Listen, you started this thread with the left field assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS.
"You started this!" How middle-school of you. My assertion is not left-field.
I write a response based listing facts used to prove that HIV causes AIDS. Yeah, that's the ticket, list some evidence before making an assertion that you can't back up. Give it a shot.
You have listed no facts. You have merely reitereated the point in dispute, that HIV==AIDS. I refuse to believe it until you show me the evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. Just becuase I go against the single most well-funded disease research in human history does not shift the burden of proof.
You spend a good deal of your posts getting hyped about AZT and know full well that HIV/AIDS existed prior to any individuals getting AZT.
You are wrong. AZT existed before HIV and was shelved. Why was it shelved? What were its side effects?
You probably know that most of the people in the world that are HIV infected and develop AIDS never see AZT or other antivirals.
I doubt that there is anyone who is infected with HIV and who is developing AIDS as a result of it. Where are the millions of corpses from those Africans who should be dying from AIDS right now? We all saw images of what Ebola did, but the so-called AIDS epidemic (which is called an epidemic despite the fact that it does NOT follow an epidemic pattern) in Africa is nothing but talk so far.
you prefer to ignore Occamm's razor and go with what is mostly a crowd of scientific misfits, dilettantes, and yahoos
Yes, it's so much easier to slander your opponent than to refute his argument, isn't it? This is called argumentum ad hominem and it's a logical flaw. It's a sign that your argument is weak.
that claims that people get AIDS because of poppers
It claims no such thing. It claims that people get KS from poppers. Even the exalted Gallo has shifted his position on KS and poppers, where previously it was "caused by AIDS (HIV)."
But of course, there's many more facts than just the etiologic association of HIV and AIDS as I've listed previously.
So why don't you share some? Your ad hominems are getting boring.
I don't think you were able to really dispute a single one of then, right? Even that apocryphal claim that HIV hasn't been isolated doesn't sound too strong now, does it?
Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. Produce the document which shows that HIV has been isolated. Until you can produce this document, I think all of your claims about HIV are baseless and don't need to be refuted.
I think I'll let someone else contend for the lammo website's prize on this
Probably because you can't. You don't have a document that shows HIV has been isolated.
Given that you're so 'fact' based why don't you start with some and show us what you know about the topic before demanding answers to questions to a thesis you can't back up?
I don't need a thesis because my position is skepticism, not belief. Show me the evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS. The evidence is not in your favor.
What causes AIDS and how?
We first have to agree as to what "AIDS" is. The definition of AIDS keeps changing. What is the list of the so-called "secondary diseases" this year?
Why does HIV not cause AIDS?
You're assuming a point in dispute with this question. If HIV has not been isolated, then why do you believe it exists?
i presume at least a couple papers from reputable scientific journals and not someone's manifesto/novel
It's very hard for those who doubt the HIV==AIDS hypothesis to get published in reputable scientific journals. Anyone who deviates from the Holy Sacred Truth that HIV==AIDS is treated with disdain, scorn, and violence. The rude and disrespectful way that you've treated me is an example of this.
what's the proper definition of an epidemic (actually the UN refers to the HIV/AIDS crisis as a pandemic... but they're probably similarly clueless in your book
This is not a useless question. If the UN calls AIDS a "pandemic" yet AIDS does not meet the requirements for a pandemic, then why is AIDS labeled as much?
Stick to the big questions and fact based evidence first for the claim you put forward and then deviate into your lists of random questions.
I'm all about facts and I am still waiting for you to give me some. And I note that you can't seem to answer my questions. Why? They aren't unfair. Are you afraid of the answer?
Are you out of your depth? Yes[.] Will you ever admit it? No
Your attempts to intimidate me will fail. If you're such a big-shot scientist then you'll produce the document that shows that HIV has been isolated. You'll also be able to explain why AIDS is called an epidemic or pandemic even though it doesn't meet the criteria.
Typical of a good/.er? Absolutely.
I'm just "another typical slashdotter." Do you know what this is? It's another typical ad hominem argument. In other words, your argument sucks. You rely on ad hominems, ad numerams, and ad verecundiams to try and make your point which gets weaker and weaker every day. You dismiss my questions as if they were irrelevent when they most certainly are not.
i wasn't ducking your questions as they weren't posed to me per se but posted in this forum. moreover, i was stating facts and not questions as you were.
And you still haven't answered the questions, you've only given me an excuse as to why you haven't. And don't try to turn this back on me.
you've picked up on some of the points that peter duesberg originally put out. thus i also wanted to raise the possibility that his motivation might be influenced by other personal factors other than the science
Don't try to pin this on Duesberg, either. He's not the only one who has questioned the HIV==AIDS mantra. And he's not the only one to suffer financially, emotionally, and physically from having the audacity to do so. AIDS is BIG MONEY.
(1) & (4) are semantic issues, right?
No, they are not.
Concering #1, the definition of epidemic is specific. The pattern of AIDS does not meet the criteria, yet it is called an "epidemic" anyway. Why is this?
the larger question you were posing prevoiusly was whether HIV caused an immunodeficiency that allowed secondary infections. i think the data is unequivocal on this point.
So the immunodeficiency "allowed" secondary infections? I suppose you've chosen this verb because you can't say "caused." In fact, you know that ALL of the secondary infections existed in absence of HIV before the alleged discovery of HIV. And the data is certainly not unequivocal.
as per what secondary infections occur in 'AIDS' caused by HIV-1, this has changed somewhat over time because people learned more about the disease and some of the early second infections became treatable and non-issues (thus saving lives).
You didn't answer my question. How many times has the list of secondary diseases changed? And, once you figure that out, can you form the list of these so-called secondary infections for each time the list changed? Wouldn't the contents of those lists be interesting? I find it to be very important since a diagnosis of AIDS has always been either a death sentence or "buy our drugs if you want to live" sentence. It's just ripe for abuse, isn't it?
as per question (2), i don't know what burroughs-wellcome does with its money but am generally suspicious of large drug companies. as per question
This might be my foot in the door!;)
(3), supply whichever peter duesberg theory you want as this is one of his issues. he stopped scientifically publishing on HIV for the past 4-5 years, and has primarily gone back to his cancer work.
Weak, weak, weak. I can reference writings that are NOT by Duesberg that discuss the positive link between KS and amyl nitrate ("poppers"). Why do you keep trying to pin this on Duesberg? He's not the only opponent of the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Is Duesberg your scapegoat?
do you have specific knowledge of this or perhaps have done any molecular biology research to back this up? HIV has been isolated numerous times. it's real. it's not so hard to do. you can in fact isolate just it's nucleic acid genome, put this into cells, and they will make the virus.
Wrongo Dongo, amigo. It is you that has to back up your claim that the virus has been isolated. You can't just assert that it has been isolated and then tell me that I have to disprove you. The easiest way for us to solve this is for you to link to the paper which describes the circumstances under which the HIV virus was isolated. Don't tell me to go to some website and dig around. Just link to the paper. There is a prize for anyone who can claim isolation of the HIV virus. Perhaps you'd like to claim it?
peter duesberg (again the leading scientific figure who used to question the HIV/AIDS link) has done the same exact experiment with other retroviruses. it's a pretty simple one.
Yes, let's bring it back to Duesberg again. This is not convincing.
No. Why are you so hung up on this company?
Because they are the manufacturer of AZT and have thus made millions off of the "AIDS epidemic."
I decided to professionally continue studying retroviruses after seeing a friend die of HIV-1 infection that progressed to AIDS while I was a grad student. Pretty sad as it was the year that these drugs called protease inhibitors were coming out experimentally and he was trying so hard to get in a protocol so he could get the meds.
One question: was your friend on AZT therapy?
I'm not going to get into a debate of whether you have or I have on this topic because I think you're coming at it with an open mind and willing to examine information or evidence as presented....
Flattery will get you nowhere.
I decided to put my own curiosity on the research bench and test things myself. It's no conspiracy. HIV kills CD4+ T cells. Stopping the virus saves these important immune cells and it prolongs life.
I'm not the slightest bit impressed. For all I know, you could be working for a pharmecutical company and lying about your job. The profit motive is certainly there for just such a fabrication, considering that AIDS has more money than God does, and the only thing which might stop the gravy train are those which actually question the bald and hollow assertions which support the HIV==AIDS house of cards. And your "stopping the virus" (through drugs, presumably) is the same line that the big AIDS drug manufacturers have been preaching since the alleged outbreak.
