Good point. I'd like to see the moderation system change: when you get mod points, you also get set to browse without seeing anyone else's moderations of articles (threaded still, perhaps, but no sorting by moderation, and ideally without author names or sigs). And of course a "I'm not moderating today" button so you can benefit from the wisdom of others.
On a side note, I take issue with your example. When faith, not reason, influences a thought, that thought should be mocked. Holding people of faith to a lower intellectual standard exemplifies the worst side of Affirmative Action. But I agree with your point--the thought should be mocked because it is ridiculous, not because of groupthink.
And your friend can't call a cab to take her home...
On the contrary. She has to call a cab. There is simply no alternative.
It's always good to hear how egalitarian the liberal side is these days.
Yup. Us liberals want choice, reasonable alternatives, diversity. Why is that always such a fight? Why have Californians been so brainwashed that anyone who suggests that it would be nice if you didn't need a car for every 3-block errand is viewed as a Stalinist?
"Whims" is a loaded word, but laws have certainly been used to shape parts of society for the better (health care (still viewed as Stalinist by Americans who don't know any better), safe building codes, infrastructure (especially transportation), energy upgrade rebates,...).
There's an interesting question here, actually: the exclusive and extreme use of cars in the USA is very harmful to society (I probably don't need to go into this again, but think urban sprawl, pollution, smog, global warming, gridlock, the young/old/and other non-driving groups are essentially incapacitated, traffic accidents to the tune of 40000/year in the USA alone (you think the WTC bombing was bad??))...
Obesity is a nice example of the conundrum. All the evidence points to this: that if we as a society invested heavily in, for example, city planning that was friendly to biking and walking, obesity would plummet (not to mention all that other stuff). With it would plummet heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, and a few thousand other diseases. We would also be wealthier (cheaper car insurance, cheaper gas, cheaper health insurance, cheaper car maintenance, etc...). But most of this is a Microsoft-effect: you need lots of people to buy into it before many of the benefits are realised (eg. why build bike paths for 3 people, or 300, in LA?). There's a chicken-and-egg problem that at some point needs to be addressed by the chicken: change from the top down. Build bike infrastructure first, and then people will use it. Without it, cycling is just not viable in LA.
But building bike paths is definitely not within your constraints on law (life, liberty, property) (well, life qualifies very indirectly). However, neither do roads or subsidised gasoline. Or education. Or basic research, unless that is used in support of your 3.
When is it appropriate for a government to say "we need to instate taxes to create opportunities for our citizens to live better lives"? Many countries do this as a matter of course. The USA does it, as I've said, to provide roads, parking, gas subsidies, education, science research, military,... Many countries add things like sponsorship of the arts, community services, national historic sites... and it works well! They are healthier and happier and richer, because their government does more than yours does. Is it appropriate? Not if you regard our founding documents as gospel (although any of this could happen at the state level, which I think would be marvellous).
The US governments get their mandates like this (at least in theory): politicians say "if you elect me then I will do...". So if you believe in democracy, you must believe that the government should do whatever it is that the politicians promised, right? What if they were to promise to help us to become healthier, wealthier, and happier?
This is what bothers me about the health care debate, actually. There are lots of ways to become healthy, but given the above you will please excuse me if I refer only to the driving vs. biking angle for now. Given what Republicans used to stand for (they absolutely don't anymore, but whatever), it would make total sense to make driving more expensive: remove those gasoline handouts, remove auto maker subsidies, build fewer highways, give people the ability to make themselves healthier by choosing wiser forms of transportation. Fuck curative health care--we want to be able to choose for ourselves to live healthily. Just give us that choice!
Your idea that we should artificially raise the price of fuel to teach a lesson... well I disagree with that.
First, getting you to justify your reasons for disagreeing was like pulling hen's teeth. Second, fuel prices are artificially low. I didn't spell out very clearly my main reason for wanting them to be raised--charging people the true cleanup and harm cost for destruction of commons, and endangering innocent people--but I alluded to it. The lesson, then, is this: your actions have real costs. You should pay for them. The catalytic converter that you are required to buy in a new car is a good example: you make a mess, you pay to clean it up. But there are still plenty of toxins and carcinogens and greenhouse gases that cannot be cleaned up like that, and they do need to be cleaned up, and taxing gasoline in order to create a fund for relocating victims of global warming, paying health care costs for people with smog-induced ashtma, etc., is completely reasonable to the extent that those burning gasoline cause these problems. It's more fair than charging a cyclist taxes to clean up after an SUV, right?
Americans don't seem to like that lesson, and want fuel prices to remain artificially low so they can drive their sociopathic SUVs while offloading the true costs onto society. This is not based on natural law, but on greed and laziness and too many emails telling them that their penises are not big enough (there is actual research supporting this last, believe it or not--men who are told that they are effeminate tend to buy larger, more harmful vehicles).
Some of us want alternative transportation. It is not fair, if you will, for you to tax us in order to build roads and parking that subsidise users of cars, even if the cars were perfectly clean and safe. Add to that the cars' destructive power, and you can begin to understand why I'm upset. It seems reasonable to me that governments (the bodies that must be responsible for transportation infrastructure) should provide alternatives (sidewalks, bike paths,...). And this does indeed happen in countries where gasoline prices are not artificially low.
