Already in this short discussion, several of your deeply held beliefs became evident:
Okay, you're right. Let's examine your claims.
"AIDS priests [can] NOT answer how HIV causes AIDS"
I've seen the page of eight conflicting theories. After $150 billion there are still only theories of HOW it happens. Any time you're ready to pony up the evidence, I'm ready to receive it.
"no lives have been saved"
Please show me a person that has been cured of AIDS through the methods prescribed by the AIDS church. Any time you're ready to pony up the evidence, I'm ready to receive it.
"The HIV tests are completely meaningless."
I have read the statements in many papers from the test makers and from CDC officials that attest to the subjective nature of the tests and also the lack of a virological gold standard. If you claim that the tests are meaningFUL, then, by all means, pony up the evidence.
"You have no evidence"
Still true! I am waiting!
In other words, all of my beliefs can be backed up by evidence while yours cannot be.
From the very start, the subject was: if your beliefs are correct, then by offering a life insurance policy
Incorrect. From the very start of this thread, the subject was that perhaps AIDS researchers are barking up the wrong tree. Then you tried to change the subject and keep trying to do it. Instead of giving me the evidence that will justify your beliefs, you are, instead, trying to make this an issue of some failure on my part. Whether or not I do something or do not do something has nothing to do at all with whether or not AIDS is a single disease caused by a single pathogen and whether or not HIV causes AIDS or whether or not HIV even exists at all. It is a non-sequitur, and I will no longer entertain it.
Please don't change the subject again and ask me for evidence for claims I supposedly hold.
I will never stop asking you for evidence. It is, after all, where you are weakest.
If I remember correctly, the last time I tried, it became apparent that you lack the basic educational background
Ad hominem.
But I have one personal question for you: suppose you or someone close to you goes to donate blood and the routine HIV test comes back positive. What do you advise? Ignore the "meaningless" test and continue to live as if nothing had happened?
If someone close to me had an HIV test, then they would have already have disregarded my advice. I have told all of my loved ones that they should never, under any circumstance, have an HIV test. Your question is idiotic in the light that a "positive" result is first interpreted by the tester. If the person is in a "high-risk" group, then it's a "true positive." If the person is in a "low-risk" group, then it's deemed a false positive. So it may very well happen that a person who was close to me had a "positive" result, but the person in question was in a "low-risk" group so the tester gave a "negative" result.
One of the points that Bill Hilf made in the interview on Channel9 is that Linux was "very different" from Windows. (He then added that either one, other, or both were "very different" from OSX.)
How true is this? I only ask because I have had some experience with MVS (the operating system which has no concept of "files" or "directories") and Tandem (whose weird features I can't remember enough to describe), and I would describe both of those as "very different" from UNIX or Windows.
When it comes down to it, UNIX and Windows look pretty similair to me. They both support WIMP GUIs. They both have concepts of files and directories. They both have users and groups and permissions. They both have preemptive multitasking and multithreading.
The whole reason that Hilf stated that "Linux is very different from Windows" was part of the justification as to why Microsoft would not build applications for Windows (which was transparent and deceitful). If my belief is correct (that Linux is "similar enough" to Windows), then my opinion of Hilf falls through the floor. Am I correct that Linux is "similar enough" to Windows?
have no interest in changing your deeply held beliefs; all I'm trying to do is point out their logical consequences
I don't have beliefs, I have skepticism. You claim the following:
1. There is a single condition called "AIDS" 2. AIDS is caused by a single pathogen "HIV"
And my response is, "Really? Prove it to me."
Which you fail miserably to do. Instead, you try and turn this into an issue of my personal failings, which tells me a lot about you. If you beleive so strongly in your point of view, then show me the evidence!
The reason you don't show me the evidence is because you have no evidence and that's why you keep trying to change the subject.
I would argue that the idea of a "small government Republican" is dead for the most part.
Ron Paul is still alive, but he's definately in the minority. To many republicans, winning is more important than remaining true to the principle of liberty.
Big government fascists everywhere. Know what I'd like to do? Get a bunch of libertarians and classical liberals to pool their money to buy an unused offshore oil rig in international waters and declare it our own sovereign nation.
I don't think there is much we can do, as things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better. I am forming a group that will serve as a community of rational and liberty-minded folks. It's my hope and dream for creating the long term success of our people.
I'm a bit puzzled why you list the Campus Christian Fellowship as a "keyword" on your webpage. Maybe theres an interesting story about this that you could share?
I'm happy to share. I'm a Christian apostate, or "ex-Christian," and CCF was the Christian group that I was a member of when I was in college. I had lots of friends there, friends that I lost when I abandoned Christianity. One of the benefits of being a Christian is the wonderful community of caring people that it gives you. It has to be judged as a good thing in its own right because it is. I've never been able to have back that community that I lost when I de-converted, no matter how I've tried. So I'm trying to make one of my own that's based on reason.
I enjoyed reading (and mostly agree with) your other posts.
What a wonderful compliment, I thank you! I'm glad that someone took notice because the things that I've been saying recently are things that I've never heard said to a Christian. I'm particularly talking about correctly condemning them as immoral for worshipping an evil god, and correctly stating that they have no right to criticize me for being gay or having gay sex. I tell you, it has a jarring effect on Christians. They don't know how to react to it, so they, in general, react poorly and thoughtlessly. The fact that I have an excellent working knowledge of scripture and common Christian beliefs really helps me and works to their disadvantage.
Usually I adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward christianity, but it is enlightening to hear from someone who feels directly threatened by it.
Live-and-let-live is a key part of my philosophy. I believe in the non-initiation of force and the respect for other's life, liberty, and property. But Christians do not want to extend to me that same courtesy. I wouldn't feel so strongly about being on the offense if I wasn't a parent. I am preparing myself for the fateful day when a Christian decides to challenge me to my face about being a gay parent. I assure you, I will be prepared. My goal at that point will be to shame that Christian into self-doubt and have them walk away from me in confusion and sadness. That's the best outcome I can hope for, because I certainly don't want things to come to violence.
Just because something doesn't work in the ideal way doesn't mean that that ideal is necessarily wrong.
That's not what I was arguing at all. What I am arguing against is the dangerous belief in scientists. Scientists are humans, and they often do things for money, power, and ego rather than for information. The faith that humans have in scientists can be just as dangerous as the faith that humans have in their religious leaders.
I'm a physicist (grad student), so I have a more idealistic view of things, I suppose: nobody wants to make millions off of gamma-ray bursts, so it's a little more civil out here.