If you answer my questions you will gain more credibility with me.
I think what you didn't write is more imporant than what you did write. Why did you duck every single one of my questions?
You can line up many times more scientists and physicians who work on infectious disease or viral and/or bacterial infections, and they will agree that an HIV-1 infection will lead to the destruction of CD4+ T cells in the body which leads to immunodeficiency and susceptibility to secondary infections which characterize AIDS.
AIDS research is the single most well-funded disease research in human history. More so than other diseases which kill and harm many, many more people than AIDS does. Is it possible that money may be a factor? I think the answer is Yes. I notice that you write as if you are in the AIDS research field.
Exposing purified CD4+ T cells in culture outside the body to HIV-1 leads to their infection and killing. I've observed this many times under a microscope.
HIV has not been isolated. How can any of your claims, which deoend on the existence of HIV, be true?
The same antiviral drugs used in humans who are infected with HIV-1, prevents diminishment of CD4+ T cells, reduces the amount of HIV-1 present in the body, and extends life of HIV-1 infected persons.
Antiviral drugs such as AZT? Do you work for Burroughs-Wellcome?
An early proponent in questioning whether HIV-1 caused AIDS was Peter Duesberg at UC-Berkeley. I've met Peter before, and some fo my senior colleagues know him quite well. Peter is a smart man and has made important contributions as to our understanding of cancer usng retroviruses as a model to explore oncogenesis.
Duesberg is one of the principal opponents of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. I don't understand why you write so fondly of him since you labeled my claims, where are partly based on his writings, as "disinformation."
Here are some more questions for you:
How can AIDS be called an "epidemic" if it does not follow an epidemic pattern?
Did Burroughs-Wellcome give money to Act Up!?
What is the relationship between Kaposi's Sarcoma and amyl nitrate?
How many times has the list of "AIDS diseases" changed since the declaration of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis?
Show me the body bags. We saw this for Ebola. Why not for AIDS?
Better yet, go spend a week barebacking in San Francisco and tell us how you feel in a few years.
I guarantee you that I'd feel better doing that than I would if I were taking the poison known as AZT for a few years, incubation period or no incubation period.
The cure for AIDS is going to be sociological, not molecular. AIDS is the largest medical fraud ever to occur in humanity. Before you mod me down, please consider the following questions:
When and for what reasons was AZT first shelved?
What are the symptoms of AZT poisoning?
What is the rate of HIV infection outside of the original "control groups" (specifically, I.V. drug users and promiscuous gay males)?
Under the current "HIV == AIDS" model, how is it explainable that a child acquire HIV in vitro but not develop AIDS?
If you test positive for HIV, then what is the probibility that the test will be a false positive? Hint: it's NOT 99.9% despite the fact that the test claims to be "99.9% accurate."
Who first isolated the HIV virus?
Find some answers here. Read before you criticize.
Does anyone have any evidence of virus protection companies directly or indirectly writing viruses? That's a curious question, not an indiginant and defensive question.
I went back and re-read it to be sure. I still disagree.
I thought there was no ad hominem in the parent post. So there was after all?
There is no ad hominem in the parent post. When I called you on yours, you deferred to the parent, as if you were claiming "one bad turn deserves another." I notice you don't deny that you had sunk to invective.
Who's trying to convince somebody? What's my point of view? Facts are facts, regardless of presentation.
I agree. You come off like an arrogant prick in your posts. You will piss off more people than you enlighten with this attitude. I think you would do a good job of educating people about the things you believe in if you stop being so snide and condescending.
The X protocol has a certain definition. There is no convincing needed unless people simply do not desire to listen to the facts; and if that is the case, I need not bother replying, since those type of people will believe whatever they want in any case.
I agree with this, too. It does not excuse your condescending "what's not to understand, you dumbass?" response to the original post.
The phrase "In case you missed it" refers to the case in which the person who replied had neglected to read the context of said post (including its parent) before replying. Since the replier demonstrated either 1) being incredibly obtuse, or 2) not having read the parent post, I chose to defer to the latter possibility in kindness.
Who cares what it referred to? It's still a haughty way of writing "stick that in your pipe and smoke it!" Your defense of it, once again, comes off as snide and condescending. Can we just stick to the facts?
Quite possible, but
Snip! When you inject the conjuction "but" you discount everything which comes before it. Do you agree with me or don't you?
If people are going to debate its technical merits, fine, but claiming that "X designers should obviously have done this and that instead" without even knowing the history and background behind such decisions is simply naive.
I agree! I think you and I agree on a lot of the technical issues. What I find disagreeable is your presentation.
Windows XP shares >90% of its code with.NET Server, both products were written by the Server platform group, not the Client group. This explain why the Client group has such a high percentage of profit and why the Server platform group didn't.
Good points! You should have stopped here.
Instead, you couldn't resist getting in a few useless jabs:
One more proof that these two websites are less and less appealing to people who have a brain and use it. It shouldn't be that hard to use your brain once in a while instead of spreading lies about your opponent, it actually might even be useful and intelligent.
What wasteful, unwise things for you to write! You could have made your point without diving down to invective. As is, your post looks like a troll and will probably be regarded by most as such. If you want to be convincing, you will do much better to present your facts without slandering your opponent. Hell, every opponent is a potential convert.
The original post was an ad hominem, in case you missed it.
There was no ad hominem in the parent post. And do you think that one person acting childishly gives you the right to respond in kind? If you want to sway people to your point of view, then you need to present your facts without all of the insults and the snide "in case you missed it" remarks.
I still don't understand what the confusion is.
People are confused by the problems arising from the multiple meanings of "server." I think it's ultimately a semantic problem.
Agreed! I think I was taking exception to what I perceived as your blaming the user for having their preferred applications. I think, in this regard, it's anyone's fault but the user's. A user's preferences for applications is not a matter of debate. Then again, I may have mis-read you, which is entirely possible.
Oh screw that artsy-fartsy worthless pile-of-puke photoshop! The app that I give a shit about is Quickbooks! As a small business owner, I have to worry about keeping track of bills, invoices, depreciation, sales tax, income tax withholdings, unemployment, payroll, etc., etc., etc. What app in Linux can handle all of this that does not involve a significant amount of time investment? And, trust me, time fucking with software for an ideological purpose is time that I'm not spending with my customers or time I'm not spending finding out how to cut costs or time I'm not spending how to more effectively advertise or time I'm not spending how to keep my employees happy. In short, it's time I'm not spending making my business successful and worthwhile.
And yes, I know that the Quickbooks UI is terrible. It doesn't matter.
And yes, I'm joking about Photoshop being a pile of puke.
And yes, I adore Linux and abhor Microsoft. I'm writing this post in Konqueror on Linux, but I know that I'll have to reboot to Windows come Monday when it's time to pay bills again. Y'all have no idea how bad it hurts. Rebooting into Windows significantly less pleasant than shoving a rusty, red-hot blowfish up my urethra. (Don't ask me how I know or how a blowfish could be either rusty or red-hot; I'm just giving y'all a taste of my ultra-sophisticated sense of humor.)
I don't think Warcraft III runs as fast or as easily on Linux as it does on windows. To say it "runs fine on Linux" is fair. To say that it provides the eqivalent positive experience (ignoring all of the other shitty aspects of running a Microsoft OS) as it does on Windows is not not fair. I think it is important that Linux proponents (like you and me) be honest about things like this.
So far though XP hasn't been bad, VERY few crashes (like 5 in about four months, three of which were EndNote's fault).
This is XP's fault, not EndNote's fault. A user-space program should never cause the OS to crash. Hardware? Yes, possibly. Programs? Never. Anything less is a flaw in the OS design. People are still way, way, way too forgiving of Microsoft for their lackluster design.
At least, this is my opinion. Am I being to hard on Microsoft?
GNU/Linux probably has more; it definitely comes with more on the CD. Yet, I still wouldn't use the language "I use GNU/Linux because it has more applications", I'd say "...because it comes with powerful, familiar applications for programming and graphics"
When people write, "It doesn't have enough applications," what they mean is, "It doesn't have the applications I want." "Familiar" and "Powerful" are not good enough. An app may be both familiar and powerful, but if it's isn't Aftereffects (and if Aftereffects is what people want, for the sake of argument), then [non-Windows OS] won't suffice. I'm talking about people on a grand scale, not on a small scale.
