was called for. It's tragic on many levels, but it probably would have been beter if he had been killed before he was able to pass his genes on. Hopefully his daughter is young enough that she has not had time to learn any of her father's self-centered, and inconsiderate behavior.
I blame theatre owners and managers too. I also blame us. If we, collectivly, had been less tolerant of cel phone related rudeness, perhaps the victim would have been less inclined to be so inconsiderate.
Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of this kind of thing.
Seems to me that if Charter Schools would be required to accept any student, "regardless of academic level" they could no longer be considered Charter schools. It may not be so stated, but my impression is that Charter Schools are a triage stratagy, employed in the face of lowered education funding and widespread lack of parental involvment, and are designed to allow exceptional students a chance to reach their full potential. I would prefer that all public schools received the resources they need. But until we (all of us) demand that from our legislators, giving interested, capable, and (let's be honest) lucky students a place to strive for excellence is better than no student having such a place.
what the last question (to be answered by AI) will be:
"How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?"
And AC said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
And there was light --
Yes, It's not just electronic communication either. A senior manager where my wife once worked wrote the code for the entry door keypad...on the keypad, because memorizing it (or writing it down on a piece of paper he would have to dig out of his pocket) was too much trouble. True story. (I'm sure you all have stories as bad or worse than this one.)
Wait just a nanosecond. I'm just a self educated layman, but didn't Einstein come up with an explanation for how gravity works (mass distorts space-time)? Whereas Newton believed gravity worked because...what? Einstein did a lot more than just come up with a better equation didn't he? Heck, even the concept of space-time is very important concept, that, while illustrated through equations, took us far beyond the Newtonian understanding of the Cosmos. It's much more than just refining the math. Don't you think?
I hope you are not arguing that a bunch of closely spaced cars, traveling at high speed, often through interchanges with merging traffic, and drivers distracted by cell phones, is just as safe as well spaced cars, driven by engaged, and considerate drivers? If you have never encountered cruise control cretins in your travels, consider yourself lucky!
It's even more complicated than that. Cruise control is all too often a safety hazard on the interstate. Safety requires space, the more the better, between vehicles. All to often cruise control is the reason cars remain in close proximity, mile after mile. Sometimes a cruise control cretin will bogart the passing lane simply because his cruise control is oh so slowly allowing his vehicle to pass an only very slightly slower one. Safe driving requires constant adjustment of velocity in order to maximize space between vehicles. Driving safely is space and energy management.
I like music. I like Rock, Jazz, Clasical, Ambient, Bluegrass, New Age, just about any genre. I really like artists who write their own music. Not so much singers who are little more than a pretty voice. But I never got on the Beatles (the group or their various solo works) bandwagon. With rare exception, if something made the "top ten", that meant it was played at least once an hour, every hour, 24/7, (on the radio, pretty much the only way to listen to music when I was a kid) until I quickly got tired of it. Rejecting the Beatles was my way of rebelling against the groupthink of the time. Also my impression was that people who listened to the same song, over and over, were rather simple. Not a fair assesment I know, but I've never outgrown that.
Empirical evidence does not support that
Well, it would depend a bit on the complexity of the argument/issue one is trying to be objective about I guess. Some issues are complex. A person with higher intellect would have an easier time evaluating rational arguments (pro and con) than someone with a lower intellect. It's less work for the "smarter" person. What emperical evidence refutes that?
Ha! Thanks for the droll comments illustrating my point!
Is memory that short? We were on the brink of global financial meltdown. GM was but one of the massive dominos teetering. Widespread bank failure seemed to be a real possibility. It's hard or maybe even impossible to prove a negative but, at the time, global depression seemed to be a very real possibility. The stimuli employed in averting that depression may have been our best investment since the Marshal Plan, or The New Deal. There is no scientific way to prove its effectivness but I am grateful we spent that money.
I think ability to be "objective" depends on a lot of personality factors and training, much more so than intelligence
Yes. I agree. And I think I said "it was complicated". But logic suggests that the higher the IQ, the easier it is to be objective, to evaluate complex rational argument. The lower the IQ, the more difficult that becomes.