You're biased, of course. You *want* science to be pure because it's your area of study and where your paycheck will be coming from. There's nothing wrong with being biased as long as you recognize it and are honest about it -- that's really the only way of basing your decisions on reason rather than I am biased, too. I am biased toward reason and evidence, not toward any alleged purity of scientists.
Sure, there are lots of wrong turns, dead ends, dumb ideas, good ideas that are called dumb, and the like in science. But, just like natural selection, the process -- on a large scale -- works. Eventually, in the commons of ideas, the good ones win out.
That's a dangerous thought, I think. Sure, eventually things work out, just as in the pellagra case. But how many people were needlessly quarantined because of a false belief in a pathogen until the scientists' ego could no longer sustain the falsehood? As you can see, the lust for ego and power in the name of "science" can be very harmful.
If you truly believe this, I have an appealing business proposal for you:
Don't you remember arguing with me, Axel? I stopped writing you because you became a belligerent jerk. What do you think would happen if I tried to set up just such a business? Do you think the government would let me get away with it?
Furthermore, if what I say is incorrect, then perhaps you can tell me how HIV causes AIDS. Perhaps you can tell me why Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, does not believe the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Perhaps you can tell me why HIV tests can be trusted.
First off, if you're going to choose quotes on Christian principals, try looking at the v2 of the Bible. Jesus presents a much more forgiving viewpoint on everything.
Jesus can have all the forgiving viewpoints he wants. It doesn't change the fact that your god commanded that babies and children be killed and that pregnant women be torn open. You worship this evil god and choose him as your standard of morality, and I think that is repulsive and immoral.
I will say that I don't agree with your lifestyle. I don't think you should be drug out and shot, but I do believe in marriage as God's union between a man and a woman. I therefore support any legislation that prevents marriage from being twisted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
In other words, you don't think I should be executed (how generous of you), but you do think I should have a grossly second-class status compared to your exalted one, o greatness. The state can compel me to testify against my partner, but you're immune from that. It's fitting since you think I have a degenerate, counterfeit lifestyle, right?
It cheapens it's defintion, and by connection cheapens my own marriage.
Yes, it would be afwul if those c*cks*cking f*ggots got to have the same, special rights that you did. Your children deserve protection, but the f*ggot's children should suffer. You should enact laws to make sure of that.
I'm sure that you and your partner love each other and your son. However, I can't support your union and I can't support legislation that supports your union.
And what makes your union so much better than mine? Your polygamy-supporting, baby-killing, abortionist, gay-bashing, woman-demeaning god? Your god never said, "marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman." That is conservative spin and you know it. We have a strong, healthy relationship and are positive, disciplined, loving parents to our son. More than 50% of straight Christians fail at doing even that, but they still get the special rights whereas our family must suffer.
I said that when we can understand where someone is coming from we can get on to better understanding. I don't understand where you're coming from as a homosexual. It frankly sounds like sexual deviancy to me.
And it will continue to sound that way because you want it to. You choose to think of homosexuality as "sexual deviancy" because it's nice to have someone to look down on. It makes you feel more moral and, thus, superior. What's even better is that you claim to "love the sinner, hate the sin" so you can be even more superior because despite their "sexual deviancy" you still love them. You Christians are so smug and elitist! You deserve to be taken down a few notches.
I could frakly find ways to criticize, mock and reject you without once invoking the name of God. But instead, I choose to want to show you the error or your ways and change.
And you have failed miserably to show me that there is anything wrong at all with being gay. And even if you do, I'm going to tell you, rightly, that you are immoral and disgusting because you worship a baby-killing god and have made no effort to hide or explain it. As a parent, I find your choice of religion revolting. I could have gay anal sex five times a day for the rest of my life and I would still be orders of magnitude more moral than the evil god that you worship.
I don't hate homosexuals, I dislike very much what they do, but I don't hate them personally.
I don't hate Christians, but I dislike very much what a great many of them do, too, and I'm just talking about little things like prayer. (Prayer is the biggest waste of time on the planet!) And yet, I don't feel compelled to enact laws to punish you for praying. I'm fine to live and let live. You, on the other hand, have to make laws that punish me for what I do. So I'm not buying this "I don't hate them pe
Neither was the Patriot Act, for that matter. Perhaps since you read slashdot you're aware of the many number of investigations under the Patriot act that had nothing to do with terrorism.
The government has been wanting even more control of our liberty for a long time, but us individualistic, stubborn Americans just weren't having any of it. 9/11 and terrorism are the excuse, not the reason, for these new intrusions on our liberty.
It's going to get worse before it gets any better. And what's even sadder is that terrorists can still get us. It seems that the small-government Republicans have their priorities in order: destroy liberty first, then maybe do something about terrorism (after pracising some heavy borrow-and-spend).
You may not believe this, but don't critisize others when they follow their own beliefs.
When Christians follow their beliefs they tend to write and support amendments to state constitutions that prevent gay people from having "any benefits of marriage." As a gay, adoptive parent in a 9-year committed relationship, what does that mean for my family?
Does it invalidate my partner and mine's co-parent adoption of our adopted son? Will it render illegal the partner benefits that my partner and I receive from my company? It's sad to say, but many Christians would happily have both of those things taken from us because they view our relationship as counterfeit and abhorrent to their god, and many other Christians won't lift a finger to stop them since they have more important priorities than getting the gay-bashers out of their religion. The gay-bashing Christians are only following their beliefs, so why should I complain?
So, Christian, I respond to you: Agreeing to disagree is unacceptable because your people attack my family through the force of the state. I openly and unashamedly reject your evil religion and your evil god. Since you worship a baby-killing, abortionist god, you have no room whatsoever to criticize my morality. I will continue to criticize, mock, and reject your religion as long as Christians choose to use their religion as the excuse to criticize, mock, and reject me. Fair enough?
This is how science progresses: make assumptions, assume that they're right until something shows otherwise, and then methodically try to prove them wrong.
I wish science worked that way more frequently. I think what you've described is a very naive view of science. In reality, "science" works quite differently.
The people making assumptions are often people who are trying to win money in the form of a government grant. The people in charge of awarding the money ("funding projects") are the same people who have proposed the "current prevailing theory." What if that theory turns out to be specacularly wrong? There are ego, careers, prestige, and money at stake. So if someone else comes along and proposes an alternate theory that shows that the "current prevailing theory" is incorrect, then those people making the proposal are viciously attacked. Maybe the heretics will be denounced as "unscientific" if the current Powers that Be are feeling charitable. Maybe they will instead branded as trying to kill people and suggestions will be made that they should be put in prison.