What's so hard to understand about it? That is, unless you're deliberately trying not to understand?
The problem is semantic; specifically, the multiple and conflicting (in this instance) definitions of "server." Your response is an ad hominem and does not help.
I appreciate the improved tenor of your post. Let's both work on keeping the conversation free of invective.
First, I'm going to skip everything but your last question. Then, I'm going to answer: I can't.
I'm not going to let you off the hook on behaving in the same manner as a fundamentalist Christian. You are trying to impart your ideology on the rest of the world because you think it's right. I have no problem with that. You have to change your tactics becuase you and I agree that those tactics fail for fundamentalist Christians, and those happen to be the same tactics that you employ. You have to find a way of delivering your message that doesn't make you come off as elitist, condescending, and rude. You're just not going to win many converts to your cause with that attitude.
Keep in mind that what I'm criticizing here is your behavior, not your ideology. The two issues are separate.
There's never going to be one static set of laws that all people agree with and live under.
I think you are talking about ethical rules, not laws. We all live under the oppressive laws of the Federal Government.
If I had to pick myself, I would say $20M.
How did you come up with this figure?
There's no single answer to the question "when is it okay to kill someone" yet the laws of our society provide this answer (at least legally).
You're comparing apples and oranges. Murder implies the loss of life. "Too much property" (whatever that is) rights does not.
At some point people debated it, and then wrote some laws. I don't claim that they're perfect, but I think they're better than not having any.
This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
I'm really curious as to what number you would pick. I don't want to tell you why too much property it too much either. What number would you pick today, given you own personal thoughts about property rights?
I don't think there should be any limit to how much money an individual can earn. Acquiring any amount of money using force or fraud should be illegal.
As far as the morality stuff, whatever. Both being gay and being a rapist/murderer and against Catholicism/Bible-beltism/whatever, but that doesn't make them the same. Someone being gay doesn't interfere with my rights, someone raping/murdering me does. See the difference?
Yes. I don't know what this is in response to, so I'm not sure what you're trying to show. You can't "whatever" the discussion about morality becuase your entire ideology is based around what you consider to be a superior morality.
Look up what a sociopath is actually read my post and then reply.
If you insist:
"One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior." (dictionary.com)
The question is, what exactly is "antisocial behavior"? Well, it depends on who you ask. Were you looking for the current psychological definition, or is this merely a matter of opinion?
The words actually have meanings, they aren't just bolded or unbolded text. They form sentences. These express ideas.
Yes, they express arrogant, condescending, and insulting ideas that I frequently get from leftists and fundamentalist Christians. Apparently, you really wanted to get your point across and you thought the strong tag would help.
You should respond to those. Instead you spend most of your post talking about all the various groups you've chosen to spend you life hating.
I don't hate Christians and leftists. I don't know if I hate anyone, but, then again, the definition of "hate" is an awfully slippery one. Since it was you who implied that I was a "scumbag" and a "sociopath," perhaps you have some harsh feelings of your own to work on. Why would you be getting so excited about some guy posting on a web page, anyway? Certainly you have better things to get worked up about.
You should educate yourself. Not everyone who disagrres with you is a fundamentalist Christian.
I did not state that you were a fundamentalist Christian. Nor did I state that everyone who disagrees with me is a fundamentalist Christian. What I wrote and maintain is that your behavior is very similar in many ways to that of a fundamentalist Christian. Allow me to list them for you:
You both argue from an ideological instead of factual stance.
You both think that you have a superior form of morality.
You both think that your superior morality makes you better than those who don't share your morality.
You are both condescending, insulting, arrogant, and rude.
Do you disagree with any of those?
If you've adopted fifty starving children from Africa, then that's a good thing, but I doubt you have. Either way it doesn't matter.
I see, you'll think I'm a "scumbag" and a "sociopath" no matter how much good I've done, because I don't share your ideology. That's fine, but you can't claim that I don't care.
A Christian would have written, "If you've adopted fifty starving children from Africa, then that's a good thing, but I doubt you have. Either way it doesn't matter because you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
If people give you shit because you're gay, that's lame. You being gay doesn't interfere with my life and I don't really care if you're gay or not. It doesn't tie into this argument at all.
Well, it depends on what the argument is, doesn't it? I'm arguing that Christians debase and insult me because I don't share their ideology which is exactly the same thing you're doing to me. I brought up that I was gay because it illustrates how I don't share (conservative) Christians' ideology.
My question to you is, since this tactic fails for the Christians, what makes you think it will work for you? Do you think that your flavor of morality is so superior that I will find prostating myself in front of it impossible to resist? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really want to know your answer. (It's also the second time I've asked it. You ignored it the first time around.)
I don't really care how you live your life if it doesn't affect me.
Then why are you being so downright abusive with me?
If you own all the widgets, it does affect me. I can't get any because you have them all, and some for some types of widgets there is a fixed supply (ex: land). It's just the simple truth. I challenge you do disprove it. Not to criticize my choice of the word widget, or fling embarassing labels around, but to actually read, comprehend and then respond. If you get that far think about how you would fix this?
Fix what, exactly? You are creating a problem that does not exist. Is there any single type of resource that is all completely owned by a single person (or a single entity)?
Oh, were you being hypothetical? How would I fix a situation where a single person (or entity) owned all of a single resource? Well, how could a single person own all of a single resource?
Now, will you be able to clarify your "problem" that I am supposed to "disprove" without resorting to bold sentences and useless invective? I'm not going to get my hopes up.
Can you think of a better way to keep someone from owning too many widgets or are you dead set on believing that no one can ever have too much?
Let's assume here that "widgets" == "property" (generic). Your question becomes, "[A]re you dead set on believing that no one can ever have too much property?" No, I'm not dead-set on believing it. But one has to be convinced that a certain amount of property is "too much." (This is the subjective "greed" argument.)
Tell me, how much property is "too much" for a single person to own? The problem with the question is that there is no single right answer. If you ask 1,000 people you'll get 1,000 different answers. How can you objectively show that a single answer is the correct one?
I rarely have someone tee it up for me as well as you have.:)
If you're going to be insulting, expect it right back.
I believe you drew first blood with your childish "... my ass" comment. And I attacked your comment, not you. Civility is required, and your comments simply don't make the cut.
And yes, that's right I'm challenging your morality of lack thereof. Having a social conscience is not equivalent to being a fundamentalist Christian.
I disagree. Both you and the fundamentalist Christian (who despises me because I'm gay) attack me because they think they're more moral than I am. You both do the same thing -- it's only your opinions that are different.
May you should go back to high school. You could probably learn a lot. Your entire post is BS.
I'm totally unmoved. You're going to have to try a different tactic than this.
The first sentence is an insult. All it does is make you look bad.
Pot, kettle, black.
The second equates two things that are not the same.
The actions are the same, the opinions are different. I couldn't care less about y'all's opinions ("y'all" being leftists like you and fundamentalist Christians); it's your actions which are much more telling.
You might also care to notice that I said 'I [] have a social conscience'. I didn't say anything about yours.
You're challenging my morality yet not saying anything about my social conscience?
I was showing what a fool you were to think that the only reason to think as I do is class envy.
Since I never made that claim about you, it's hard for me to see how you would think that I think such about you. You responded to me first.
I have clearly shown this since you're no longer claiming it.
Your use of the word "clearly" shows the weakness of your claim. If it really was clear, you wouldn't need to label it as such; it's clarity would be self-evident to me.
Your concept or morality appears to be ludicrously warped, since you think caring about others around you makes you a fundamentalist Christian.
I hear this very claim from Christians, too. What makes you think your making it will have an effect?
With the ability to make these ridiculous jumps in (un)logic there's no wonder you're a libertarian.
Since you are doing exactly the same thing that the fundies do, it seems that the lack of logic lies in your court, not mine.
Caring about other human beings is actually a good thing. Sorry if this concept is foreign to you, since that would make you a scumbag and textbook sociopath.
