Some people believe that since the government provided services and protections that allows one to accumulate (or inherited) lots of money during their life, they owe more in return.
To correct your false assertion: government services are not "provided" by government. They are controlled by government, and provided for by the people from whom the government takes money at gunpoint.
Outside of your error, how do government services and protections allow people to accumulate lots of money? I want to hear your answer to this since I think it has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, do you know what percentage of millionaires inhereted their wealth?
The more tax you pay to the government, the more votes you get. People who pay no taxes should get no votes.
It is similar to the way a corporation works. If you invest in the corporation, then you get voting power in proporation to the shares that you own. If you don't invest in the corporation, then you don't get a vote. Those who give their property to an entity deserve to have some say (in proportion to the amount of their property given) in how their property is used. (I would love to tell the fed that they can't send any more of my money to Israel!)
I am sure this is going to get modded down, for there are many people who can't conceive of any kind of charity outside of the vote-buying, income-redistribution schemes implemented through the deadly force of government. There are droves of politicians who are all to willing to use those who think that government is an effective means of charity or making things more "fair" for their own political gain. Case in point: prescription drugs for senior citizens. The Repulicans and Democrats are in a cat-fight as to who can better pander to the senior citizens. Why would the "smaller government" Republicans want this? Well, they may be wrong-headed about all sorts of things but they're not stupid! The old people vote like no one else does, and that means there is simply far too much political power in that plan for Republicans to stay true to their principles.
This was not my argument. I wrote, "Women tend to vote for security rather than for freedom." If they tend to vote for security, then that implies that sometimes they do not. Your criticism is a strawman.
men do wave the "what about the children" line around
I agree and never argued otherwise. Furthermore, the "what about the children" bait is only partially related to voting for security.
and women certainly don't all vote for "increased security" at the expense of liberty
You're either an idiot or a troll. I really don't care which.
Probably because you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. It sure explains the slashdot-style, low-intelligence ad hominems.
And you're right--I can't resist replying.
And why is this? If I were really such an idiot or a troll, then why waste your time on me? It seems like you're giving me an awful lot of power over your actions.
Tell you what. Feel free to get in the last word.
How do I know if I'll really get the last word it? So far, simple questions seem to get your fingers moving smacking your keyboard uncontrollably.
I'll read it, delete the comment, and we'll never have to speak again.
First, how do you plan to delete the comment? Second, how can we speak again since we've never spoken in the first place?
Yeah, I mean, that bureau of anti-slavery sure as heck took away freedom...
I suppose this is what I get for using an absolute. All you have to do is find one counterexample to show me wrong. You've come up with one example where the government worked to give freedom to someone. Can you come up with any examples where the government takes it away? I can come up with hundreds upon hundreds. Social Security, The War on Some Drugs, business regulations, Blue Laws (I live in the South), need I go on?
I didn't say that "government" gives freedom.
You stated that freedom was enacted by the actions of government.
Government's a given for any civilized society, and the more we do "as a society", the bigger our government gets.
"I, the state, am the people. It is a lie!"
Government gets bigger regardless of what people do. It is the nature of government. Since they can just seize what they want with little repercussions, why not just seize more?
My point was, it doesn't matter if our government is the guys who sit around and decide who gets to hunt in what forest, or if our government's a huge industrial/public works/military/police force.
Really? I thought the following was your point:
The important part is that our government is fragmented into two or more blocs, often far more, and these blocs then compete against each other, thus preserving freedom.
In other words, freedom is a function of government actions. Sorry, but government restricts freedom. This is (almost! ) always the case.
You don't have to believe me--and, after that crack about women voting, I'd really prefer that you just shut the fuck up and leave me alone.
If you wanted me to leave you alone, all you had to do was not reply. As is, you simply can't resist getting in the last word.
And what did I say about women's voting did you disagree with? You can't just call it "crack". That's not a fair criticism. I could just as well call everything you write "crack". But where would that get me?
Talk is cheap. Evidence is harder to come by. Could it be that you think the EU is good ("values privacy" and the USA is bad ("run by a nazi-like regime") because you're a European who's tired of the USA being on top? You'd only been one of a few million jealous Europeans who feels that way.
Not that I like the government of the USA or dislike the "government" of the EU.
Yeah. And giving women the vote will lead to an amazonian-like society where we're all socalist democrats who don't drink booze...
Sarcasm builds walls, not bridges. In any case, giving women the right to vote was bad for freedom. Women tend to vote for security rather than for freedom. "Someone take care of me and my babies!" is their cry, and power-hungry government officials are only all-too-willing to oblige.
We have [freedom] because we have multiple parties in power that know that the best way to keep themselves in power is to keep the other guy out of power--which is best done by fragmenting the populace, which gives us freedom and choice.
We have freedom because of the government? I'm afraid not! Government always takes away freedom. Government always gets bigger.
The problem with cars is that you pay for them, whether or not you own one.
If you want to discuss things that you are forced to pay for but don't use, then you could have picked a better example than automobiles. Take Social Security, for example. I'm forced to pay even though I may never draw from Social Security. Remember, if you die before you reach the age of eligibility, then the government just keeps all the money. Or, take government schools. Even if you don't send your child to a government school you are forced to pay for it. You may argue, "But those programs are good for society!" That point, in both cases, is certainly arguable!
It is not impossible to raise kids without a car, but it can be difficult.
The problem with your argument is that you've spent a lot of words making an argument that I agree with. I hate the fact that I'm forced to own a car to succeed in this society. The fact that I hate driving exacerbates this.
Conservatives get all hot under the color about taxes... they ought to see that this is a hidden tax that is forced on the American people and the planet earth.
Here it is: we are damaging your Blessed Mother Gaea. I know you love Gaea very much, but the planet is not bothered by cars or anything having to do with them. The planet is not alive, does not have a conscience, and cannot be bothered by anything. It's people that are bothered, and that's the problem that we should address. I don't have any interest in entertaining this superstitious "Mother Earth" nonsense.
And I am against ALL taxes, not just the hidden "automobile tax".
THAT is why limitations on car use (higher gas prices, engine displacement taxes, toll roads, a new national highway building policy, etc.) need to be a national policy.
I think it would be better to, instead, find a way to stop government to bowing down to the whims of the automobile lobby. You fail to realize that government is complicit in our country's transformation into a car culture. I like the fact that there are interstates that can allow me to drive practically anywhere, whenever I want. I hate the fact that cars are used as the principal means of transportation in cities: it's horribly inefficient and terribly prone to accidents resulting in many injuries and deaths.
I think we need better solutions to transportation in cities, and I don't want them to be run by the government. It should be open to private competition.
That doesn't make it a fraud. Even if the first scientist was too shady with his results, HIV is still the leading explination for AIDS.
Saying that the first scientist was "shady with his results" is saying that he did NOT fulfill the rules of isolation. I notice that you fail to produce for me any proof that anyone has fulfilled the rules of isolation for HIV.
You make up for this by stating that "HIV is still the leading explanation for AIDS". This is either an appeal to numbers ("lots of people think this is true, therefore it is true"), an appeal to authority ("important people believe this is true, therefore it is true"), or both. Your defense is flawed. If you want to show that HIV exists, you are going to have to show that someone fulfilled the rules of isolation. Stop wasting your time with ad numeram or ad verecundiam arguments.
Yes--right now, in dealing with AIDS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there ten years of "AIDS" before we had a treatment--and a good five years or so of "HIDS" before that?
It's all in the definitions, isn't it? Answer me this: Can heavy drug abuse cause immune system deficiency? Can malnutrition cause immune system deficiency? I have had health professionals answer "yes" to me on both of these questions.
As long as the treatment is less damaging than the condition treated, it's fair medical practice.
I contend that the treatment is more damaging than the condition treated. You can't even prove that HIV exists, yet you support giving extremely toxic and always fatal "treatments" for it.
There you go with the bad grammar again. (Are you a native speaker?) If anyone "admited" AZT was effective, then it would be. You probably meant "...no one claims any more..."
I suppose if you had a decent argument you wouldn't have to resort to this grammar flame. In your first paragraph, you misspelled the word "explanation". You have also misspelled the word "admitted" here. Now, do you want to criticize each other's grammar and spelling, or do you want to talk about the issues?