Don't think it can happen? It happened before with a disease known as pellagra. Pellagra was killing lots of people in the Southern USA in the early 1900s. In 1915 the surgeon general of the USA sent Joseph Goldberger to investigate and discover the pathogen which was causing people to die. After doing some observation, Goldberger put forth the idea that pellagra was caused by diet instead of a pathogen. This meant that for 15 years scientists were barking up the wrong tree, so Goldberger was denounced and his crackpot theories were ignored. Years later, in 1937, Conrad Elvehjem showed that pellagra was cured in dogs when niacin was added to their diet. Today, pellagra is known as niacin (vitamin B6) deficiency. That means scientists shit all over what turned out to be correct for 22 years. My guess is that massive egos were tied up in maintaining the status quo. I mean, you're a top-knotch scientist using taxpayers' money to learn how the natural world works. You don't want to be shown to be a fraud, do you?
Fast forward to 1984. Richard Gallo announces in a press conference that he has discovered the "virus" that causes AIDS. 20 years and $150 billion later, scientists still cannot explain how HIV causes AIDS, who isolated HIV, and why no lives have been saved. Maybe scientists are, once again, barking up the wrong tree, since their lack of results and foaming-at-the-mouth treatment of any heretics seems awfully familiar.
Oh well, it's not bad for everyone. Pharma corporations sure are making a killing.
In America we are given the righ to free speach. And this is actually a dangious right to have. Free Speach can give ideas that people will miss interpreate and twist around, or give them ideas that could be harmful to society.
You must recognize that the concept of "that which is harmful to society" is equivalent to "that which is immoral."
Given that, you must agree with me that free speech gives people the right to have immoral thoughts.
But who is the arbiter of what is a moral thought and what is an immoral thought? Christians think that my talking about gay rights is an immoral thought. I think that Christians' belief in superstition and mysticism is immoral. The fact is that everyone defines for themselves which thoughts are moral and which are not. The whole purpose behind free speech is that everyone opines but does not know which thoughts are immoral and moral, so let people think and say what they want and limit the prohibitive powers of government to only those actions which deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Due to this, people will say things that you think are evil and they have a right to say them. I say that I do not believe in god and people get hopping mad. I say that I do not think AIDS is a single disease caused by a pathogen and people get really fsking, fist-shaking, screaming mad. The right to free speech protects me in these cases, just like it protects you when you say that "free speech is a dangerous right," which makes me a little hot under the collar.
I'm sorry, were you asking me to name the key players in terms of whose interests are served in the trade imbalance with China? And were you gearing up to stating, "See, it *is* greed!" if I couldn't name them off-hand?
That's stupid. Of all the big diplomatic decisions, I'm supposed to know who all of the key players are at any given time? How am I supposed to know? What I am sure of is that big decisions such as those made at the diplomatic level are made by important people and groups, many of which may be deliberately hidden from me. I can only surmise this because I now that the unimportant and the ineffectual are NOT the ones making the big decisions.
Also that is bullshit to extrapolate "hate corporate america" out of a post. That is an ad hominem attack.
I don't think so. I was merely making a guess about your political beliefs by your choice to name Corporate America and the Republicans. It's common knowledge that Leftists equate Corporate America with evil and Hitler, and they treat the Republicans as toadies for Corporate America. If you believe otherwise, then I retract my guess about your political beliefs.
I was asking a question. You did not answer it.
I did. Key players make the diplomatic decisions. By nature, I can't always know who they are. Do you argue otherwise?
You seem like a kid who just wants to argue and act like a prick. If your tone doesn't improve in your next post then I won't reply.
I really fail to see how you can protest the use of "greed" as an answer, yet not see the connection between greed
Let me put it this way. I reject outright any argument based on "greed." Why? Well, what is the definition of "greed"?
"An excessive desire for wealth."
Well, what is "excessive"? Ask 1,000,000 people and you'll get 1,000,000 different answers. The concept is completely subjective and therefore it is useless in terms of making moral decisions.
putting aside issues of right and wrong for one country or individual's own benefit.
What if benefiting one's own country is part of what you define as "right"? It seems like you define anything that you might see as "patriotic" or "nationalistic" as "wrong," but that's *your* ethics, and it isn't necesssarily shared by others.
For example, should we end trade with China because we don't want to reward their human rights abuses? What would be the consequences? What if it cost the USA 200,000 jobs? Would it be worth it if 200,000 low-to-middle-class Americans lost their jobs and were plunged into poverty and crime because the government protested China's human rights record? Would a politician make that decision knowing that the backlash could cause him to be voted out of office and his competitor would replace him and immediately restore trade relations with China? What if the political fallout included giving power to your rival party? What would become of all the good you would accomplish if, over this issue, you could lose everything?
I know that politicians like to speak to you as if everything is "black verses white," "good guys verses bad guys," and "us verses them." It makes it simple for voters to not have to make complex decisions. But diplomacy is an extremely complex game of competing interests, and no one really has a clear idea of what "right" and "wrong" are in many cases. It's very frequently a game of many shades of gray.
That you need money in this day to apparently have to accomplish these items is a failure of our own human kind to strive towards working for the common good of the entire race.
I repeat: money is merely property abstracted. It makes "giving" food to hungry people orders of magnitude more convenient. Instead of having to barter every single time or waste time finding someone with the commodity that we may desire at the time, we have a single unit of currency that everyone values because it can be traded for any other item (barring sentimental value). Is this fact lost on you? Why is this "killer app" of money seen as a "failure of our own human kind"? Please explain becuase your words seem illogical to me.
On a side note, there is no "common good." Do you disagree? Then what is the common good for the Israelis *and* the Palestinians, given that what they both desire is mutually exclusive? Is the common good for both of them just to accept *your* view of morality?
Yeah but who's interests? Corporate America's? The Republican Parties? Who's interests are being helped by the USA trade inbalance with China?
I answered that question in the post I made. Did you not read it? Here, I'll quote what I wrote:
Because some key players in our country's power structure decided that it was in our country's (or in some certain individuals') interests to do so.
The answer is "key players." The USA is ruled by powerful people in powerful positions. Not all of them are on the same team (otherwise, why would the NY Times be so critical of the president?). I know that you really hate Corporate America and the Republican Party and think they're the root of all evil. Believe me, though I might agree with you in many ways that they may be evil, they are but two of many parties with some degree of overlap. The game of control and power is more complicated than you're willing to entertain. It's not just about "good guys" verses "bad guys."