This is the criticism which pisses me off the most: if I don't accept the huge-government, income-redistribution, "I'll tell you how to live your life" opinions of the Socialist Holier-than-thou Left, then I don't "care" about human beings. If I didn't care about human beings, then how could I raise my son or care about my partner? If I didn't care about human beings, then how could I do benefits for my community's elementary school? If I didn't care about human beings, then how could I keep my friends' two-year-olds at my home when they were away attempting to adopt their child from Guatemala? If I didn't care about human beings, then why would I have opted to adopt my son from his miserable orphanage in Ukraine instead of doing something more selfish (such as inseminiation)? No, all of these things can be quickly demonized and brushed away because I don't accept the opinions of the Holy Left.
Notice how similar this is to the opinions of the Holy Right: my love for my partner is not "true" love. My parenting of my son is not "true" parenting. Yet another way in which you sound just like a fundie.
And I doubt you know what the textbook definition of a sociopath is, so your debasing comments sound funny.
Your constant use of the strong tag also makes your argument look weak. If your argument really were strong and meaningful, you woldn't need the bold tag.
Would you like to explore other ways in which you are acting like a fundamentalist Christian? The parallels seem to be popping up all over the place.
Oh, and I haven't given up believing that you are motivated by class envy. I just found more interesting things to talk about, namely that you are more Christian than you are brave enough to admit.
you've got to work (or inherit, or cheat) your ass off to get a "fair" piece of the resource pie.
I'm glad you put "fair" in quotes -- it's a very loaded word.
like whether you were born in the exploiter or exploited
"To exploit" is a loaded and abused word (well, the infitinitive is two words, but I'm sure you get the idea).
the deck is stacked against of lot of resentful... class envious people.
Your choice of terminology is really leaning toward an "evil rich, noble poor" argument. Do you realize that the top 50% of income earners pay more than 90% of the income tax burden for the United States? And leftists in the Congress continually harp on about "tax credits" for people who do not pay income taxes!
When resources from necessities to luxuries suddenly become extremely abundant, the gap narrows
I dispute the existence of this "gap" in this country. There are not two social classes; there are many.
Special privilege must still be earned. society would probably reward people like top artists with that scarce beachfront property:), and 2nd-rate artists would have to make do with a beach on the hundreds of floating ocean cities, and a 3rd-rate artist'd make due with a simulation (until the simulation becomes reality... much later).
Let me guess... you were/are an art major?;)
I'm not sure if I misread you or not. It may take more discussion for me to figure out what your opinions are on this issue.
"Social conscience" is functionally equivalent to "morality," so what you're saying here is that you are moral and I am not. This tactic does not work for the fundamentalist Christians, so what makes you think it will work for you?
ok, i apologize for the sarcasm, fact is i got quite pissed off by several other comments from this thread, and i misread yours.
Apology accepted. If you get pissed off, then becoming sarcastic is a weakness, not a strength.
Nonetheless, the US society, like many industrialised country's, does have a widening span between the "middle" class and the "upper" one, a gap that once could be jumped (the 'self made man'), but this is becoming increasingly difficult.
You are not responding to my argument. My argument is this: there is no single middle or upper class. (Perhaps your use of quotes is an attempt to acknowlege this without outright admitting it.) Furthermore, on what do you base your belief that it is more difficult now for a middle-class citizen to become an upper-class one?
As for nanotech', ah, i so wish you'd be right, but i fear you won't...
You spent a lot of time trying to defeat the nanotech argument, one that I did not make. I was responding to another's post about nanotechnology, and I believe what I wrote was, "I like what you had to say about nanotechnology."
You'll see, there will always be a gap between the middle class and the upper one, and the later will want it to stay that way..
This is the same old and tired "evil rich, noble poor" argument. On what do you base the belief that the upper class (whatever that is -- how much money, presicely, do you have to have to be called "upper class"?) wants to "keep the man down," so to speak?
And this will allow to maintain an artificial scarcity, because, see, what's the point in owning a rolls royce, if everybody as one [ . . . ? ]
The nice thing about that fallacious argument is that you can expand it to any item that you deign "too luxurious" for any person to own. It's not even at attack against the item; it's an attack against the motives of one who might own it. And no matter what the person who might own one would say to defend him or herself (such as, "I like the fact that any item in a Rolls Royce is replaceable for life"), you can always respond with, "Yeah, whatever. You're just a greedy rich person and you'll say anything to hold on to all that stuff you don't deserve, that stuff that you have merely to separate you from the rabble that you want to keep down."
In other words, "evil rich, noble poor." You're going to have to come up with a more original and intelligent argument than this.
you're right, last time i checked, i couldn't help but notice that the homeless next door was better dressed and groomed than bill gates.
Your sarcasm hurts your argument. If you want to be productive and have dialog, then be serious.
To respond to your sarcastic remarks, what about all of the classes in between the homeless man and Bill Gates? How many classes are there? If these two happened to live in Guatemala, probably none. But in the U.S., there are many. It's impossible to really say where one ends and the next begins. Some people rent houses. Some rent apartments. Some own homes of various different values. And, if you look at current development (or sprawl, if you happen to live in the Atlanta area like myself), then you'll see the wide variety of ranges of current home values. Some less than $90K, some from $100-120K, some from $120-140K, and so on and so one. All these people carry a wide variety of different jobs. Some have one working parent. Some have two. Some have multiple working parents becuase multiple families may share a domicile. Some have kids, some don't, which directly affects their career choices. So I really don't know what you are trying to argue. Are you claiming that I was claiming that everyone is in the same social class in the U.S.? Well, I certianly don't believe that, and I really don't know how it could be inferred from what I wrote.
Would you care to respond to my argument or would you rather continue with sarcastic non-sequiturs? In the case of the latter, you won't get another response from me.
in the absence of real material scarcity like we see today, there's no real justification for such a huge seperation between economic classes.
I don't see such a huge separation between economic classes. At least, not where I live in the United States. I see many different economic classes and the lines between one to the next are fairly blurry. I think your argument applies better to third world countries, where you are either stinking rich or dirt poor ("HAVES" and "HAVE-NOTS," as you labeled them).
But perhaps what you're really trying to say is that everyone should have an equal amount of stuff regardless of how hard they work, how intelligent they are, and how desirable their skills are in the marketplace. Am I reading you correctly?
I like what you say about nanotechnology, though. And, in time, we'll be able to cheaply synthesize beachfront property as well. Either that or an acceptable illusion of beachfront property.:)
I agree... sometimes. It depends on the law in question, doesn't it? What if the government made free press illegal? Publishing a newspaper without the consent of the government would then make you a criminal.
The gov't is not a bunch of criminals for taking your money. They are doing things that benefit society with that money.
The notion of "that which benefits society" and the notion of "that which is moral" are equivalent. Furthermore, they aren't always doing things that benefit society with that money, right? The government is composed of fallible humans subject to the corruption that power brings. History is rife with examples of government abuse so that those in control can profit at the expense of private citizens. The principal difference between corporations and government is that corporations do not have the legal right to use deadly force to acheive their goals. Of course, corporations can always bribe government officials. Everyone knows that this happens to this day and it blows holes in your claim that governments are "not a bunch of criminals."
I personally believe that at some level of income, the tax rate for individuals should become 100%.
Two words: class envy. It's getting so old and so tired, yet it will probably never ever go away.
No one person should have a billion dollars, it's impossible for a democaracy to exist when people do.
"Democracy" is one of the most abused words in the English language. What happens if 51% of the democracy decides that the 49% should be their slaves? This is the "Tyrrany of the Majority" that Madison wrote about in _The Federalist_.
The economy would still function just fine under this system, since indiviuals could still pool their money by creating corporations.
What's to stop the government from taking control of all corporations if they so decide? Remember, the only reason that they'd do such a thing would be for "the benefit of society."
Probably the most relevant verse is in the first chapter of Jeremiah:
I think you meant to write, "the only possibly relevant verse."
Mckinsey dismisses the verse as ambiguous. I'm not inclined to agree. Though not yet born, Jeremiah is clearly recognized as a person.
First, your choosing to use the word "clearly" shows the weakness of your argument. If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to tell me that it was; its clarity would be evident to me without your assistance.
Second, what does God's statement "I knew you" mean in this instance? This sctipture is not stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being born, it is stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being formed. How can something be known if it has no form?