The immune deficiency, of course. As taught in American High Schools, AIDS doesn't kill you--it "just" shuts down your immune system, and thus makes you a much easier target for a lot of diseases that normally wouldn't stand a chance.
You are incorrect about AIDS. The definition of AIDS, according to the High Priests of AIDS, is: "HIV plus one of an (ever-changing) list of AIDS associated diseases". I already know everything that the AIDS machine claims about this bogus disease. Your efforts to indoctrinate me are wasted.
That's a definition codified after some twenty-odd years of AIDS. AIDS, which was always an immune difficincy problem, existed before the discovery of HIV.
That definition has been unchanged for decades (but the list of "AIDS diseases" has changed, interestingly enough, which means that the definition of AIDS has, in fact, changed). I agree that "immune system deficiency" has existed before HIV. I do not believe in AIDS.
See above; the "AIDS-related diseases" aren't a part of AIDS
Wrong. The AIDS related diseases are part of the definition of AIDS. It only becomes "AIDS" once these diseases exists in the alleged presence of a virus that no one can prove exists.
and no one makes the claim that they're started by or exlusive to AIDS. They're just the (long) list of what can kill you once AIDS destroyes your immune system.
You can't even get your own dogma right. It's not AIDS that destroys the immune system, it's HIV, right?
(On a totally different tanget, this could help explain why poorer cultures than America suffer about the same ammount from AIDS--they have more infections, but less of a natural disease pool, since Americans/Europeans have traditionally had a hell of a lot of diseases hanging around us.)
The only thing that North American AIDS and African AIDS
There's a difference between making a blanket assertion about people who comprise a large philosophical movement, and making a blanket assertion about a finite post.
I disagree. Blanket assertions are fallacious.
The problem with your analysis is most leftists are very suspicious of government. Which you fail to address.
Asking me to address it might be a start.
Leftists are not very suspicious of government in general. They are only suspicious of those government programs and positions that they happent to dislike. Leftists love things like Social Security and Medicare and have no suspicion of those vote-buying programs at all.
Conversely (I hope I'm using that word correctly), those on the right have no suspicion of their "anti-terrorist" government snooping, "faith-based" programs, and "anti-sodomy" laws. They are instead suspicious of all of the programs that you are not suspicious of.
I am suspicious of ALL government programs.
If you're going to define "leftists" and "Leftists" separately then there's little point in arguing.
Nah, I'm just lazy with the shift-lock key. Stop threatening to stop debating with me. It doesn't scare me.
I will just say leftists are more likely to respect individualism than either moderates or rightists.
I disagree. Leftists hate the idea of people making as much money as they want to. They believe in income redistribution, which means taking money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. Leftits believe in the government interfering in people's business. Leftists believe in regulating that which they believe to be "hate speech". None of these things support individualism.
I grant you that Leftists support gay rights and other such seemingly-individualist things.
I don't think so. Right-wingism is not incompatible with a gay lifestyle,
It seems we have a semantic problem. What defines "Right-wingism" to you? To me, it implies fundamentalist Christian or Jewish with "economic conservatism".
and I bet if we looked at your stance on issues you'd fall in on the right side of the divider mainly.
As I said, that's going to depend on how you define left and right. To me, "Leftism" is a religion in which government is god. "Left-wing" (not the religion), to me, implies the belief that free enterprise is bad, and that government should regulate the economic activities of humans to make things more "fair" (and the government arbitrarily defines "fair").
You said Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in homosexual men.
Yes, what I said was false. I then asked you about the rates of KS. I notice you dodged this question. Why?
Yes.
And this is where medical science disagrees with you. Can you quote for me anyone who still belives that AZT prolongs life? Everything I've read, everywhere, states that AZT is extremely toxic to the body.
Perhaps this was why the drug was shelved long before the notion of HIV even existed. It was deemed far to toxic to the body to be used as an effective cancer treatment.
Have you read the AZT Phase II FDA trials? They're very enlightening, and do serious damage to your contention that AZT prolongs life. Are you curious at all about what they might say, or are you just going to dismiss me as a troll, a loon, a "right-winger", a loser...?
We don't, but if the status quo and the grass roots approach aren't doing anything, I'm willing to give the government a try.(Note: *If*)
This assumes that a government "solution" will be better than not doing anything, and that is at least arguable in any case. What you also fail to recongnize is that once a government solution is in place, it never goes away, ever.
We can never totally prevent abuse, but at some point the danger of abuse may be outweighed by the dangers of the status quo.
I disagree on principle. Government is the only entity that has the right to trump all private solutions and also use deadly force to acheive its goals. I can think of few situations where the status quo might be worse than the threat of this abuse (and this abuse happens all the time -- do you blame human nature for wanting to exploit power when it's readily available?).
I don't believe that government power is any more inherently bad than corporate power or 501(C)(3) power or any other kind of power.
I disagree. Government has the right to seize and kill to acheieve its goals. Corporations do not. Hence, government power is worse.
People tend to take a more pessimistic outlook towards the government(which only lets it get worse) but individuals and corporations have certainly caused their fair share of problems.
They couldn't dream of competing with governments in terms of problems caused. How many people did Stail kill? How about Mao Zedong with his "great leap forward"? Pol Pot killed half the population of his country with his "social experiment"! Government takes the cake over and over again in terms of problems caused.
However, at its root, the government is an organization dedicated to keeping people happy enough to get their vote. As such, I find it's motives more likely to do good in thise case than the alternatives(read: corporations).
I think your view of government is naive. Do you think that there are people in government who like weilding power and will do whatever it takes to keep it? Once you realize that there are, then it becomes easier for you to realize that Social Security is much more about buying votes than it is about helping people. Old people vote in droves, young people do not. Every time the Republicans breathe, the Democrats scream, "The Republicans are going to take away your Social Security!" and the codgers flock to the voting booths.
I don't mean to imply that I like Republicans. As a gay man, I would find that counter-productive.
So in once sentence you say that people shouldn't be told what to do, yet in another you're perfectly willing to tell them what to do for the good of society?
Individual actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property cannot be allowed becuase society cannot function if those things are permitted. Beyond that, it is not the place of the government to tell people what to do. Does that clear it up? I am trying to draw a disctinction between those actions which prevent a society from functioning and those actions that a government might want to regulate for other reasons.
Both solutions are equivalent, as far as I'm concerned. Either it's easy enough for people to adopt the solution on their own, or it's more difficult and requires a nudge.
I don't understand how you can think that both solutions are equivalent if you think there are some circumstances where the government can arbitrarily decide that citizens are incapable of handling things themselves. Do you see how that is just ripe for abuse?
Either way, I don't see how regularly spewing fumes around is desirable afterwards.
It depends on the amount of fumes and the effect it would have on humans' health. What if spewing fumes was the result of a factory's operation which happened to employ 500 people in a small town? It's not so cut-and-dry once the other human factors are thrown in.
Better?
Yes, better. I think you agree with me that people cause drunk driving, not cars. Just like people cause murders, not guns.
That's nice. Pity the majority is.
The majority of people in the South wanted segregation to continue. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they want something good.
That's not a bad thing at all, but I'm talking about stuff that actually affects other people.
This was in response to my desire to protect individual rights. Well, what are the "other people" you're describing? Are they not individuals also?
Given the problems with cars(especially the fact that most of them involve hurting other people too), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to force some people to move to a better solution if they're not going to do it on their own.
I agree with you. Here are the problems with your statement:
1. How do we know that the government solution will be the best one? 2. How can we prevent abuse?
I'm all for giving the government total control if it is being run by infallible, incorruptible angels. As is, it is run by fallible humans who are drawn from the same barrel that yielded Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin. This is why I believe that government power should be limited. We shouldn't allow fallible humans to have that much power.
I guess we just have a difference of opinion on that one.
Yes, I believe that government power is bad while you believe the opposite.
You know what, one of my best friend's father is a biology researcher, he has worked with Pr. Montagnier on the HIV virus, he has taught in many high profile universities, published in the best scientific papers.
And why should I believe you? Anyone can get an account and post on slashdot.
He doesn't agree with you.
It really doesn't matter, now does it? Either the virus has been isolated according to the rules of isolation, or it hasn't been. You claimed that Montagnier isolated it. I asked you to show me the paper. Apparently, you can't do this. Apparently, your best friend's father can't do it, either. The fact that your best friend's father is a "biology researcher" and has "worked with Pr. Montagnier" is an appeal to authority. According to you, I should just take your word for it becuase you know big and important people who agree with you.