Money buys entertainment people who want to enjoy life instead of doing nothing but work.
Money buys all sorts of things that make our (meaning, us humans') short lives happier.
The fact that all property (excepting sentimental values) can be abstracted into a value in terms of "money" in the marketplace of free exhange is both the killer app of money and also its greatest weakness, as it spawns people who will inevitably say, "All they care about is money!" ignoring that money is the means of a better life for so many people many steps removed along the chain of free exchange.
Why are the supposedly free and democratic nations bending over backwards to strike deals with a dictatorship which not only oppresses its own people but also holds its neighbouring peoples under brutal occupation?... The only answer I have so far is greed.
"Greed" is the typical response of college students who think that all of "society's" problems can be boiled down to 1) people not getting what they "need" which is caused by 2) people "exploiting" other people because of their "greed." It's as simplistic as it is stupid, and I wish that this dogma would finally fall in the same way that so many of the wicked commist regimes that it spawned have fallen.
Indeed, it is a valuable question to wonder why the United States, rhetorically a country that supports "freedom," would view freedom-crushing, wicked regimes such as China and Saudi Arabia as "strategic partners." The answer can be summed up in one concept: interests.
It has been said before, "In diplomocy, there are no friends. Only interests." Why is it that some countries of negligable threat (Iraq) get flattened by our military while others that wholesale export America-hating terror (Saudi Arabia) get a pass? Because some key players in our country's power structure decided that it was in our country's (or in some certain individuals') interests to do so. For instance, should the United States, on the matter of principle (pick your favorite: women's rights, religious freedom, not-chopping-hands-off-of-petty-thieves, whatever) boycott Saudi Arabian oil? Well, what would be the consequence of such a thing? Is it in our interest to do so? Should the fact that oil is the backbone of the American economy take precendence over standing up for (fill in the matter of principle here)? It all depends on what the consequences for not standing up for "what is right" might be at the time, and that usually comes down to key players taking political hits in the domestic or international community.
As everyone can see, maintaining the oil has, for whatever reason, trumped standing up for human rights in Saudi Arabia. This type of duplicity can be managed through media spin. How often do we hear of the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia compared to those that happen in Guantanamo Bay? (Well, I'm conflating two different political factions there, but I think you get the idea.)
And don't get me started on China. Will the USA honor its treaty to Taiwan if China invades? The answer to that question will be framed in terms of, "Is it in our interests to do so?" If the government is so willing to defecate with reckless abandon on liberty, then don't think that for a moment it's going to treat Taiwan with any higher degree of respect.
The idea that the USA stands up for freedom is naive. Those who run the USA will act in their interests, which they try (or, at least, pretend to try) to make the same as the interests of the USA. All other countries follow the same path: they fight for their interests.
We can come up with alternative fuel sources all day long. That's not the problem! The problem is: where and how are you going to put filling stations for the gazillions of cars, trucks, tractor trailers, airplanes, and ships?
It's gonna take billions upon billions of dollars, no matter what we choose. Finding something that "mother earth likes" is the least of our (us humans') worries.
Becuase if you smoke cigarettes, then you stink. You're probably used to it because you're around it most of the time. But every time you meet a non-smoker, your breath, hair, clothes, car, apartment, everything about you stinks to high hell -- in the literal sense of the word. People don't tell you that you stink because politeness demands that they keep their mouths shut in those instances. They also don't tell you because self-important, whiney smokers get especially whiney when someone else points out how revolting their rather public drug addiction is.
What if you're a Leftist and you hate capitalism?
on
Inside Look at Pixar HQ
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I'm not trying to troll. I genuinely am curious.
There are plenty of Leftists on Slashdot. My comments challenging and questioning socialism are routinely and viciously mocked while replies to the tune of, "You're obviously a Nazi," get modded "+5 Insightful" in a matter of microseconds.
And I'm sure lots of the Leftists here love the idea of working in a "creative" job that makes "cool" movies.
So what happens when an explosion of capitalism (Pixar) creates a job that a Leftist here would really like? Does this create some cognitive dissonance for you? If capitalism is nothing but a flawed system designed to enrich the ruling class at the expense of poor, working minorities, then how can it create such a wonderful work environment?
(And yes, if you're curious, sometimes phenomena in socialist countries create cognitive dissonance in me. It's okay, it's all good.)
It happens with all prohibition
on
Contrabandwidth
·
· Score: 0
Anytime a government bans a product or a service that people want, it sets off an inevitable chain reaction:
1. A black market immediately springs up to service the demand 2. The government tries to "get tough" with the black market 3. The price for the goods and services on the black market increase 4. People resort to crime to pay for ever-increasing black market prices 5. Life gets a little bit worse for just about everybody
And the cycle continues. This vicious cycle is true with failed government attempts to stop people from wanting drugs, tobacco, guns, speech, communication...
People, in general, are too stupid to realize that voting for X or Y is going to save or cost them money in taxes. Look at all the poor people voting republican despite the fact that their tax burden is going up because of it.
I'll agree with "people, in general, are too stupid." It causes all sorts of problems.
The poor people voting Republican are actually lowering their taxes since Bush's tax cuts were across the board. Bush's immense spending programs will actually affect our descendents. Democrats are "tax and spend," while Republicans are "borrow and spend."
Now, what politicians actually do is give money to their campaign (and pro-them PACs and 572s) contributors, who then give them the money they need to stay in office.
Politicians give money to their voters and campaign contributors in all sorts of ways. It's called "pork." For example: check out the Pig Book to see some of governments most egregious examples of using taxpayer-plundered money to buy votes.
It's an inherent flaw in democracy. Unless you can think of a better solution, suck it up and pay your taxes, whiner.
Perhaps you'll be surprised to know that our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy as many politicians like to lie. And thinking up a better solution is not hard at all: eliminate 90% of the federal government. It's the implementation of that solution that is the hard part. After all, how do you convince someone that receiving plundered money is a bad thing when they're already quite comfortable with their moocher lifestyle? The only way to do that is to win constutents to your point-of-view, and the only way to do that is to, as you put it, "whine." It also helps me to refine my argument to sharpen my steel on posts like yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Already in this short discussion, several of your deeply held beliefs became evident:
Okay, you're right. Let's examine your claims.
"AIDS priests [can] NOT answer how HIV causes AIDS"
I've seen the page of eight conflicting theories. After $150 billion there are still only theories of HOW it happens. Any time you're ready to pony up the evidence, I'm ready to receive it.