Third, you can't claim that "I knew you" implies "I recognize you as a person." It is possible to recognize someone as a person without knowing them.
Fourth, how could a fallen Jeremiah be consecrated?
The scripture is not nearly as clear as you pretend it is. I do agree with you that McKinsey was reaching with his "special case" argument. McKinsey has blasted apologists for making the same kind of argument, usually when apologists say something like, "Well, that was a special case and not intended for the general" (such as Mat 19:16-21).
Slashdot Mirror
Listen, you started this thread with the left field assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS.
... but they're probably similarly clueless in your book
/.er? Absolutely.
"You started this!" How middle-school of you. My assertion is not left-field.
I write a response based listing facts used to prove that HIV causes AIDS. Yeah, that's the ticket, list some evidence before making an assertion that you can't back up. Give it a shot.
You have listed no facts. You have merely reitereated the point in dispute, that HIV==AIDS. I refuse to believe it until you show me the evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. Just becuase I go against the single most well-funded disease research in human history does not shift the burden of proof.
You spend a good deal of your posts getting hyped about AZT and know full well that HIV/AIDS existed prior to any individuals getting AZT.
You are wrong. AZT existed before HIV and was shelved. Why was it shelved? What were its side effects?
You probably know that most of the people in the world that are HIV infected and develop AIDS never see AZT or other antivirals.
I doubt that there is anyone who is infected with HIV and who is developing AIDS as a result of it. Where are the millions of corpses from those Africans who should be dying from AIDS right now? We all saw images of what Ebola did, but the so-called AIDS epidemic (which is called an epidemic despite the fact that it does NOT follow an epidemic pattern) in Africa is nothing but talk so far.
you prefer to ignore Occamm's razor and go with what is mostly a crowd of scientific misfits, dilettantes, and yahoos
Yes, it's so much easier to slander your opponent than to refute his argument, isn't it? This is called argumentum ad hominem and it's a logical flaw. It's a sign that your argument is weak.
that claims that people get AIDS because of poppers
It claims no such thing. It claims that people get KS from poppers. Even the exalted Gallo has shifted his position on KS and poppers, where previously it was "caused by AIDS (HIV)."
But of course, there's many more facts than just the etiologic association of HIV and AIDS as I've listed previously.
So why don't you share some? Your ad hominems are getting boring.
I don't think you were able to really dispute a single one of then, right? Even that apocryphal claim that HIV hasn't been isolated doesn't sound too strong now, does it?
Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. Produce the document which shows that HIV has been isolated. Until you can produce this document, I think all of your claims about HIV are baseless and don't need to be refuted.
I think I'll let someone else contend for the lammo website's prize on this
Probably because you can't. You don't have a document that shows HIV has been isolated.
Given that you're so 'fact' based why don't you start with some and show us what you know about the topic before demanding answers to questions to a thesis you can't back up?
I don't need a thesis because my position is skepticism, not belief. Show me the evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS. The evidence is not in your favor.
What causes AIDS and how?
We first have to agree as to what "AIDS" is. The definition of AIDS keeps changing. What is the list of the so-called "secondary diseases" this year?
Why does HIV not cause AIDS?
You're assuming a point in dispute with this question. If HIV has not been isolated, then why do you believe it exists?
i presume at least a couple papers from reputable scientific journals and not someone's manifesto/novel
It's very hard for those who doubt the HIV==AIDS hypothesis to get published in reputable scientific journals. Anyone who deviates from the Holy Sacred Truth that HIV==AIDS is treated with disdain, scorn, and violence. The rude and disrespectful way that you've treated me is an example of this.
what's the proper definition of an epidemic (actually the UN refers to the HIV/AIDS crisis as a pandemic
This is not a useless question. If the UN calls AIDS a "pandemic" yet AIDS does not meet the requirements for a pandemic, then why is AIDS labeled as much?
Stick to the big questions and fact based evidence first for the claim you put forward and then deviate into your lists of random questions.
I'm all about facts and I am still waiting for you to give me some. And I note that you can't seem to answer my questions. Why? They aren't unfair. Are you afraid of the answer?
Are you out of your depth? Yes[.] Will you ever admit it? No
Your attempts to intimidate me will fail. If you're such a big-shot scientist then you'll produce the document that shows that HIV has been isolated. You'll also be able to explain why AIDS is called an epidemic or pandemic even though it doesn't meet the criteria.
Typical of a good
I'm just "another typical slashdotter." Do you know what this is? It's another typical ad hominem argument. In other words, your argument sucks. You rely on ad hominems, ad numerams, and ad verecundiams to try and make your point which gets weaker and weaker every day. You dismiss my questions as if they were irrelevent when they most certainly are not.
i wasn't ducking your questions as they weren't posed to me per se but posted in this forum. moreover, i was stating facts and not questions as you were.
;)
And you still haven't answered the questions, you've only given me an excuse as to why you haven't. And don't try to turn this back on me.
you've picked up on some of the points that peter duesberg originally put out. thus i also wanted to raise the possibility that his motivation might be influenced by other personal factors other than the science
Don't try to pin this on Duesberg, either. He's not the only one who has questioned the HIV==AIDS mantra. And he's not the only one to suffer financially, emotionally, and physically from having the audacity to do so. AIDS is BIG MONEY.
(1) & (4) are semantic issues, right?
No, they are not.
Concering #1, the definition of epidemic is specific. The pattern of AIDS does not meet the criteria, yet it is called an "epidemic" anyway. Why is this?
the larger question you were posing prevoiusly was whether HIV caused an immunodeficiency that allowed secondary infections. i think the data is unequivocal on this point.
So the immunodeficiency "allowed" secondary infections? I suppose you've chosen this verb because you can't say "caused." In fact, you know that ALL of the secondary infections existed in absence of HIV before the alleged discovery of HIV. And the data is certainly not unequivocal.
as per what secondary infections occur in 'AIDS' caused by HIV-1, this has changed somewhat over time because people learned more about the disease and some of the early second infections became treatable and non-issues (thus saving lives).
You didn't answer my question. How many times has the list of secondary diseases changed? And, once you figure that out, can you form the list of these so-called secondary infections for each time the list changed? Wouldn't the contents of those lists be interesting? I find it to be very important since a diagnosis of AIDS has always been either a death sentence or "buy our drugs if you want to live" sentence. It's just ripe for abuse, isn't it?
as per question (2), i don't know what burroughs-wellcome does with its money but am generally suspicious of large drug companies. as per question
This might be my foot in the door!
(3), supply whichever peter duesberg theory you want as this is one of his issues. he stopped scientifically publishing on HIV for the past 4-5 years, and has primarily gone back to his cancer work.
Weak, weak, weak. I can reference writings that are NOT by Duesberg that discuss the positive link between KS and amyl nitrate ("poppers"). Why do you keep trying to pin this on Duesberg? He's not the only opponent of the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Is Duesberg your scapegoat?
do you have specific knowledge of this or perhaps have done any molecular biology research to back this up? HIV has been isolated numerous times. it's real. it's not so hard to do. you can in fact isolate just it's nucleic acid genome, put this into cells, and they will make the virus.
Wrongo Dongo, amigo. It is you that has to back up your claim that the virus has been isolated. You can't just assert that it has been isolated and then tell me that I have to disprove you. The easiest way for us to solve this is for you to link to the paper which describes the circumstances under which the HIV virus was isolated. Don't tell me to go to some website and dig around. Just link to the paper. There is a prize for anyone who can claim isolation of the HIV virus. Perhaps you'd like to claim it?
peter duesberg (again the leading scientific figure who used to question the HIV/AIDS link) has done the same exact experiment with other retroviruses. it's a pretty simple one.
Yes, let's bring it back to Duesberg again. This is not convincing.
No. Why are you so hung up on this company?
Because they are the manufacturer of AZT and have thus made millions off of the "AIDS epidemic."
I decided to professionally continue studying retroviruses after seeing a friend die of HIV-1 infection that progressed to AIDS while I was a grad student. Pretty sad as it was the year that these drugs called protease inhibitors were coming out experimentally and he was trying so hard to get in a protocol so he could get the meds.
One question: was your friend on AZT therapy?