But you fail to realize that neither you nor these big and important people can show me that Montagnier or anyone else for that matter isolated HIV according to the rules of isolation. Do you understand what I am writing you? Show me the evidence, and I will believe that HIV has been isolated. Don't waste your time with these stupid-ass ad verecundiam arguments. They will fail to convince me.
So tell me, who am I supposed to trust more, that kind of respected person, or some random Internet conspiracy kook?
Do you realize that, from my point of view, there is nothing differentiating you from "some random Internet conspiracy kook"? Anyone can get an account on slashdot and make the claims that you've made.
You're a fool.
Do you believe that HIV has been isolated even though you can't prove that anyone has done it? It seems like you do, and that, to me, is a foolish action.
Yeah sorry I didn't see your sig, so I guess I was right to argue against you.
You must feel so big and important by fighting against a person so wrong-headed and evil as I am.
When I use the word queer, I obviously use it in a more mature way than you do.
Why do you have to prove how mature you are to me?
How much oil is in our water supply? Obviously enough that the county government where I live is sending out pamphlets telling people to please wash thier cars somewhere other than the driveway.
I didn't ask if your county government was sending out pamphlets. I asked how much oil was in the water supply. It's usually expressed in terms of parts per million. I must add here that oil in the water supply does not damage the Earth. It damages humans' health.
Leftists and Christians, what the fuck is that? Last time I checked there were quite a few Christians that are right-wing as well. Does that make them leftist right-wingers?
I'll explain it again. Maybe this time around you'll get it.
Leftists and Christians pretend to be mortal enemies when, in fact, they say practically the same things. They both believe that they are better than everyone else. They both believe that their way is the one, true way for all humanity. They both believe that their way is moral and everything else is immoral and evil. They both believe in marrying their morality with government and persecuting those who deviate from it. They both have a God -- with Christians it's the 3-in-1 and with Leftists it's government. And they both believe that selfishness is the root of evil.
I've debated many Christians and many Leftists. Believe me, they repeat the same lame-brained arguments. Christians are generally more polite (they don't need to be "cool" and "rebellious" like so many high-school and college-student leftists need to be), but their arguments are generally worse.
And what are you saying about selfishness, that being selfish is okay? No wonder your post got modded down. nobody likes people who only think of themselves.
You don't understand. Selfishness is okay. In fact, it is moral. I'm not talking about "I'll do what I want, screw everyone else!" I'm talking about rational self-interest. Each person is responsible for their own happiness and thier own happiness only. We are social creatures and cannot allow those actions which infringe on another individual's life, liberty, or property.
I guess you're the first person to give up your rights to protect our country in an 'unselfish' way. But to give up your modern conveniences like cars, you're going to fight like hell to keep those so that you can keep your 'individuality.'
I don't understand what you mean here.
Don't start throwing around Gaea like you know what I believe in.
Do you believe that Earth is a living being that must be protected and cherished?
What do you believe anyways?
Lots of things!
You think it's good to drive around in cars?
It is an amoral act. Personally, I dislike doing it. Car manufacturers ignore risk theory, which makes things worse, not better. Driving a car is dangerous.
You think that consuming all the crude oil is the way to go?
Consuming all the crude oil is an amoral act.
I love cars, in fact, I work on mine all the time, but I would trade it any day for some really good mass transit.
I'm particularly annoyed by people whose personalities are so weak that they have to dress up their cars with "V-TEK" stickers, spoilers, big muffler pipes, and what-not. Are you like that? I agree with you about mass transit. I have my car becuase I must, not because I want.
Okay, earth + pollution == destroyed earth. When everything is dead, and earth is a big hunk of rock, it's not really much for Earth now is it?
I don't think unsupported generalizations really make good arguments.
Neither does anecdocal evidence, which is how you've chosen to refute my argument. It is common knowledge that "full-time student" implies that you don't work.
Sure. If what you're doing is legal and you can get rich doing it, more power to you.
Do you believe in progressive taxation?
I can honestly say I have never seen anyone even mention "Gaea" outside of cartoons.
Oh, none of them will say it, but it's what they mean. They think that the earth is a living being to be worshipped. Mother Earth. Gaea.
I'd define an environmentalist as someone who wants to protect the Earth from being damaged, generally by human-caused pollution. Some of them go too far, but seeing as I like being able to breathe, I have to respect what they do.
I think you're talking about two separate things. I also like being able to breathe and don't want someone else's trash in my lungs. But "protecting the Earth from being damaged" is a separate and much more nebulous thing. Does it "damage" the earth to rip out trees to build a road? As more particulars emerge, it becomes evident that "damaging the Earth" is a purely subjective notion. Introducing pollutants that damage humans is not.
Leftists don't hate individualism, but they do understand that people acting as individuals will not always act in a way that is productive to society.
And, naturally, Leftists think that they are the only ones who are smart and wise enough to govern what is "best for society" (translated: best for everyone). People can't be left to their own whims, they have to be told what to do by the wise and all-knowing Leftists!
Notice that you can change out "Leftists" with "Christians" and the sentences still hold true!
This is not a stretch at all; see for instance the outlawing of murder, theft, rape, etc.
I do not believe that individualism allows such actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Humans are social creatures, and our society suffers if actions that deprive others of life, liberty, and property are allowed.
Now the question here is not "is individualism bad", the question is "should people be allowed to use cars if a less harmful alternative is easily available".
This most certainly is an issue of individualism, since you are talking about "allowing" people to do one thing or another. Should people be "allowed" to solve this problem on their own, as free individuals, or should the almighty government force them to adopt its will and whim?
Anyone who lives in a large city will tell you that cars cause problems(traffic, pollution, accidents, drunk driving...).
*sigh*
Do you really think that cars cause traffic, accidents, and drunk driving? Do you believe in any individual responsibility in any of those three things?
Whether the article's solution is good enough or not is by no means certain, but at least they're trying.
I like what the article was suggesting. I just meant to bring up the fact that Leftists hate individualism and cars as an expression of it.
Given all that, do you really believe that "most" people hate cars because of some silly power trip, or because they've experienced first hand the downside of having millions of them crammed in a small space?
So typical of Leftists: "what do 'most' people think?"
I am not concerned with what the majority wants. I am concerned with protecting freedom, and that means protecting individual rights. I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism and cars as an expression of it.
Well, I do disagree, but only because your thesis ("Leftists hate cars") is so ridiculous I could only assume your post was a troll.
And what, pray tell, is so ridiculous about it? Is it ridiculous merely because it doesn't represent you? Al Gore wrote in his book _Earth in the Balance_ (Gaea propaganda) that the internal combustion engine was the wost thing ever. Did the Leftist myrmidons who actually read his rabble protest?
Apparently I was mistaken... which makes your original post all the more amusing! Oh, careful, your tinfoil hat is crooked.
I suppose if you had a decent argument you would come out with it rather than these high-school attempts to make me feel bad about myself. I, too, can make the "tinfoil hat" argument. Hell, why don't I just type "get a life!" while I'm at it and put myself completely on your level?
True, college students/professors do have a tendency to be somewhat liberal, which makes sense; they're the ones who are trained to use their brains effectively.
Typical leftist arrogance. I see it differently.
College students are typically leftist because they don't have to work in the real world. Same goes for professors: they can hide behind tenure. Neither has to be troubled with the evil free market. They can sit in their English classes and wax eloquently about how intelligent they all are and how everyone else would be better off if they would adopt their way of thinking.
Disagree, certainly. I'm sure you'd label me a leftist, and I'm certainly not against individualism; I'm too far off the norm to be.
Do you think that individuals should be allowed to make as much money as they want to in the free market?
Here you called environmentalism superstition, which dictionary.com defines as an irrational belief. Or would you now like to claim you didn't type this?
I stand by it. Environmentalism is an irrational belief in Gaea, i.e., "Mother Earth". We may have a semantic disagreement, but my statement goes for the majority of Environmentalists I've had the misfortune of hearing of.
It all was. Everything from your capitalizing of "Leftist" (usually the sign of a propagandist), to your blanket assertions
You write "it all was" and then accuse me of making "blanket assertions". I capitalize Leftist because I think that Leftism is a religion and Government is its God.