"no lives have been saved"
Please show me a person that has been cured of AIDS through the methods prescribed by the AIDS church. Any time you're ready to pony up the evidence, I'm ready to receive it.
"The HIV tests are completely meaningless."
I have read the statements in many papers from the test makers and from CDC officials that attest to the subjective nature of the tests and also the lack of a virological gold standard. If you claim that the tests are meaningFUL, then, by all means, pony up the evidence.
"You have no evidence"
Still true! I am waiting!
In other words, all of my beliefs can be backed up by evidence while yours cannot be.
From the very start, the subject was: if your beliefs are correct, then by offering a life insurance policy
Incorrect. From the very start of this thread, the subject was that perhaps AIDS researchers are barking up the wrong tree. Then you tried to change the subject and keep trying to do it. Instead of giving me the evidence that will justify your beliefs, you are, instead, trying to make this an issue of some failure on my part. Whether or not I do something or do not do something has nothing to do at all with whether or not AIDS is a single disease caused by a single pathogen and whether or not HIV causes AIDS or whether or not HIV even exists at all. It is a non-sequitur, and I will no longer entertain it.
Please don't change the subject again and ask me for evidence for claims I supposedly hold.
I will never stop asking you for evidence. It is, after all, where you are weakest.
If I remember correctly, the last time I tried, it became apparent that you lack the basic educational background
Ad hominem.
But I have one personal question for you: suppose you or someone close to you goes to donate blood and the routine HIV test comes back positive. What do you advise? Ignore the "meaningless" test and continue to live as if nothing had happened?
If someone close to me had an HIV test, then they would have already have disregarded my advice. I have told all of my loved ones that they should never, under any circumstance, have an HIV test. Your question is idiotic in the light that a "positive" result is first interpreted by the tester. If the person is in a "high-risk" group, then it's a "true positive." If the person is in a "low-risk" group, then it's deemed a false positive. So it may very well happen that a person who was close to me had a "positive" result, but the person in question was in a "low-risk" group so the tester gave a "negative" result.
One of the points that Bill Hilf made in the interview on Channel9 is that Linux was "very different" from Windows. (He then added that either one, other, or both were "very different" from OSX.)
How true is this? I only ask because I have had some experience with MVS (the operating system which has no concept of "files" or "directories") and Tandem (whose weird features I can't remember enough to describe), and I would describe both of those as "very different" from UNIX or Windows.
When it comes down to it, UNIX and Windows look pretty similair to me. They both support WIMP GUIs. They both have concepts of files and directories. They both have users and groups and permissions. They both have preemptive multitasking and multithreading.
The whole reason that Hilf stated that "Linux is very different from Windows" was part of the justification as to why Microsoft would not build applications for Windows (which was transparent and deceitful). If my belief is correct (that Linux is "similar enough" to Windows), then my opinion of Hilf falls through the floor. Am I correct that Linux is "similar enough" to Windows?
have no interest in changing your deeply held beliefs; all I'm trying to do is point out their logical consequences
I don't have beliefs, I have skepticism. You claim the following:
1. There is a single condition called "AIDS"
2. AIDS is caused by a single pathogen "HIV"
And my response is, "Really? Prove it to me."
Which you fail miserably to do. Instead, you try and turn this into an issue of my personal failings, which tells me a lot about you. If you beleive so strongly in your point of view, then show me the evidence!
The reason you don't show me the evidence is because you have no evidence and that's why you keep trying to change the subject.
I don't see which law you'd break. Isn't it worth a try at least? You become rich and get to prove your favorite theory at the same time.
Forget it. It's foolish of me to allow you to change the subject.
Why, after 20 years and $150 billion dollars can AIDS priests NOT answer how HIV causes AIDS?
The HIV tests are completely meaningless. How can you possibly deny this?
I want answers, you AIDS apologist!
I would argue that the idea of a "small government Republican" is dead for the most part.
Ron Paul is still alive, but he's definately in the minority. To many republicans, winning is more important than remaining true to the principle of liberty.
Big government fascists everywhere. Know what I'd like to do? Get a bunch of libertarians and classical liberals to pool their money to buy an unused offshore oil rig in international waters and declare it our own sovereign nation.
I don't think there is much we can do, as things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better. I am forming a group that will serve as a community of rational and liberty-minded folks. It's my hope and dream for creating the long term success of our people.
I'm a bit puzzled why you list the Campus Christian Fellowship as a "keyword" on your webpage. Maybe theres an interesting story about this that you could share?
I'm happy to share. I'm a Christian apostate, or "ex-Christian," and CCF was the Christian group that I was a member of when I was in college. I had lots of friends there, friends that I lost when I abandoned Christianity. One of the benefits of being a Christian is the wonderful community of caring people that it gives you. It has to be judged as a good thing in its own right because it is. I've never been able to have back that community that I lost when I de-converted, no matter how I've tried. So I'm trying to make one of my own that's based on reason.
I enjoyed reading (and mostly agree with) your other posts.
What a wonderful compliment, I thank you! I'm glad that someone took notice because the things that I've been saying recently are things that I've never heard said to a Christian. I'm particularly talking about correctly condemning them as immoral for worshipping an evil god, and correctly stating that they have no right to criticize me for being gay or having gay sex. I tell you, it has a jarring effect on Christians. They don't know how to react to it, so they, in general, react poorly and thoughtlessly. The fact that I have an excellent working knowledge of scripture and common Christian beliefs really helps me and works to their disadvantage.
Usually I adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward christianity, but it is enlightening to hear from someone who feels directly threatened by it.
Live-and-let-live is a key part of my philosophy. I believe in the non-initiation of force and the respect for other's life, liberty, and property. But Christians do not want to extend to me that same courtesy. I wouldn't feel so strongly about being on the offense if I wasn't a parent. I am preparing myself for the fateful day when a Christian decides to challenge me to my face about being a gay parent. I assure you, I will be prepared. My goal at that point will be to shame that Christian into self-doubt and have them walk away from me in confusion and sadness. That's the best outcome I can hope for, because I certainly don't want things to come to violence.
Just because something doesn't work in the ideal way doesn't mean that that ideal is necessarily wrong.
That's not what I was arguing at all. What I am arguing against is the dangerous belief in scientists. Scientists are humans, and they often do things for money, power, and ego rather than for information. The faith that humans have in scientists can be just as dangerous as the faith that humans have in their religious leaders.