I'm not going to get into a debate of whether you have or I have on this topic because I think you're coming at it with an open mind and willing to examine information or evidence as presented....
Flattery will get you nowhere.
I decided to put my own curiosity on the research bench and test things myself. It's no conspiracy. HIV kills CD4+ T cells. Stopping the virus saves these important immune cells and it prolongs life.
I'm not the slightest bit impressed. For all I know, you could be working for a pharmecutical company and lying about your job. The profit motive is certainly there for just such a fabrication, considering that AIDS has more money than God does, and the only thing which might stop the gravy train are those which actually question the bald and hollow assertions which support the HIV==AIDS house of cards. And your "stopping the virus" (through drugs, presumably) is the same line that the big AIDS drug manufacturers have been preaching since the alleged outbreak.
If you answer my questions you will gain more credibility with me.
You can line up many times more scientists and physicians who work on infectious disease or viral and/or bacterial infections, and they will agree that an HIV-1 infection will lead to the destruction of CD4+ T cells in the body which leads to immunodeficiency and susceptibility to secondary infections which characterize AIDS.
AIDS research is the single most well-funded disease research in human history. More so than other diseases which kill and harm many, many more people than AIDS does. Is it possible that money may be a factor? I think the answer is Yes. I notice that you write as if you are in the AIDS research field.
Exposing purified CD4+ T cells in culture outside the body to HIV-1 leads to their infection and killing. I've observed this many times under a microscope.
HIV has not been isolated. How can any of your claims, which deoend on the existence of HIV, be true?
The same antiviral drugs used in humans who are infected with HIV-1, prevents diminishment of CD4+ T cells, reduces the amount of HIV-1 present in the body, and extends life of HIV-1 infected persons.
Antiviral drugs such as AZT? Do you work for Burroughs-Wellcome?
An early proponent in questioning whether HIV-1 caused AIDS was Peter Duesberg at UC-Berkeley. I've met Peter before, and some fo my senior colleagues know him quite well. Peter is a smart man and has made important contributions as to our understanding of cancer usng retroviruses as a model to explore oncogenesis.
Duesberg is one of the principal opponents of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. I don't understand why you write so fondly of him since you labeled my claims, where are partly based on his writings, as "disinformation."
Here are some more questions for you:
Go tell that to the East Africans.
Show me the body bags. We saw this for Ebola. Why not for AIDS?
Better yet, go spend a week barebacking in San Francisco and tell us how you feel in a few years.
I guarantee you that I'd feel better doing that than I would if I were taking the poison known as AZT for a few years, incubation period or no incubation period.
Find some answers here. Read before you criticize.
Does anyone have any evidence of virus protection companies directly or indirectly writing viruses? That's a curious question, not an indiginant and defensive question.
You seem not to have read it very closely.
I went back and re-read it to be sure. I still disagree.
I thought there was no ad hominem in the parent post. So there was after all?
There is no ad hominem in the parent post. When I called you on yours, you deferred to the parent, as if you were claiming "one bad turn deserves another." I notice you don't deny that you had sunk to invective.
Who's trying to convince somebody? What's my point of view? Facts are facts, regardless of presentation.
I agree. You come off like an arrogant prick in your posts. You will piss off more people than you enlighten with this attitude. I think you would do a good job of educating people about the things you believe in if you stop being so snide and condescending.
The X protocol has a certain definition. There is no convincing needed unless people simply do not desire to listen to the facts; and if that is the case, I need not bother replying, since those type of people will believe whatever they want in any case.
I agree with this, too. It does not excuse your condescending "what's not to understand, you dumbass?" response to the original post.
The phrase "In case you missed it" refers to the case in which the person who replied had neglected to read the context of said post (including its parent) before replying. Since the replier demonstrated either 1) being incredibly obtuse, or 2) not having read the parent post, I chose to defer to the latter possibility in kindness.
Who cares what it referred to? It's still a haughty way of writing "stick that in your pipe and smoke it!" Your defense of it, once again, comes off as snide and condescending. Can we just stick to the facts?
Quite possible, but
Snip! When you inject the conjuction "but" you discount everything which comes before it. Do you agree with me or don't you?
If people are going to debate its technical merits, fine, but claiming that "X designers should obviously have done this and that instead" without even knowing the history and background behind such decisions is simply naive.
I agree! I think you and I agree on a lot of the technical issues. What I find disagreeable is your presentation.
This is the content portion of your post:
.NET Server, both products were written by the Server platform group, not the Client group. This explain why the Client group has such a high percentage of profit and why the Server platform group didn't.
Windows XP shares >90% of its code with
Good points! You should have stopped here.
Instead, you couldn't resist getting in a few useless jabs:
One more proof that these two websites are less and less appealing to people who have a brain and use it. It shouldn't be that hard to use your brain once in a while instead of spreading lies about your opponent, it actually might even be useful and intelligent.
What wasteful, unwise things for you to write! You could have made your point without diving down to invective. As is, your post looks like a troll and will probably be regarded by most as such. If you want to be convincing, you will do much better to present your facts without slandering your opponent. Hell, every opponent is a potential convert.
The original post was an ad hominem, in case you missed it.
There was no ad hominem in the parent post. And do you think that one person acting childishly gives you the right to respond in kind? If you want to sway people to your point of view, then you need to present your facts without all of the insults and the snide "in case you missed it" remarks.
I still don't understand what the confusion is.
People are confused by the problems arising from the multiple meanings of "server." I think it's ultimately a semantic problem.
Agreed! I think I was taking exception to what I perceived as your blaming the user for having their preferred applications. I think, in this regard, it's anyone's fault but the user's. A user's preferences for applications is not a matter of debate. Then again, I may have mis-read you, which is entirely possible.
One App: Adobe Photoshop
Oh screw that artsy-fartsy worthless pile-of-puke photoshop! The app that I give a shit about is Quickbooks! As a small business owner, I have to worry about keeping track of bills, invoices, depreciation, sales tax, income tax withholdings, unemployment, payroll, etc., etc., etc. What app in Linux can handle all of this that does not involve a significant amount of time investment? And, trust me, time fucking with software for an ideological purpose is time that I'm not spending with my customers or time I'm not spending finding out how to cut costs or time I'm not spending how to more effectively advertise or time I'm not spending how to keep my employees happy. In short, it's time I'm not spending making my business successful and worthwhile.
And yes, I know that the Quickbooks UI is terrible. It doesn't matter.
And yes, I'm joking about Photoshop being a pile of puke.
And yes, I adore Linux and abhor Microsoft. I'm writing this post in Konqueror on Linux, but I know that I'll have to reboot to Windows come Monday when it's time to pay bills again. Y'all have no idea how bad it hurts. Rebooting into Windows significantly less pleasant than shoving a rusty, red-hot blowfish up my urethra. (Don't ask me how I know or how a blowfish could be either rusty or red-hot; I'm just giving y'all a taste of my ultra-sophisticated sense of humor.)
I don't think Warcraft III runs as fast or as easily on Linux as it does on windows. To say it "runs fine on Linux" is fair. To say that it provides the eqivalent positive experience (ignoring all of the other shitty aspects of running a Microsoft OS) as it does on Windows is not not fair. I think it is important that Linux proponents (like you and me) be honest about things like this.
So far though XP hasn't been bad, VERY few crashes (like 5 in about four months, three of which were EndNote's fault).
This is XP's fault, not EndNote's fault. A user-space program should never cause the OS to crash. Hardware? Yes, possibly. Programs? Never. Anything less is a flaw in the OS design. People are still way, way, way too forgiving of Microsoft for their lackluster design.
At least, this is my opinion. Am I being to hard on Microsoft?
GNU/Linux probably has more; it definitely comes with more on the CD. Yet, I still wouldn't use the language "I use GNU/Linux because it has more applications", I'd say "...because it comes with powerful, familiar applications for programming and graphics"
When people write, "It doesn't have enough applications," what they mean is, "It doesn't have the applications I want." "Familiar" and "Powerful" are not good enough. An app may be both familiar and powerful, but if it's isn't Aftereffects (and if Aftereffects is what people want, for the sake of argument), then [non-Windows OS] won't suffice. I'm talking about people on a grand scale, not on a small scale.
What's so hard to understand about it? That is, unless you're deliberately trying not to understand?