"Leftists hate individualism" as if all "Leftists" think the same; it betrays your fundamental ignorance about what you're talking about)
Such grandiose words! Did you think they would impress me?
I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism. I notice you have not disputed it. I know that all leftists don't think alike.
And the more democratic a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". Claims are irrelevant; every country claims to speak for its people.
I disagree. What's the full name of North Korea?
I think Democracy is bad. Naturally, it would claim to speak for "the people" when it actually only speaks for the majority.
If you look at the facts, however, you'll see that the countries that are the MOST permissive of their citizens' rights tend to moderate leftist governments.
It depends on the rights in question, doesn't it? How much do you care about the right to property, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech (including racist speech), the right to free press?
Most "independents" are closet right-wingers. I get the feeling you are too.
As a gay man, I have little love for many right-wingers. I guess your "feelings" have led you astray once again.
It's debatable whether it's been isolated. So? Doesn't disprove a thing.
What do you mean "it's debateable"? It's either been isolated by the classical rules of isolation, or it hasn't been. If it has, then tell me who did it!
See, this is why you're not taken seriously.
No, I'm not taken seriously because you fundamentally disagree with me. It leads you to mock and insult rather than engage in dialog.
Kaposi's Sarcoma appears in heterosexual men as well as women.
At what rates?
While we're at it, answer me this: does AZT prolong life of AIDS sufferers?
YOU'RE accusing someone ELSE of childish blather? That's funny.
Yet you fail to enumerate that which you feel is either "childish" or "blather". Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
And yet, it's the Rightists who pass the laws restricting speech. It's the Rightists who all look the same, act the same, dress the same, talk the same.
As if I were a "rightist", whatever that is. I notice you fail to dispute that Leftists hate individualism. Instead, you've resorted to sarcasm. How unimpressive.
Just because Nietzsche said something doesn't make it true. Think for yourself.
I quoted it because it is beautiful and it's true. But if you want something original, here it is:
The more Leftist a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". For example, "The People's Republic of China". That country does not belong to "the people", it belongs to the government! They make that point expressly clear by the way they restrict the freedoms of their citizens.
And if you're going to quote him, try reading the rest of his philosophy before deciding to appoint him as some sort of moral visionary.
You're reading in to my writing too much. I merely posted something that I think is beautiful and true. I am not obligated to read everything he's written if I happen to like one thing that he's written.
It's difficult to sway someone with reason away from a viewpoint that they arrived at without using reason at all. You're a right-wing sheep; nobody's going to change your mind, no matter how convincingly they disprove your erroneous statements.
You here are stating that I am closed-minded. I disagree; I change my mind frequently and often challenge my own point of view. And, no, I am not "right-wing". The Right disgusts me almost as much as the Left does. It's evidential of your own closed mind that if I disagree with you, then I must be right-wing.
Judging by your.sig your sanity is in question, too, so perhaps I should just bow out of this little conversation...
Your argument totally sucks, and then you tuck your tail between your legs and run like a yellow-bellied chicken. Perhaps if you could come up with a decent argument you'd stand your ground instead of resorting to your childish invective. And, since you think I'm insane, perhaps you'd like to share with me who isolated the HIV virus and why Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in gay men.
It's all well and good to call it "bad science", but it's hardly fraud or a hoax.
I challenge your claim that this is not a fraud. Who isolated the HIV virus?
The people working to stop the spread of HIV may be mistaken, but they're not intentionally misleading anyone. (Well, the drug companies might be--but that's a different topic.)
It is certainly not a different topic. AIDS is about money, and no one is making more money than the drug companies right now.
More disturbing, though, is the theorum that anti-AIDS drugs actually cause the disease
I hate to break this horrible fact to you, but all AIDS "therapies" are extremely toxic to the body. Do you know the history of AZT? It was invented decades before the AIDS panic and then shelved. Why was it shelved?
If I injected myself with "HIV-infected" blood, and you started taking the daily regimen of AZT, who do you think would live longer?
I'll add here that no one admits any more that AZT is effective at prolonging life. I think there are lots of people who died of AZT poisoning. Wouldn't it then be horrible if HIV didn't exist?
I mean, the darn disease has been around for quite awhile, whether or not HIV causes it.
And you know as well as I do that "the darn disease" is a really sloppy way of describing AIDS. Are you referring to immune deficiency, or one of the diseases on the (ever-changing) list of "AIDS-related diseases", all of which existed prior to the AIDS panic?
(The best way, IMO, to debunk an HIV-AIDS relationship is to find someone with AIDS who tests as HIV-)
The definition of AIDS is "HIV infection with one of the AIDS-related diseases". Given this definition, you must agree with me that your test is invalid. Since all of the AIDS-related diseases existed before the false discovery of HIV, would you consider, for example, a person with Kaposi's Sarcoma who is HIV- as proof that HIV is a lie? It doesn't make sense.
And we haven't even started talking about the HIV tests (yes, plural!) and how accurate they are!
But then you just right into "Leftists hate individualism", which gives the troll away immediately.
I notice that you don't disagree, you just label it as a "troll".
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
(Naturally, Hillary knows exactly what is best for society.)
Thus, its plainly obvious that this paper is really an attack on freedoms, thinly disguised by a veneer of politically correct, environmental double-speak.
You attribute this to me, and it is false. I actually like the paper and like the idea of cities being more pedestrian-friendly. What I wanted to bring up was the Leftist's burning hatred of the automobile as a means of generating discussion. From the amount of traffic following my post, it looks like I've succeeded.
And, as usual, Leftists can't argue their way out of a paper bag. They'd much rather spew invective, as you have done.
Hahaha! Wow, that's hilarious. First, before anyone responds to this guy, check his sig. At this point, the "kook alert" bell should be ringing.
Are there any cofactors involved in AIDS, or is HIV sufficient? Why does KS appear only in gay men? Do malnutrition and drug abuse cause immunodeficiency?
We'll see just how "kooky" I am if you choose to engage me in this discussion. Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
Leftists don't hate individualism, you dummy. They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others.
Wow, "you dummy"! You could have come up with a better ad hominem than that!
I hate to break this to you, but there is an selfish element in all actions. If there isn't anything in it for you, then you won't do it. This is a fact.
Everyone, including lefty types, like the freedom cars bring, but for some, the associated costs are very high. It would be nice to alleviate some of those costs (pollution, congestion, poor urban design) by coming up with something better.
I agree!
Europeans, in your mind, are no doubt hateful lefties with few redeeming qualities.
Not only do I disagree, but inform you that you can't tell me what to think.
What you'll find are plenty of horrible, socialist, know-it-all, (etc. - all the other name-calling you resorted to) people using an excellent, freedom-enhancing transit system in the city centre, and driving all around in their cars outside of there.
And where did I argue against mass transit?
Central Amsterdam has great air quality; "bad traffic" is when there are five cars stopped at a light.
And this is where you falsely assume that air quality is related solely to automobile usage.
No one seems to be on their way to the gulag - that would be the U.S., if you happen to be a pot-smoker
The nature of all government is to get bigger until they are overthrown. The government of the USA will become bigger and bigger, just like those of Europe have. Do you think that The Netherlands is a more or less free society than the USA's is? Freedom here means "I can do whatever I damn well please". What do you think? Smoking pot is one of only a few million things you can do that a government may restrict.
And I believe all drug laws should be repealed.
The tram and train system is safe, convenient, cheap, and very quick.
And don't forget "run by the government"!
As for your absurd assessment of environmentalism - no ideology, not even yours, ever trumps science. Remember that.
Oh how naive you are! Do you think that the world of science is free of ego and petty politics? Science isn't always exactly scientific. Environmentalism, as a religion, is even less so.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people believe that since the government provided services and protections that allows one to accumulate (or inherited) lots of money during their life, they owe more in return.
To correct your false assertion: government services are not "provided" by government. They are controlled by government, and provided for by the people from whom the government takes money at gunpoint.
Outside of your error, how do government services and protections allow people to accumulate lots of money? I want to hear your answer to this since I think it has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, do you know what percentage of millionaires inhereted their wealth?
The more tax you pay to the government, the more votes you get. People who pay no taxes should get no votes.