I'm a physicist (grad student), so I have a more idealistic view of things, I suppose: nobody wants to make millions off of gamma-ray bursts, so it's a little more civil out here.
You're biased, of course. You *want* science to be pure because it's your area of study and where your paycheck will be coming from. There's nothing wrong with being biased as long as you recognize it and are honest about it -- that's really the only way of basing your decisions on reason rather than I am biased, too. I am biased toward reason and evidence, not toward any alleged purity of scientists.
Sure, there are lots of wrong turns, dead ends, dumb ideas, good ideas that are called dumb, and the like in science. But, just like natural selection, the process -- on a large scale -- works. Eventually, in the commons of ideas, the good ones win out.
That's a dangerous thought, I think. Sure, eventually things work out, just as in the pellagra case. But how many people were needlessly quarantined because of a false belief in a pathogen until the scientists' ego could no longer sustain the falsehood? As you can see, the lust for ego and power in the name of "science" can be very harmful.
If you truly believe this, I have an appealing business proposal for you:
Don't you remember arguing with me, Axel? I stopped writing you because you became a belligerent jerk. What do you think would happen if I tried to set up just such a business? Do you think the government would let me get away with it?
Furthermore, if what I say is incorrect, then perhaps you can tell me how HIV causes AIDS. Perhaps you can tell me why Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, does not believe the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Perhaps you can tell me why HIV tests can be trusted.
First off, if you're going to choose quotes on Christian principals, try looking at the v2 of the Bible. Jesus presents a much more forgiving viewpoint on everything.
Jesus can have all the forgiving viewpoints he wants. It doesn't change the fact that your god commanded that babies and children be killed and that pregnant women be torn open. You worship this evil god and choose him as your standard of morality, and I think that is repulsive and immoral.
I will say that I don't agree with your lifestyle. I don't think you should be drug out and shot, but I do believe in marriage as God's union between a man and a woman. I therefore support any legislation that prevents marriage from being twisted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
In other words, you don't think I should be executed (how generous of you), but you do think I should have a grossly second-class status compared to your exalted one, o greatness. The state can compel me to testify against my partner, but you're immune from that. It's fitting since you think I have a degenerate, counterfeit lifestyle, right?
It cheapens it's defintion, and by connection cheapens my own marriage.
Yes, it would be afwul if those c*cks*cking f*ggots got to have the same, special rights that you did. Your children deserve protection, but the f*ggot's children should suffer. You should enact laws to make sure of that.
I'm sure that you and your partner love each other and your son. However, I can't support your union and I can't support legislation that supports your union.
And what makes your union so much better than mine? Your polygamy-supporting, baby-killing, abortionist, gay-bashing, woman-demeaning god? Your god never said, "marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman." That is conservative spin and you know it. We have a strong, healthy relationship and are positive, disciplined, loving parents to our son. More than 50% of straight Christians fail at doing even that, but they still get the special rights whereas our family must suffer.
I said that when we can understand where someone is coming from we can get on to better understanding. I don't understand where you're coming from as a homosexual. It frankly sounds like sexual deviancy to me.
And it will continue to sound that way because you want it to. You choose to think of homosexuality as "sexual deviancy" because it's nice to have someone to look down on. It makes you feel more moral and, thus, superior. What's even better is that you claim to "love the sinner, hate the sin" so you can be even more superior because despite their "sexual deviancy" you still love them. You Christians are so smug and elitist! You deserve to be taken down a few notches.
I could frakly find ways to criticize, mock and reject you without once invoking the name of God. But instead, I choose to want to show you the error or your ways and change.
And you have failed miserably to show me that there is anything wrong at all with being gay. And even if you do, I'm going to tell you, rightly, that you are immoral and disgusting because you worship a baby-killing god and have made no effort to hide or explain it. As a parent, I find your choice of religion revolting. I could have gay anal sex five times a day for the rest of my life and I would still be orders of magnitude more moral than the evil god that you worship.
I don't hate homosexuals, I dislike very much what they do, but I don't hate them personally.
I don't hate Christians, but I dislike very much what a great many of them do, too, and I'm just talking about little things like prayer. (Prayer is the biggest waste of time on the planet!) And yet, I don't feel compelled to enact laws to punish you for praying. I'm fine to live and let live. You, on the other hand, have to make laws that punish me for what I do. So I'm not buying this "I don't hate them pe
Neither was the Patriot Act, for that matter. Perhaps since you read slashdot you're aware of the many number of investigations under the Patriot act that had nothing to do with terrorism.
The government has been wanting even more control of our liberty for a long time, but us individualistic, stubborn Americans just weren't having any of it. 9/11 and terrorism are the excuse, not the reason, for these new intrusions on our liberty.
It's going to get worse before it gets any better. And what's even sadder is that terrorists can still get us. It seems that the small-government Republicans have their priorities in order: destroy liberty first, then maybe do something about terrorism (after pracising some heavy borrow-and-spend).
And people wonder why I vote Libertarian!
You may not believe this, but don't critisize others when they follow their own beliefs.
When Christians follow their beliefs they tend to write and support amendments to state constitutions that prevent gay people from having "any benefits of marriage." As a gay, adoptive parent in a 9-year committed relationship, what does that mean for my family?
Does it invalidate my partner and mine's co-parent adoption of our adopted son? Will it render illegal the partner benefits that my partner and I receive from my company? It's sad to say, but many Christians would happily have both of those things taken from us because they view our relationship as counterfeit and abhorrent to their god, and many other Christians won't lift a finger to stop them since they have more important priorities than getting the gay-bashers out of their religion. The gay-bashing Christians are only following their beliefs, so why should I complain?
So, Christian, I respond to you: Agreeing to disagree is unacceptable because your people attack my family through the force of the state. I openly and unashamedly reject your evil religion and your evil god. Since you worship a baby-killing, abortionist god, you have no room whatsoever to criticize my morality. I will continue to criticize, mock, and reject your religion as long as Christians choose to use their religion as the excuse to criticize, mock, and reject me. Fair enough?
This is how science progresses: make assumptions, assume that they're right until something shows otherwise, and then methodically try to prove them wrong.
I wish science worked that way more frequently. I think what you've described is a very naive view of science. In reality, "science" works quite differently.