The problem is semantic; specifically, the multiple and conflicting (in this instance) definitions of "server." Your response is an ad hominem and does not help.
I appreciate the improved tenor of your post. Let's both work on keeping the conversation free of invective.
First, I'm going to skip everything but your last question. Then, I'm going to answer: I can't.
I'm not going to let you off the hook on behaving in the same manner as a fundamentalist Christian. You are trying to impart your ideology on the rest of the world because you think it's right. I have no problem with that. You have to change your tactics becuase you and I agree that those tactics fail for fundamentalist Christians, and those happen to be the same tactics that you employ. You have to find a way of delivering your message that doesn't make you come off as elitist, condescending, and rude. You're just not going to win many converts to your cause with that attitude.
Keep in mind that what I'm criticizing here is your behavior, not your ideology. The two issues are separate.
There's never going to be one static set of laws that all people agree with and live under.
I think you are talking about ethical rules, not laws. We all live under the oppressive laws of the Federal Government.
If I had to pick myself, I would say $20M.
How did you come up with this figure?
There's no single answer to the question "when is it okay to kill someone" yet the laws of our society provide this answer (at least legally).
You're comparing apples and oranges. Murder implies the loss of life. "Too much property" (whatever that is) rights does not.
At some point people debated it, and then wrote some laws. I don't claim that they're perfect, but I think they're better than not having any.
This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
I'm really curious as to what number you would pick. I don't want to tell you why too much property it too much either. What number would you pick today, given you own personal thoughts about property rights?
I don't think there should be any limit to how much money an individual can earn. Acquiring any amount of money using force or fraud should be illegal.
As far as the morality stuff, whatever. Both being gay and being a rapist/murderer and against Catholicism/Bible-beltism/whatever, but that doesn't make them the same. Someone being gay doesn't interfere with my rights, someone raping/murdering me does. See the difference?
Yes. I don't know what this is in response to, so I'm not sure what you're trying to show. You can't "whatever" the discussion about morality becuase your entire ideology is based around what you consider to be a superior morality.
If you insist:
"One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior." (dictionary.com)
The question is, what exactly is "antisocial behavior"? Well, it depends on who you ask. Were you looking for the current psychological definition, or is this merely a matter of opinion?
The words actually have meanings, they aren't just bolded or unbolded text. They form sentences. These express ideas.
Yes, they express arrogant, condescending, and insulting ideas that I frequently get from leftists and fundamentalist Christians. Apparently, you really wanted to get your point across and you thought the strong tag would help.
You should respond to those. Instead you spend most of your post talking about all the various groups you've chosen to spend you life hating.
I don't hate Christians and leftists. I don't know if I hate anyone, but, then again, the definition of "hate" is an awfully slippery one. Since it was you who implied that I was a "scumbag" and a "sociopath," perhaps you have some harsh feelings of your own to work on. Why would you be getting so excited about some guy posting on a web page, anyway? Certainly you have better things to get worked up about.
You should educate yourself. Not everyone who disagrres with you is a fundamentalist Christian.
I did not state that you were a fundamentalist Christian. Nor did I state that everyone who disagrees with me is a fundamentalist Christian. What I wrote and maintain is that your behavior is very similar in many ways to that of a fundamentalist Christian. Allow me to list them for you:
Do you disagree with any of those?
If you've adopted fifty starving children from Africa, then that's a good thing, but I doubt you have. Either way it doesn't matter.
I see, you'll think I'm a "scumbag" and a "sociopath" no matter how much good I've done, because I don't share your ideology. That's fine, but you can't claim that I don't care.
A Christian would have written, "If you've adopted fifty starving children from Africa, then that's a good thing, but I doubt you have. Either way it doesn't matter because you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
If people give you shit because you're gay, that's lame. You being gay doesn't interfere with my life and I don't really care if you're gay or not. It doesn't tie into this argument at all.
Well, it depends on what the argument is, doesn't it? I'm arguing that Christians debase and insult me because I don't share their ideology which is exactly the same thing you're doing to me. I brought up that I was gay because it illustrates how I don't share (conservative) Christians' ideology.
My question to you is, since this tactic fails for the Christians, what makes you think it will work for you? Do you think that your flavor of morality is so superior that I will find prostating myself in front of it impossible to resist? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really want to know your answer. (It's also the second time I've asked it. You ignored it the first time around.)
I don't really care how you live your life if it doesn't affect me.
Then why are you being so downright abusive with me?
If you own all the widgets, it does affect me. I can't get any because you have them all, and some for some types of widgets there is a fixed supply (ex: land). It's just the simple truth. I challenge you do disprove it. Not to criticize my choice of the word widget, or fling embarassing labels around, but to actually read, comprehend and then respond. If you get that far think about how you would fix this?
Fix what, exactly? You are creating a problem that does not exist. Is there any single type of resource that is all completely owned by a single person (or a single entity)?
Oh, were you being hypothetical? How would I fix a situation where a single person (or entity) owned all of a single resource? Well, how could a single person own all of a single resource?
Now, will you be able to clarify your "problem" that I am supposed to "disprove" without resorting to bold sentences and useless invective? I'm not going to get my hopes up.
Can you think of a better way to keep someone from owning too many widgets or are you dead set on believing that no one can ever have too much?
Let's assume here that "widgets" == "property" (generic). Your question becomes, "[A]re you dead set on believing that no one can ever have too much property?" No, I'm not dead-set on believing it. But one has to be convinced that a certain amount of property is "too much." (This is the subjective "greed" argument.)
Tell me, how much property is "too much" for a single person to own? The problem with the question is that there is no single right answer. If you ask 1,000 people you'll get 1,000 different answers. How can you objectively show that a single answer is the correct one?
I rarely have someone tee it up for me as well as you have. :)
If you're going to be insulting, expect it right back.
I believe you drew first blood with your childish "... my ass" comment. And I attacked your comment, not you. Civility is required, and your comments simply don't make the cut.
And yes, that's right I'm challenging your morality of lack thereof. Having a social conscience is not equivalent to being a fundamentalist Christian.
I disagree. Both you and the fundamentalist Christian (who despises me because I'm gay) attack me because they think they're more moral than I am. You both do the same thing -- it's only your opinions that are different.
May you should go back to high school. You could probably learn a lot.
Your entire post is BS.
I'm totally unmoved. You're going to have to try a different tactic than this.
The first sentence is an insult. All it does is make you look bad.
Pot, kettle, black.
The second equates two things that are not the same.
The actions are the same, the opinions are different. I couldn't care less about y'all's opinions ("y'all" being leftists like you and fundamentalist Christians); it's your actions which are much more telling.
You might also care to notice that I said 'I [] have a social conscience'. I didn't say anything about yours.
You're challenging my morality yet not saying anything about my social conscience?
I was showing what a fool you were to think that the only reason to think as I do is class envy.
Since I never made that claim about you, it's hard for me to see how you would think that I think such about you. You responded to me first.
I have clearly shown this since you're no longer claiming it.
Your use of the word "clearly" shows the weakness of your claim. If it really was clear, you wouldn't need to label it as such; it's clarity would be self-evident to me.
Your concept or morality appears to be ludicrously warped, since you think caring about others around you makes you a fundamentalist Christian.
I hear this very claim from Christians, too. What makes you think your making it will have an effect?
With the ability to make these ridiculous jumps in (un)logic there's no wonder you're a libertarian.
Since you are doing exactly the same thing that the fundies do, it seems that the lack of logic lies in your court, not mine.
Caring about other human beings is actually a good thing. Sorry if this concept is foreign to you, since that would make you a scumbag and textbook sociopath.
This is the criticism which pisses me off the most: if I don't accept the huge-government, income-redistribution, "I'll tell you how to live your life" opinions of the Socialist Holier-than-thou Left, then I don't "care" about human beings. If I didn't care about human beings, then how could I raise my son or care about my partner? If I didn't care about human beings, then how could I do benefits for my community's elementary school? If I didn't care about human beings, then how could I keep my friends' two-year-olds at my home when they were away attempting to adopt their child from Guatemala? If I didn't care about human beings, then why would I have opted to adopt my son from his miserable orphanage in Ukraine instead of doing something more selfish (such as inseminiation)? No, all of these things can be quickly demonized and brushed away because I don't accept the opinions of the Holy Left.