It is similar to the way a corporation works. If you invest in the corporation, then you get voting power in proporation to the shares that you own. If you don't invest in the corporation, then you don't get a vote. Those who give their property to an entity deserve to have some say (in proportion to the amount of their property given) in how their property is used. (I would love to tell the fed that they can't send any more of my money to Israel!)
I am sure this is going to get modded down, for there are many people who can't conceive of any kind of charity outside of the vote-buying, income-redistribution schemes implemented through the deadly force of government. There are droves of politicians who are all to willing to use those who think that government is an effective means of charity or making things more "fair" for their own political gain. Case in point: prescription drugs for senior citizens. The Repulicans and Democrats are in a cat-fight as to who can better pander to the senior citizens. Why would the "smaller government" Republicans want this? Well, they may be wrong-headed about all sorts of things but they're not stupid! The old people vote like no one else does, and that means there is simply far too much political power in that plan for Republicans to stay true to their principles.
Score -1: Rambling
WinNT/2K has nothing in common with Win95. They are Two different products.
Windows NT Workstation has nothing in common with Windows NT Server. They are two different products.
(Yeah, I know it's not entirely analagous, but it's what came to mind when I read it.)
Women do not vote as a bloc
This was not my argument. I wrote, "Women tend to vote for security rather than for freedom." If they tend to vote for security, then that implies that sometimes they do not. Your criticism is a strawman.
men do wave the "what about the children" line around
I agree and never argued otherwise. Furthermore, the "what about the children" bait is only partially related to voting for security.
and women certainly don't all vote for "increased security" at the expense of liberty
You're repeating your first strawman here.
liberty and freedom are not synonyms
Au contraire!
You're either an idiot or a troll. I really don't care which.
Probably because you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. It sure explains the slashdot-style, low-intelligence ad hominems.
And you're right--I can't resist replying.
And why is this? If I were really such an idiot or a troll, then why waste your time on me? It seems like you're giving me an awful lot of power over your actions.
Tell you what. Feel free to get in the last word.
How do I know if I'll really get the last word it? So far, simple questions seem to get your fingers moving smacking your keyboard uncontrollably.
I'll read it, delete the comment, and we'll never have to speak again.
First, how do you plan to delete the comment? Second, how can we speak again since we've never spoken in the first place?
Yeah, I mean, that bureau of anti-slavery sure as heck took away freedom...
I suppose this is what I get for using an absolute. All you have to do is find one counterexample to show me wrong. You've come up with one example where the government worked to give freedom to someone. Can you come up with any examples where the government takes it away? I can come up with hundreds upon hundreds. Social Security, The War on Some Drugs, business regulations, Blue Laws (I live in the South), need I go on?
I didn't say that "government" gives freedom.
You stated that freedom was enacted by the actions of government.
Government's a given for any civilized society, and the more we do "as a society", the bigger our government gets.
"I, the state, am the people. It is a lie!"
Government gets bigger regardless of what people do. It is the nature of government. Since they can just seize what they want with little repercussions, why not just seize more?
My point was, it doesn't matter if our government is the guys who sit around and decide who gets to hunt in what forest, or if our government's a huge industrial/public works/military/police force.
Really? I thought the following was your point:
The important part is that our government is fragmented into two or more blocs, often far more, and these blocs then compete against each other, thus preserving freedom.
In other words, freedom is a function of government actions. Sorry, but government restricts freedom. This is (almost! ) always the case.
You don't have to believe me--and, after that crack about women voting, I'd really prefer that you just shut the fuck up and leave me alone.
If you wanted me to leave you alone, all you had to do was not reply. As is, you simply can't resist getting in the last word.
And what did I say about women's voting did you disagree with? You can't just call it "crack". That's not a fair criticism. I could just as well call everything you write "crack". But where would that get me?
Talk is cheap. Evidence is harder to come by. Could it be that you think the EU is good ("values privacy" and the USA is bad ("run by a nazi-like regime") because you're a European who's tired of the USA being on top? You'd only been one of a few million jealous Europeans who feels that way.
Not that I like the government of the USA or dislike the "government" of the EU.
Yeah. And giving women the vote will lead to an amazonian-like society where we're all socalist democrats who don't drink booze...
Sarcasm builds walls, not bridges. In any case, giving women the right to vote was bad for freedom. Women tend to vote for security rather than for freedom. "Someone take care of me and my babies!" is their cry, and power-hungry government officials are only all-too-willing to oblige.
We have [freedom] because we have multiple parties in power that know that the best way to keep themselves in power is to keep the other guy out of power--which is best done by fragmenting the populace, which gives us freedom and choice.
We have freedom because of the government? I'm afraid not! Government always takes away freedom. Government always gets bigger.
The problem with cars is that you pay for them, whether or not you own one.
If you want to discuss things that you are forced to pay for but don't use, then you could have picked a better example than automobiles. Take Social Security, for example. I'm forced to pay even though I may never draw from Social Security. Remember, if you die before you reach the age of eligibility, then the government just keeps all the money. Or, take government schools. Even if you don't send your child to a government school you are forced to pay for it. You may argue, "But those programs are good for society!" That point, in both cases, is certainly arguable!
It is not impossible to raise kids without a car, but it can be difficult.
The problem with your argument is that you've spent a lot of words making an argument that I agree with. I hate the fact that I'm forced to own a car to succeed in this society. The fact that I hate driving exacerbates this.
Conservatives get all hot under the color about taxes... they ought to see that this is a hidden tax that is forced on the American people and the planet earth.
Here it is: we are damaging your Blessed Mother Gaea. I know you love Gaea very much, but the planet is not bothered by cars or anything having to do with them. The planet is not alive, does not have a conscience, and cannot be bothered by anything. It's people that are bothered, and that's the problem that we should address. I don't have any interest in entertaining this superstitious "Mother Earth" nonsense.
And I am against ALL taxes, not just the hidden "automobile tax".
THAT is why limitations on car use (higher gas prices, engine displacement taxes, toll roads, a new national highway building policy, etc.) need to be a national policy.
I think it would be better to, instead, find a way to stop government to bowing down to the whims of the automobile lobby. You fail to realize that government is complicit in our country's transformation into a car culture. I like the fact that there are interstates that can allow me to drive practically anywhere, whenever I want. I hate the fact that cars are used as the principal means of transportation in cities: it's horribly inefficient and terribly prone to accidents resulting in many injuries and deaths.
I think we need better solutions to transportation in cities, and I don't want them to be run by the government. It should be open to private competition.
That doesn't make it a fraud. Even if the first scientist was too shady with his results, HIV is still the leading explination for AIDS.
Saying that the first scientist was "shady with his results" is saying that he did NOT fulfill the rules of isolation. I notice that you fail to produce for me any proof that anyone has fulfilled the rules of isolation for HIV.
You make up for this by stating that "HIV is still the leading explanation for AIDS". This is either an appeal to numbers ("lots of people think this is true, therefore it is true"), an appeal to authority ("important people believe this is true, therefore it is true"), or both. Your defense is flawed. If you want to show that HIV exists, you are going to have to show that someone fulfilled the rules of isolation. Stop wasting your time with ad numeram or ad verecundiam arguments.
Yes--right now, in dealing with AIDS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there ten years of "AIDS" before we had a treatment--and a good five years or so of "HIDS" before that?
It's all in the definitions, isn't it? Answer me this: Can heavy drug abuse cause immune system deficiency? Can malnutrition cause immune system deficiency? I have had health professionals answer "yes" to me on both of these questions.
As long as the treatment is less damaging than the condition treated, it's fair medical practice.
I contend that the treatment is more damaging than the condition treated. You can't even prove that HIV exists, yet you support giving extremely toxic and always fatal "treatments" for it.
There you go with the bad grammar again. (Are you a native speaker?) If anyone "admited" AZT was effective, then it would be. You probably meant "...no one claims any more..."
I suppose if you had a decent argument you wouldn't have to resort to this grammar flame. In your first paragraph, you misspelled the word "explanation". You have also misspelled the word "admitted" here. Now, do you want to criticize each other's grammar and spelling, or do you want to talk about the issues?
The immune deficiency, of course. As taught in American High Schools, AIDS doesn't kill you--it "just" shuts down your immune system, and thus makes you a much easier target for a lot of diseases that normally wouldn't stand a chance.