The people making assumptions are often people who are trying to win money in the form of a government grant. The people in charge of awarding the money ("funding projects") are the same people who have proposed the "current prevailing theory." What if that theory turns out to be specacularly wrong? There are ego, careers, prestige, and money at stake. So if someone else comes along and proposes an alternate theory that shows that the "current prevailing theory" is incorrect, then those people making the proposal are viciously attacked. Maybe the heretics will be denounced as "unscientific" if the current Powers that Be are feeling charitable. Maybe they will instead branded as trying to kill people and suggestions will be made that they should be put in prison.
Don't think it can happen? It happened before with a disease known as pellagra. Pellagra was killing lots of people in the Southern USA in the early 1900s. In 1915 the surgeon general of the USA sent Joseph Goldberger to investigate and discover the pathogen which was causing people to die. After doing some observation, Goldberger put forth the idea that pellagra was caused by diet instead of a pathogen. This meant that for 15 years scientists were barking up the wrong tree, so Goldberger was denounced and his crackpot theories were ignored. Years later, in 1937, Conrad Elvehjem showed that pellagra was cured in dogs when niacin was added to their diet. Today, pellagra is known as niacin (vitamin B6) deficiency. That means scientists shit all over what turned out to be correct for 22 years. My guess is that massive egos were tied up in maintaining the status quo. I mean, you're a top-knotch scientist using taxpayers' money to learn how the natural world works. You don't want to be shown to be a fraud, do you?
Fast forward to 1984. Richard Gallo announces in a press conference that he has discovered the "virus" that causes AIDS. 20 years and $150 billion later, scientists still cannot explain how HIV causes AIDS, who isolated HIV, and why no lives have been saved. Maybe scientists are, once again, barking up the wrong tree, since their lack of results and foaming-at-the-mouth treatment of any heretics seems awfully familiar.
Oh well, it's not bad for everyone. Pharma corporations sure are making a killing.
In America we are given the righ to free speach. And this is actually a dangious right to have. Free Speach can give ideas that people will miss interpreate and twist around, or give them ideas that could be harmful to society.
You must recognize that the concept of "that which is harmful to society" is equivalent to "that which is immoral."
Given that, you must agree with me that free speech gives people the right to have immoral thoughts.
But who is the arbiter of what is a moral thought and what is an immoral thought? Christians think that my talking about gay rights is an immoral thought. I think that Christians' belief in superstition and mysticism is immoral. The fact is that everyone defines for themselves which thoughts are moral and which are not. The whole purpose behind free speech is that everyone opines but does not know which thoughts are immoral and moral, so let people think and say what they want and limit the prohibitive powers of government to only those actions which deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Due to this, people will say things that you think are evil and they have a right to say them. I say that I do not believe in god and people get hopping mad. I say that I do not think AIDS is a single disease caused by a pathogen and people get really fsking, fist-shaking, screaming mad. The right to free speech protects me in these cases, just like it protects you when you say that "free speech is a dangerous right," which makes me a little hot under the collar.
"key players" is not an answer. Name them.
I'm sorry, were you asking me to name the key players in terms of whose interests are served in the trade imbalance with China? And were you gearing up to stating, "See, it *is* greed!" if I couldn't name them off-hand?
"key players" is not an answer. Name them.
That's stupid. Of all the big diplomatic decisions, I'm supposed to know who all of the key players are at any given time? How am I supposed to know? What I am sure of is that big decisions such as those made at the diplomatic level are made by important people and groups, many of which may be deliberately hidden from me. I can only surmise this because I now that the unimportant and the ineffectual are NOT the ones making the big decisions.
Also that is bullshit to extrapolate "hate corporate america" out of a post. That is
an ad hominem attack.
I don't think so. I was merely making a guess about your political beliefs by your choice to name Corporate America and the Republicans. It's common knowledge that Leftists equate Corporate America with evil and Hitler, and they treat the Republicans as toadies for Corporate America. If you believe otherwise, then I retract my guess about your political beliefs.
I was asking a question. You did not answer it.
I did. Key players make the diplomatic decisions. By nature, I can't always know who they are. Do you argue otherwise?
You seem like a kid who just wants to argue and act like a prick. If your tone doesn't improve in your next post then I won't reply.
I really fail to see how you can protest the use of "greed" as an answer, yet not see the connection between greed
Let me put it this way. I reject outright any argument based on "greed." Why? Well, what is the definition of "greed"?
"An excessive desire for wealth."
Well, what is "excessive"? Ask 1,000,000 people and you'll get 1,000,000 different answers. The concept is completely subjective and therefore it is useless in terms of making moral decisions.
putting aside issues of right and wrong for one country or individual's own benefit.
What if benefiting one's own country is part of what you define as "right"? It seems like you define anything that you might see as "patriotic" or "nationalistic" as "wrong," but that's *your* ethics, and it isn't necesssarily shared by others.
For example, should we end trade with China because we don't want to reward their human rights abuses? What would be the consequences? What if it cost the USA 200,000 jobs? Would it be worth it if 200,000 low-to-middle-class Americans lost their jobs and were plunged into poverty and crime because the government protested China's human rights record? Would a politician make that decision knowing that the backlash could cause him to be voted out of office and his competitor would replace him and immediately restore trade relations with China? What if the political fallout included giving power to your rival party? What would become of all the good you would accomplish if, over this issue, you could lose everything?
I know that politicians like to speak to you as if everything is "black verses white," "good guys verses bad guys," and "us verses them." It makes it simple for voters to not have to make complex decisions. But diplomacy is an extremely complex game of competing interests, and no one really has a clear idea of what "right" and "wrong" are in many cases. It's very frequently a game of many shades of gray.
That you need money in this day to apparently have to accomplish these items is a failure of our own human kind to strive towards working for the common good of the entire race.
I repeat: money is merely property abstracted. It makes "giving" food to hungry people orders of magnitude more convenient. Instead of having to barter every single time or waste time finding someone with the commodity that we may desire at the time, we have a single unit of currency that everyone values because it can be traded for any other item (barring sentimental value). Is this fact lost on you? Why is this "killer app" of money seen as a "failure of our own human kind"? Please explain becuase your words seem illogical to me.
On a side note, there is no "common good." Do you disagree? Then what is the common good for the Israelis *and* the Palestinians, given that what they both desire is mutually exclusive? Is the common good for both of them just to accept *your* view of morality?
Yeah but who's interests? Corporate America's? The Republican Parties? Who's interests are being helped by the USA trade inbalance with China?
I answered that question in the post I made. Did you not read it? Here, I'll quote what I wrote:
Because some key players in our country's power structure decided that it was in our country's (or in some certain individuals') interests to do so.