Notice how similar this is to the opinions of the Holy Right: my love for my partner is not "true" love. My parenting of my son is not "true" parenting. Yet another way in which you sound just like a fundie.
And I doubt you know what the textbook definition of a sociopath is, so your debasing comments sound funny.
Your constant use of the strong tag also makes your argument look weak. If your argument really were strong and meaningful, you woldn't need the bold tag.
Would you like to explore other ways in which you are acting like a fundamentalist Christian? The parallels seem to be popping up all over the place.
Oh, and I haven't given up believing that you are motivated by class envy. I just found more interesting things to talk about, namely that you are more Christian than you are brave enough to admit.
you've got to work (or inherit, or cheat) your ass off to get a "fair" piece of the resource pie.
:), and 2nd-rate artists would have to make do with a beach on the hundreds of floating ocean cities, and a 3rd-rate artist'd make due with a simulation (until the simulation becomes reality... much later).
;)
I'm glad you put "fair" in quotes -- it's a very loaded word.
like whether you were born in the exploiter or exploited
"To exploit" is a loaded and abused word (well, the infitinitive is two words, but I'm sure you get the idea).
the deck is stacked against of lot of resentful... class envious people.
Your choice of terminology is really leaning toward an "evil rich, noble poor" argument. Do you realize that the top 50% of income earners pay more than 90% of the income tax burden for the United States? And leftists in the Congress continually harp on about "tax credits" for people who do not pay income taxes!
When resources from necessities to luxuries suddenly become extremely abundant, the gap narrows
I dispute the existence of this "gap" in this country. There are not two social classes; there are many.
Special privilege must still be earned. society would probably reward people like top artists with that scarce beachfront property
Let me guess... you were/are an art major?
I'm not sure if I misread you or not. It may take more discussion for me to figure out what your opinions are on this issue.
Class envy my ass.
That's a typical high-school response.
I just have something called a social conscience.
"Social conscience" is functionally equivalent to "morality," so what you're saying here is that you are moral and I am not. This tactic does not work for the fundamentalist Christians, so what makes you think it will work for you?
ok, i apologize for the sarcasm, fact is i got quite pissed off by several other comments from this thread, and i misread yours.
Apology accepted. If you get pissed off, then becoming sarcastic is a weakness, not a strength.
Nonetheless, the US society, like many industrialised country's, does have a widening span between the "middle" class and the "upper" one, a gap that once could be jumped (the 'self made man'), but this is becoming increasingly difficult.
You are not responding to my argument. My argument is this: there is no single middle or upper class. (Perhaps your use of quotes is an attempt to acknowlege this without outright admitting it.) Furthermore, on what do you base your belief that it is more difficult now for a middle-class citizen to become an upper-class one?
As for nanotech', ah, i so wish you'd be right, but i fear you won't...
You spent a lot of time trying to defeat the nanotech argument, one that I did not make. I was responding to another's post about nanotechnology, and I believe what I wrote was, "I like what you had to say about nanotechnology."
You'll see, there will always be a gap between the middle class and the upper one, and the later will want it to stay that way..
This is the same old and tired "evil rich, noble poor" argument. On what do you base the belief that the upper class (whatever that is -- how much money, presicely, do you have to have to be called "upper class"?) wants to "keep the man down," so to speak?
And this will allow to maintain an artificial scarcity, because, see, what's the point in owning a rolls royce, if everybody as one [ . . . ? ]
The nice thing about that fallacious argument is that you can expand it to any item that you deign "too luxurious" for any person to own. It's not even at attack against the item; it's an attack against the motives of one who might own it. And no matter what the person who might own one would say to defend him or herself (such as, "I like the fact that any item in a Rolls Royce is replaceable for life"), you can always respond with, "Yeah, whatever. You're just a greedy rich person and you'll say anything to hold on to all that stuff you don't deserve, that stuff that you have merely to separate you from the rabble that you want to keep down."
In other words, "evil rich, noble poor." You're going to have to come up with a more original and intelligent argument than this.
you're right, last time i checked, i couldn't help but notice that the homeless next door was better dressed and groomed than bill gates.
Your sarcasm hurts your argument. If you want to be productive and have dialog, then be serious.
To respond to your sarcastic remarks, what about all of the classes in between the homeless man and Bill Gates? How many classes are there? If these two happened to live in Guatemala, probably none. But in the U.S., there are many. It's impossible to really say where one ends and the next begins. Some people rent houses. Some rent apartments. Some own homes of various different values. And, if you look at current development (or sprawl, if you happen to live in the Atlanta area like myself), then you'll see the wide variety of ranges of current home values. Some less than $90K, some from $100-120K, some from $120-140K, and so on and so one. All these people carry a wide variety of different jobs. Some have one working parent. Some have two. Some have multiple working parents becuase multiple families may share a domicile. Some have kids, some don't, which directly affects their career choices. So I really don't know what you are trying to argue. Are you claiming that I was claiming that everyone is in the same social class in the U.S.? Well, I certianly don't believe that, and I really don't know how it could be inferred from what I wrote.
Would you care to respond to my argument or would you rather continue with sarcastic non-sequiturs? In the case of the latter, you won't get another response from me.
in the absence of real material scarcity like we see today, there's no real justification for such a huge seperation between economic classes.
:)
I don't see such a huge separation between economic classes. At least, not where I live in the United States. I see many different economic classes and the lines between one to the next are fairly blurry. I think your argument applies better to third world countries, where you are either stinking rich or dirt poor ("HAVES" and "HAVE-NOTS," as you labeled them).
But perhaps what you're really trying to say is that everyone should have an equal amount of stuff regardless of how hard they work, how intelligent they are, and how desirable their skills are in the marketplace. Am I reading you correctly?
I like what you say about nanotechnology, though. And, in time, we'll be able to cheaply synthesize beachfront property as well. Either that or an acceptable illusion of beachfront property.
Criminals suck.
I agree... sometimes. It depends on the law in question, doesn't it? What if the government made free press illegal? Publishing a newspaper without the consent of the government would then make you a criminal.
The gov't is not a bunch of criminals for taking your money. They are doing things that benefit society with that money.
The notion of "that which benefits society" and the notion of "that which is moral" are equivalent. Furthermore, they aren't always doing things that benefit society with that money, right? The government is composed of fallible humans subject to the corruption that power brings. History is rife with examples of government abuse so that those in control can profit at the expense of private citizens. The principal difference between corporations and government is that corporations do not have the legal right to use deadly force to acheive their goals. Of course, corporations can always bribe government officials. Everyone knows that this happens to this day and it blows holes in your claim that governments are "not a bunch of criminals."
I personally believe that at some level of income, the tax rate for individuals should become 100%.
Two words: class envy. It's getting so old and so tired, yet it will probably never ever go away.
No one person should have a billion dollars, it's impossible for a democaracy to exist when people do.
"Democracy" is one of the most abused words in the English language. What happens if 51% of the democracy decides that the 49% should be their slaves? This is the "Tyrrany of the Majority" that Madison wrote about in _The Federalist_.
The economy would still function just fine under this system, since indiviuals could still pool their money by creating corporations.
What's to stop the government from taking control of all corporations if they so decide? Remember, the only reason that they'd do such a thing would be for "the benefit of society."
Probably the most relevant verse is in the first chapter of Jeremiah:
I think you meant to write, "the only possibly relevant verse."
Mckinsey dismisses the verse as ambiguous. I'm not inclined to agree. Though not yet born, Jeremiah is clearly recognized as a person.
First, your choosing to use the word "clearly" shows the weakness of your argument. If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to tell me that it was; its clarity would be evident to me without your assistance.
Second, what does God's statement "I knew you" mean in this instance? This sctipture is not stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being born, it is stating that Jeremiah was "known" despite being formed. How can something be known if it has no form?
Third, you can't claim that "I knew you" implies "I recognize you as a person." It is possible to recognize someone as a person without knowing them.
Fourth, how could a fallen Jeremiah be consecrated?
The scripture is not nearly as clear as you pretend it is. I do agree with you that McKinsey was reaching with his "special case" argument. McKinsey has blasted apologists for making the same kind of argument, usually when apologists say something like, "Well, that was a special case and not intended for the general" (such as Mat 19:16-21).