You are incorrect about AIDS. The definition of AIDS, according to the High Priests of AIDS, is: "HIV plus one of an (ever-changing) list of AIDS associated diseases". I already know everything that the AIDS machine claims about this bogus disease. Your efforts to indoctrinate me are wasted.
That's a definition codified after some twenty-odd years of AIDS. AIDS, which was always an immune difficincy problem, existed before the discovery of HIV.
That definition has been unchanged for decades (but the list of "AIDS diseases" has changed, interestingly enough, which means that the definition of AIDS has, in fact, changed). I agree that "immune system deficiency" has existed before HIV. I do not believe in AIDS.
See above; the "AIDS-related diseases" aren't a part of AIDS
Wrong. The AIDS related diseases are part of the definition of AIDS. It only becomes "AIDS" once these diseases exists in the alleged presence of a virus that no one can prove exists.
and no one makes the claim that they're started by or exlusive to AIDS. They're just the (long) list of what can kill you once AIDS destroyes your immune system.
You can't even get your own dogma right. It's not AIDS that destroys the immune system, it's HIV, right?
(On a totally different tanget, this could help explain why poorer cultures than America suffer about the same ammount from AIDS--they have more infections, but less of a natural disease pool, since Americans/Europeans have traditionally had a hell of a lot of diseases hanging around us.)
The only thing that North American AIDS and African AIDS
There's a difference between making a blanket assertion about people who comprise a large philosophical movement, and making a blanket assertion about a finite post.
I disagree. Blanket assertions are fallacious.
The problem with your analysis is most leftists are very suspicious of government. Which you fail to address.
Asking me to address it might be a start.
Leftists are not very suspicious of government in general. They are only suspicious of those government programs and positions that they happent to dislike. Leftists love things like Social Security and Medicare and have no suspicion of those vote-buying programs at all.
Conversely (I hope I'm using that word correctly), those on the right have no suspicion of their "anti-terrorist" government snooping, "faith-based" programs, and "anti-sodomy" laws. They are instead suspicious of all of the programs that you are not suspicious of.
I am suspicious of ALL government programs.
If you're going to define "leftists" and "Leftists" separately then there's little point in arguing.
Nah, I'm just lazy with the shift-lock key. Stop threatening to stop debating with me. It doesn't scare me.
I will just say leftists are more likely to respect individualism than either moderates or rightists.
I disagree. Leftists hate the idea of people making as much money as they want to. They believe in income redistribution, which means taking money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. Leftits believe in the government interfering in people's business. Leftists believe in regulating that which they believe to be "hate speech". None of these things support individualism.
I grant you that Leftists support gay rights and other such seemingly-individualist things.
I don't think so. Right-wingism is not incompatible with a gay lifestyle,
It seems we have a semantic problem. What defines "Right-wingism" to you? To me, it implies fundamentalist Christian or Jewish with "economic conservatism".
and I bet if we looked at your stance on issues you'd fall in on the right side of the divider mainly.
As I said, that's going to depend on how you define left and right. To me, "Leftism" is a religion in which government is god. "Left-wing" (not the religion), to me, implies the belief that free enterprise is bad, and that government should regulate the economic activities of humans to make things more "fair" (and the government arbitrarily defines "fair").
You said Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in homosexual men.
Yes, what I said was false. I then asked you about the rates of KS. I notice you dodged this question. Why?
Yes.
And this is where medical science disagrees with you. Can you quote for me anyone who still belives that AZT prolongs life? Everything I've read, everywhere, states that AZT is extremely toxic to the body.
Perhaps this was why the drug was shelved long before the notion of HIV even existed. It was deemed far to toxic to the body to be used as an effective cancer treatment.
Have you read the AZT Phase II FDA trials? They're very enlightening, and do serious damage to your contention that AZT prolongs life. Are you curious at all about what they might say, or are you just going to dismiss me as a troll, a loon, a "right-winger", a loser...?
We don't, but if the status quo and the grass roots approach aren't doing anything, I'm willing to give the government a try.(Note: *If*)
This assumes that a government "solution" will be better than not doing anything, and that is at least arguable in any case. What you also fail to recongnize is that once a government solution is in place, it never goes away, ever.
We can never totally prevent abuse, but at some point the danger of abuse may be outweighed by the dangers of the status quo.
I disagree on principle. Government is the only entity that has the right to trump all private solutions and also use deadly force to acheive its goals. I can think of few situations where the status quo might be worse than the threat of this abuse (and this abuse happens all the time -- do you blame human nature for wanting to exploit power when it's readily available?).
I don't believe that government power is any more inherently bad than corporate power or 501(C)(3) power or any other kind of power.
I disagree. Government has the right to seize and kill to acheieve its goals. Corporations do not. Hence, government power is worse.
People tend to take a more pessimistic outlook towards the government(which only lets it get worse) but individuals and corporations have certainly caused their fair share of problems.
They couldn't dream of competing with governments in terms of problems caused. How many people did Stail kill? How about Mao Zedong with his "great leap forward"? Pol Pot killed half the population of his country with his "social experiment"! Government takes the cake over and over again in terms of problems caused.
However, at its root, the government is an organization dedicated to keeping people happy enough to get their vote. As such, I find it's motives more likely to do good in thise case than the alternatives(read: corporations).
I think your view of government is naive. Do you think that there are people in government who like weilding power and will do whatever it takes to keep it? Once you realize that there are, then it becomes easier for you to realize that Social Security is much more about buying votes than it is about helping people. Old people vote in droves, young people do not. Every time the Republicans breathe, the Democrats scream, "The Republicans are going to take away your Social Security!" and the codgers flock to the voting booths.
I don't mean to imply that I like Republicans. As a gay man, I would find that counter-productive.
So in once sentence you say that people shouldn't be told what to do, yet in another you're perfectly willing to tell them what to do for the good of society?
Individual actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property cannot be allowed becuase society cannot function if those things are permitted. Beyond that, it is not the place of the government to tell people what to do. Does that clear it up? I am trying to draw a disctinction between those actions which prevent a society from functioning and those actions that a government might want to regulate for other reasons.
Both solutions are equivalent, as far as I'm concerned. Either it's easy enough for people to adopt the solution on their own, or it's more difficult and requires a nudge.
I don't understand how you can think that both solutions are equivalent if you think there are some circumstances where the government can arbitrarily decide that citizens are incapable of handling things themselves. Do you see how that is just ripe for abuse?
Either way, I don't see how regularly spewing fumes around is desirable afterwards.
It depends on the amount of fumes and the effect it would have on humans' health. What if spewing fumes was the result of a factory's operation which happened to employ 500 people in a small town? It's not so cut-and-dry once the other human factors are thrown in.
Better?
Yes, better. I think you agree with me that people cause drunk driving, not cars. Just like people cause murders, not guns.
That's nice. Pity the majority is.
The majority of people in the South wanted segregation to continue. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they want something good.
That's not a bad thing at all, but I'm talking about stuff that actually affects other people.
This was in response to my desire to protect individual rights. Well, what are the "other people" you're describing? Are they not individuals also?
Given the problems with cars(especially the fact that most of them involve hurting other people too), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to force some people to move to a better solution if they're not going to do it on their own.
I agree with you. Here are the problems with your statement:
1. How do we know that the government solution will be the best one?
2. How can we prevent abuse?
I'm all for giving the government total control if it is being run by infallible, incorruptible angels. As is, it is run by fallible humans who are drawn from the same barrel that yielded Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin. This is why I believe that government power should be limited. We shouldn't allow fallible humans to have that much power.
I guess we just have a difference of opinion on that one.
Yes, I believe that government power is bad while you believe the opposite.
You know what, one of my best friend's father is a biology researcher, he has worked with Pr. Montagnier on the HIV virus, he has taught in many high profile universities, published in the best scientific papers.
And why should I believe you? Anyone can get an account and post on slashdot.
He doesn't agree with you.
It really doesn't matter, now does it? Either the virus has been isolated according to the rules of isolation, or it hasn't been. You claimed that Montagnier isolated it. I asked you to show me the paper. Apparently, you can't do this. Apparently, your best friend's father can't do it, either. The fact that your best friend's father is a "biology researcher" and has "worked with Pr. Montagnier" is an appeal to authority. According to you, I should just take your word for it becuase you know big and important people who agree with you.