The answer is "key players." The USA is ruled by powerful people in powerful positions. Not all of them are on the same team (otherwise, why would the NY Times be so critical of the president?). I know that you really hate Corporate America and the Republican Party and think they're the root of all evil. Believe me, though I might agree with you in many ways that they may be evil, they are but two of many parties with some degree of overlap. The game of control and power is more complicated than you're willing to entertain. It's not just about "good guys" verses "bad guys."
Seems money is all that matters in the world.
Money buys food for starving people.
Money buys medicine for sick people.
Money buys housing for people with none.
Money buys education for the ignorant.
Money buys entertainment people who want to enjoy life instead of doing nothing but work.
Money buys all sorts of things that make our (meaning, us humans') short lives happier.
The fact that all property (excepting sentimental values) can be abstracted into a value in terms of "money" in the marketplace of free exhange is both the killer app of money and also its greatest weakness, as it spawns people who will inevitably say, "All they care about is money!" ignoring that money is the means of a better life for so many people many steps removed along the chain of free exchange.
Why are the supposedly free and democratic nations bending over backwards to strike deals with a dictatorship which not only oppresses its own people but also holds its neighbouring peoples under brutal occupation? ... The only answer I have so far is greed.
"Greed" is the typical response of college students who think that all of "society's" problems can be boiled down to 1) people not getting what they "need" which is caused by 2) people "exploiting" other people because of their "greed." It's as simplistic as it is stupid, and I wish that this dogma would finally fall in the same way that so many of the wicked commist regimes that it spawned have fallen.
Indeed, it is a valuable question to wonder why the United States, rhetorically a country that supports "freedom," would view freedom-crushing, wicked regimes such as China and Saudi Arabia as "strategic partners." The answer can be summed up in one concept: interests.
It has been said before, "In diplomocy, there are no friends. Only interests." Why is it that some countries of negligable threat (Iraq) get flattened by our military while others that wholesale export America-hating terror (Saudi Arabia) get a pass? Because some key players in our country's power structure decided that it was in our country's (or in some certain individuals') interests to do so. For instance, should the United States, on the matter of principle (pick your favorite: women's rights, religious freedom, not-chopping-hands-off-of-petty-thieves, whatever) boycott Saudi Arabian oil? Well, what would be the consequence of such a thing? Is it in our interest to do so? Should the fact that oil is the backbone of the American economy take precendence over standing up for (fill in the matter of principle here)? It all depends on what the consequences for not standing up for "what is right" might be at the time, and that usually comes down to key players taking political hits in the domestic or international community.
As everyone can see, maintaining the oil has, for whatever reason, trumped standing up for human rights in Saudi Arabia. This type of duplicity can be managed through media spin. How often do we hear of the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia compared to those that happen in Guantanamo Bay? (Well, I'm conflating two different political factions there, but I think you get the idea.)
And don't get me started on China. Will the USA honor its treaty to Taiwan if China invades? The answer to that question will be framed in terms of, "Is it in our interests to do so?" If the government is so willing to defecate with reckless abandon on liberty, then don't think that for a moment it's going to treat Taiwan with any higher degree of respect.
The idea that the USA stands up for freedom is naive. Those who run the USA will act in their interests, which they try (or, at least, pretend to try) to make the same as the interests of the USA. All other countries follow the same path: they fight for their interests.
We can come up with alternative fuel sources all day long. That's not the problem! The problem is: where and how are you going to put filling stations for the gazillions of cars, trucks, tractor trailers, airplanes, and ships?
It's gonna take billions upon billions of dollars, no matter what we choose. Finding something that "mother earth likes" is the least of our (us humans') worries.
Becuase if you smoke cigarettes, then you stink. You're probably used to it because you're around it most of the time. But every time you meet a non-smoker, your breath, hair, clothes, car, apartment, everything about you stinks to high hell -- in the literal sense of the word. People don't tell you that you stink because politeness demands that they keep their mouths shut in those instances. They also don't tell you because self-important, whiney smokers get especially whiney when someone else points out how revolting their rather public drug addiction is.
I'm not trying to troll. I genuinely am curious.
There are plenty of Leftists on Slashdot. My comments challenging and questioning socialism are routinely and viciously mocked while replies to the tune of, "You're obviously a Nazi," get modded "+5 Insightful" in a matter of microseconds.
And I'm sure lots of the Leftists here love the idea of working in a "creative" job that makes "cool" movies.
So what happens when an explosion of capitalism (Pixar) creates a job that a Leftist here would really like? Does this create some cognitive dissonance for you? If capitalism is nothing but a flawed system designed to enrich the ruling class at the expense of poor, working minorities, then how can it create such a wonderful work environment?
(And yes, if you're curious, sometimes phenomena in socialist countries create cognitive dissonance in me. It's okay, it's all good.)
Anytime a government bans a product or a service that people want, it sets off an inevitable chain reaction:
1. A black market immediately springs up to service the demand
2. The government tries to "get tough" with the black market
3. The price for the goods and services on the black market increase
4. People resort to crime to pay for ever-increasing black market prices
5. Life gets a little bit worse for just about everybody
And the cycle continues. This vicious cycle is true with failed government attempts to stop people from wanting drugs, tobacco, guns, speech, communication...
People, in general, are too stupid to realize that voting for X or Y is going to save or cost them money in taxes. Look at all the poor people voting republican despite the fact that their tax burden is going up because of it.
I'll agree with "people, in general, are too stupid." It causes all sorts of problems.
The poor people voting Republican are actually lowering their taxes since Bush's tax cuts were across the board. Bush's immense spending programs will actually affect our descendents. Democrats are "tax and spend," while Republicans are "borrow and spend."
Now, what politicians actually do is give money to their campaign (and pro-them PACs and 572s) contributors, who then give them the money they need to stay in office.
Politicians give money to their voters and campaign contributors in all sorts of ways. It's called "pork." For example: check out the Pig Book to see some of governments most egregious examples of using taxpayer-plundered money to buy votes.
It's an inherent flaw in democracy. Unless you can think of a better solution, suck it up and pay your taxes, whiner.
Perhaps you'll be surprised to know that our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy as many politicians like to lie. And thinking up a better solution is not hard at all: eliminate 90% of the federal government. It's the implementation of that solution that is the hard part. After all, how do you convince someone that receiving plundered money is a bad thing when they're already quite comfortable with their moocher lifestyle? The only way to do that is to win constutents to your point-of-view, and the only way to do that is to, as you put it, "whine." It also helps me to refine my argument to sharpen my steel on posts like yours.