But you fail to realize that neither you nor these big and important people can show me that Montagnier or anyone else for that matter isolated HIV according to the rules of isolation. Do you understand what I am writing you? Show me the evidence, and I will believe that HIV has been isolated. Don't waste your time with these stupid-ass ad verecundiam arguments. They will fail to convince me.
So tell me, who am I supposed to trust more, that kind of respected person, or some random Internet conspiracy kook?
Do you realize that, from my point of view, there is nothing differentiating you from "some random Internet conspiracy kook"? Anyone can get an account on slashdot and make the claims that you've made.
You're a fool.
Do you believe that HIV has been isolated even though you can't prove that anyone has done it? It seems like you do, and that, to me, is a foolish action.
Yeah sorry I didn't see your sig, so I guess I was right to argue against you.
You must feel so big and important by fighting against a person so wrong-headed and evil as I am.
When I use the word queer, I obviously use it in a more mature way than you do.
Why do you have to prove how mature you are to me?
How much oil is in our water supply? Obviously enough that the county government where I live is sending out pamphlets telling people to please wash thier cars somewhere other than the driveway.
I didn't ask if your county government was sending out pamphlets. I asked how much oil was in the water supply. It's usually expressed in terms of parts per million. I must add here that oil in the water supply does not damage the Earth. It damages humans' health.
Leftists and Christians, what the fuck is that? Last time I checked there were quite a few Christians that are right-wing as well. Does that make them leftist right-wingers?
I'll explain it again. Maybe this time around you'll get it.
Leftists and Christians pretend to be mortal enemies when, in fact, they say practically the same things. They both believe that they are better than everyone else. They both believe that their way is the one, true way for all humanity. They both believe that their way is moral and everything else is immoral and evil. They both believe in marrying their morality with government and persecuting those who deviate from it. They both have a God -- with Christians it's the 3-in-1 and with Leftists it's government. And they both believe that selfishness is the root of evil.
I've debated many Christians and many Leftists. Believe me, they repeat the same lame-brained arguments. Christians are generally more polite (they don't need to be "cool" and "rebellious" like so many high-school and college-student leftists need to be), but their arguments are generally worse.
And what are you saying about selfishness, that being selfish is okay? No wonder your post got modded down. nobody likes people who only think of themselves.
You don't understand. Selfishness is okay. In fact, it is moral. I'm not talking about "I'll do what I want, screw everyone else!" I'm talking about rational self-interest. Each person is responsible for their own happiness and thier own happiness only. We are social creatures and cannot allow those actions which infringe on another individual's life, liberty, or property.
I guess you're the first person to give up your rights to protect our country in an 'unselfish' way. But to give up your modern conveniences like cars, you're going to fight like hell to keep those so that you can keep your 'individuality.'
I don't understand what you mean here.
Don't start throwing around Gaea like you know what I believe in.
Do you believe that Earth is a living being that must be protected and cherished?
What do you believe anyways?
Lots of things!
You think it's good to drive around in cars?
It is an amoral act. Personally, I dislike doing it. Car manufacturers ignore risk theory, which makes things worse, not better. Driving a car is dangerous.
You think that consuming all the crude oil is the way to go?
Consuming all the crude oil is an amoral act.
I love cars, in fact, I work on mine all the time, but I would trade it any day for some really good mass transit.
I'm particularly annoyed by people whose personalities are so weak that they have to dress up their cars with "V-TEK" stickers, spoilers, big muffler pipes, and what-not. Are you like that? I agree with you about mass transit. I have my car becuase I must, not because I want.
Okay, earth + pollution == destroyed earth. When everything is dead, and earth is a big hunk of rock, it's not really much for Earth now is it?
It's still Earth. It's a dif
I don't think unsupported generalizations really make good arguments.
Neither does anecdocal evidence, which is how you've chosen to refute my argument. It is common knowledge that "full-time student" implies that you don't work.
Sure. If what you're doing is legal and you can get rich doing it, more power to you.
Do you believe in progressive taxation?
I can honestly say I have never seen anyone even mention "Gaea" outside of cartoons.
Oh, none of them will say it, but it's what they mean. They think that the earth is a living being to be worshipped. Mother Earth. Gaea.
I'd define an environmentalist as someone who wants to protect the Earth from being damaged, generally by human-caused pollution. Some of them go too far, but seeing as I like being able to breathe, I have to respect what they do.
I think you're talking about two separate things. I also like being able to breathe and don't want someone else's trash in my lungs. But "protecting the Earth from being damaged" is a separate and much more nebulous thing. Does it "damage" the earth to rip out trees to build a road? As more particulars emerge, it becomes evident that "damaging the Earth" is a purely subjective notion. Introducing pollutants that damage humans is not.
Leftists don't hate individualism, but they do understand that people acting as individuals will not always act in a way that is productive to society.
And, naturally, Leftists think that they are the only ones who are smart and wise enough to govern what is "best for society" (translated: best for everyone). People can't be left to their own whims, they have to be told what to do by the wise and all-knowing Leftists!
Notice that you can change out "Leftists" with "Christians" and the sentences still hold true!
This is not a stretch at all; see for instance the outlawing of murder, theft, rape, etc.
I do not believe that individualism allows such actions that deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Humans are social creatures, and our society suffers if actions that deprive others of life, liberty, and property are allowed.
Now the question here is not "is individualism bad", the question is "should people be allowed to use cars if a less harmful alternative is easily available".
This most certainly is an issue of individualism, since you are talking about "allowing" people to do one thing or another. Should people be "allowed" to solve this problem on their own, as free individuals, or should the almighty government force them to adopt its will and whim?
Anyone who lives in a large city will tell you that cars cause problems(traffic, pollution, accidents, drunk driving...).
*sigh*
Do you really think that cars cause traffic, accidents, and drunk driving? Do you believe in any individual responsibility in any of those three things?
Whether the article's solution is good enough or not is by no means certain, but at least they're trying.
I like what the article was suggesting. I just meant to bring up the fact that Leftists hate individualism and cars as an expression of it.
Given all that, do you really believe that "most" people hate cars because of some silly power trip, or because they've experienced first hand the downside of having millions of them crammed in a small space?
So typical of Leftists: "what do 'most' people think?"
I am not concerned with what the majority wants. I am concerned with protecting freedom, and that means protecting individual rights. I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism and cars as an expression of it.
Pr. Montagnier, of Institut Pasteur, a not-for-profit organization. What's your point?
Show me the paper that shows that Pr. Montagnier sucessfully fulfilled the rules of isolation.
Did you know that there is a one thousand pound reward to the one who can isolate the HIV virus?
Are you prepared to claim this prize?
Well, I do disagree, but only because your thesis ("Leftists hate cars") is so ridiculous I could only assume your post was a troll.
And what, pray tell, is so ridiculous about it? Is it ridiculous merely because it doesn't represent you? Al Gore wrote in his book _Earth in the Balance_ (Gaea propaganda) that the internal combustion engine was the wost thing ever. Did the Leftist myrmidons who actually read his rabble protest?
Apparently I was mistaken... which makes your original post all the more amusing! Oh, careful, your tinfoil hat is crooked.
I suppose if you had a decent argument you would come out with it rather than these high-school attempts to make me feel bad about myself. I, too, can make the "tinfoil hat" argument. Hell, why don't I just type "get a life!" while I'm at it and put myself completely on your level?
True, college students/professors do have a tendency to be somewhat liberal, which makes sense; they're the ones who are trained to use their brains effectively.
Typical leftist arrogance. I see it differently.
College students are typically leftist because they don't have to work in the real world. Same goes for professors: they can hide behind tenure. Neither has to be troubled with the evil free market. They can sit in their English classes and wax eloquently about how intelligent they all are and how everyone else would be better off if they would adopt their way of thinking.
Disagree, certainly. I'm sure you'd label me a leftist, and I'm certainly not against individualism; I'm too far off the norm to be.
Do you think that individuals should be allowed to make as much money as they want to in the free market?
Here you called environmentalism superstition, which dictionary.com defines as an irrational belief. Or would you now like to claim you didn't type this?
I stand by it. Environmentalism is an irrational belief in Gaea, i.e., "Mother Earth". We may have a semantic disagreement, but my statement goes for the majority of Environmentalists I've had the misfortune of hearing of.
It all was. Everything from your capitalizing of "Leftist" (usually the sign of a propagandist), to your blanket assertions
You write "it all was" and then accuse me of making "blanket assertions". I capitalize Leftist because I think that Leftism is a religion and Government is its God.
"Leftists hate individualism" as if all "Leftists" think the same; it betrays your fundamental ignorance about what you're talking about)
Such grandiose words! Did you think they would impress me?
I'm not backing down from my claim that Leftists hate individualism. I notice you have not disputed it. I know that all leftists don't think alike.
And the more democratic a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". Claims are irrelevant; every country claims to speak for its people.
I disagree. What's the full name of North Korea?
I think Democracy is bad. Naturally, it would claim to speak for "the people" when it actually only speaks for the majority.
If you look at the facts, however, you'll see that the countries that are the MOST permissive of their citizens' rights tend to moderate leftist governments.
It depends on the rights in question, doesn't it?
How much do you care about the right to property, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech (including racist speech), the right to free press?
Most "independents" are closet right-wingers. I get the feeling you are too.
As a gay man, I have little love for many right-wingers. I guess your "feelings" have led you astray once again.
It's debatable whether it's been isolated. So? Doesn't disprove a thing.
What do you mean "it's debateable"? It's either been isolated by the classical rules of isolation, or it hasn't been. If it has, then tell me who did it!
See, this is why you're not taken seriously.
No, I'm not taken seriously because you fundamentally disagree with me. It leads you to mock and insult rather than engage in dialog.
Kaposi's Sarcoma appears in heterosexual men as well as women.
At what rates?
While we're at it, answer me this: does AZT prolong life of AIDS sufferers?
YOU'RE accusing someone ELSE of childish blather? That's funny.
.sig your sanity is in question, too, so perhaps I should just bow out of this little conversation...
Yet you fail to enumerate that which you feel is either "childish" or "blather". Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
And yet, it's the Rightists who pass the laws restricting speech. It's the Rightists who all look the same, act the same, dress the same, talk the same.
As if I were a "rightist", whatever that is. I notice you fail to dispute that Leftists hate individualism. Instead, you've resorted to sarcasm. How unimpressive.
Just because Nietzsche said something doesn't make it true. Think for yourself.
I quoted it because it is beautiful and it's true. But if you want something original, here it is:
The more Leftist a government is, the more they will claim to speak for "The People". For example, "The People's Republic of China". That country does not belong to "the people", it belongs to the government! They make that point expressly clear by the way they restrict the freedoms of their citizens.
And if you're going to quote him, try reading the rest of his philosophy before deciding to appoint him as some sort of moral visionary.
You're reading in to my writing too much. I merely posted something that I think is beautiful and true. I am not obligated to read everything he's written if I happen to like one thing that he's written.
It's difficult to sway someone with reason away from a viewpoint that they arrived at without using reason at all. You're a right-wing sheep; nobody's going to change your mind, no matter how convincingly they disprove your erroneous statements.
You here are stating that I am closed-minded. I disagree; I change my mind frequently and often challenge my own point of view. And, no, I am not "right-wing". The Right disgusts me almost as much as the Left does. It's evidential of your own closed mind that if I disagree with you, then I must be right-wing.
Judging by your
Your argument totally sucks, and then you tuck your tail between your legs and run like a yellow-bellied chicken. Perhaps if you could come up with a decent argument you'd stand your ground instead of resorting to your childish invective. And, since you think I'm insane, perhaps you'd like to share with me who isolated the HIV virus and why Kaposi's Sarcoma only appears in gay men.
It's all well and good to call it "bad science", but it's hardly fraud or a hoax.
I challenge your claim that this is not a fraud. Who isolated the HIV virus?
The people working to stop the spread of HIV may be mistaken, but they're not intentionally misleading anyone. (Well, the drug companies might be--but that's a different topic.)
It is certainly not a different topic. AIDS is about money, and no one is making more money than the drug companies right now.
More disturbing, though, is the theorum that anti-AIDS drugs actually cause the disease
I hate to break this horrible fact to you, but all AIDS "therapies" are extremely toxic to the body. Do you know the history of AZT? It was invented decades before the AIDS panic and then shelved. Why was it shelved?
If I injected myself with "HIV-infected" blood, and you started taking the daily regimen of AZT, who do you think would live longer?
I'll add here that no one admits any more that AZT is effective at prolonging life. I think there are lots of people who died of AZT poisoning. Wouldn't it then be horrible if HIV didn't exist?
I mean, the darn disease has been around for quite awhile, whether or not HIV causes it.
And you know as well as I do that "the darn disease" is a really sloppy way of describing AIDS. Are you referring to immune deficiency, or one of the diseases on the (ever-changing) list of "AIDS-related diseases", all of which existed prior to the AIDS panic?
(The best way, IMO, to debunk an HIV-AIDS relationship is to find someone with AIDS who tests as HIV-)
The definition of AIDS is "HIV infection with one of the AIDS-related diseases". Given this definition, you must agree with me that your test is invalid. Since all of the AIDS-related diseases existed before the false discovery of HIV, would you consider, for example, a person with Kaposi's Sarcoma who is HIV- as proof that HIV is a lie? It doesn't make sense.
And we haven't even started talking about the HIV tests (yes, plural!) and how accurate they are!
But then you just right into "Leftists hate individualism", which gives the troll away immediately.
I notice that you don't disagree, you just label it as a "troll".
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
(Naturally, Hillary knows exactly what is best for society.)
Thus, its plainly obvious that this paper is really an attack on freedoms, thinly disguised by a veneer of politically correct, environmental double-speak.
You attribute this to me, and it is false. I actually like the paper and like the idea of cities being more pedestrian-friendly. What I wanted to bring up was the Leftist's burning hatred of the automobile as a means of generating discussion. From the amount of traffic following my post, it looks like I've succeeded.
And, as usual, Leftists can't argue their way out of a paper bag. They'd much rather spew invective, as you have done.
Hahaha! Wow, that's hilarious. First, before anyone responds to this guy, check his sig. At this point, the "kook alert" bell should be ringing.
Are there any cofactors involved in AIDS, or is HIV sufficient? Why does KS appear only in gay men? Do malnutrition and drug abuse cause immunodeficiency?
We'll see just how "kooky" I am if you choose to engage me in this discussion. Your attempts to intimidate me will fail.
Leftists don't hate individualism, you dummy. They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others.
Wow, "you dummy"! You could have come up with a better ad hominem than that!
I hate to break this to you, but there is an selfish element in all actions. If there isn't anything in it for you, then you won't do it. This is a fact.
Everyone, including lefty types, like the freedom cars bring, but for some, the associated costs are very high. It would be nice to alleviate some of those costs (pollution, congestion, poor urban design) by coming up with something better.
I agree!
Europeans, in your mind, are no doubt hateful lefties with few redeeming qualities.
Not only do I disagree, but inform you that you can't tell me what to think.
What you'll find are plenty of horrible, socialist, know-it-all, (etc. - all the other name-calling you resorted to) people using an excellent, freedom-enhancing transit system in the city centre, and driving all around in their cars outside of there.
And where did I argue against mass transit?
Central Amsterdam has great air quality; "bad traffic" is when there are five cars stopped at a light.
And this is where you falsely assume that air quality is related solely to automobile usage.
No one seems to be on their way to the gulag - that would be the U.S., if you happen to be a pot-smoker
The nature of all government is to get bigger until they are overthrown. The government of the USA will become bigger and bigger, just like those of Europe have. Do you think that The Netherlands is a more or less free society than the USA's is? Freedom here means "I can do whatever I damn well please". What do you think? Smoking pot is one of only a few million things you can do that a government may restrict.
And I believe all drug laws should be repealed.
The tram and train system is safe, convenient, cheap, and very quick.
And don't forget "run by the government"!
As for your absurd assessment of environmentalism - no ideology, not even yours, ever trumps science. Remember that.
Oh how naive you are! Do you think that the world of science is free of ego and petty politics? Science isn't always exactly scientific. Environmentalism, as a religion, is even less so.
Not really, but that's gonna strike nerves in whole bunches of individualists!
Then I'm at a loss for why you would behave so childishly. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
I've never seen finer points of communication than those exhibited in this thread.
As exhibited by your failure to address points I've made. It's much easier to criticize than it is to communicate, isn't it?