Why? Because consumers tend to vote with their wallets, not their ethics or their vaunted ability to make wise decisions. So I like the punitive effect that raising gas to true cost would have. I think it would be a really great thing for this country and for everyone in it. But since you don't like the justification of "your life will be better", it is also extremely easy to justify on grounds of fairness.
I do not agree with your presumption that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and uneducated.
Depends on what you are disagreeing with. I just talked to a creationist, who is obviously ignorant and uneducated, and I took great pains to communicate politely to him because with his lack of academic experience he is likely not used to having to sort message from tone. And, yes, because it was good practice for me. But he took the time to explain his position. You just issued vague attacks without mustering an argument. I assumed that my fundamental assumptions were obvious to anyone with a highschool diploma, and hoped that your education would have taught you to figure out which of them you disagreed with so you could call me on it/them.
You presumed my education lacking with your statement of: "go (back?) to highschool" Well feller, high school was a long time ago, as was college, with the associated degrees. The practical school of life, starting, owning and operating a business and raising a family has taught me as well that your condescending tone gets you off on the wrong foot with most folks.
Grow some skin. If you fail to make a coherent argument based on good analysis, your claims of having an education are a poor defense, no matter how true they are. Where I've failed to make a coherent argument, call me on that. Or ign
You propose to dictate to people how they should go about their lives, telling them how they should do things.
Ah yes, well, those are called "laws". I'm for them, in principle. Sorry you're not. To be more precise, I'm rather for telling people what they can't do (basically, behaving unsustainably or abusing commons). As for what they can, I will offer only suggestions there, but I have some good ones:)
This directly contradicts with the Declaration of Independence and several articles of the Bill of Rights.
If you interpret "Liberty" (or whatever) as the freedom to do whatever you like, then sure. In which case, I'm sure you can see that the quotation/interpretation you furnished provides perfect justification for me to insert a piece of rutabaga into your left nostril. Or dump carcinogens, toxins, greenhouse gases, etc into air that you were thinking of breathing...
The people who wrote that were trying to start a war. It was a political document, not a philosophical one. They were influenced by political philosophy, to be sure, but also by rhetoric, and for that matter completely ignorant of what problems the future would bring. Treating it as gospel is almost as bad as, well, treating gospel as, er, gospel.
If you are too puerile to listen to the content just because of the tone, I suggest going (back?) to highschool.
If you're too ignorant to see the consequences of everyone doing whatever he likes, you could try learning some science.
How exactly does what I say conflict with the principles that this country was founded on? Please quote founding documents. Your vagueness of word suggests vagueness of thought, and you will have to work a little to correct that impression.
Also, I'll ask again the question that you ignored last time: why are so many Americans too arrogant to admit that improvement might be possible? What if the country was founded on flawed principles? The Constitution has been amended a few times and will be amended again--the country now has rules that were not thought of when it was founded. Does that mean you disagree with all of the amendments? You sound like you worship the founding principles and hold them beyond question. I suggest learning some skepticism.
Remember: try to read through the tone and actually address the issues coherently this time.
Thanks so much for letting everyones free will slide, letting us keep our freedom and liberty, within reasonable limits.
Got an alternative? I would think that it's pretty obvious by now that letting people do whatever they want simply doesn't lead to a functional society (I guess that may seem condescending if it's news to you, in which case you probably deserve condescention). You like the vague attacks; do you also like discussing issues and possible solutions?
You're right. But it's quite reasonable to let the minor or sporadic offenses slide, while more aggressively fighting against the really egregious or gratuitous offenders. Individuals who drive small cars are hurting me and you much less than those who drive SUVs, who are hurting us much less than city planners who deny us the ability to choose efficient transportation.
Really, you should be able to figure this out for yourself. But we all think along different lines. Here's a crude working definition for "minor or sporadic": if everyone in the world behaved in this way, we could go on doing it forever. The synonym you've probably heard is "sustainable". Ring a bell?
First, why are so many Americans so arrogantly unwilling to admit that there could possibly be room for improvement?
Second, I wasn't referring to the fact that every time you drive, you hurt yourself. You're welcome to do that. I was referring to the fact that every time you drive, you hurt me. Why should I not be allowed to defend myself?
Yeah, I know it's cheaper now. Frankly, I'm disgusted. For example, I just got off the phone with a friend in LA who needs to take her car to the mechanic, and physically cannot bike back, because the good people of LA are so addicted to their cars, so blind to any other form of transportation, so deeply and profoundly ass-fucked by their own heads, that there is no way to walk or bike the 3 miles that she needs to go without a car.
Americans really need to endure higher gas prices for longer, because their greed and laziness know of no other language that will teach them to stop forcing everyone to drive everywhere.
My 1990 Audi 200 station wagon, with full-time all-wheel drive (there is absolutely nothing on the road that can touch its handling in the snow; that iteration of Quattro is stunning), gets about 28 on the highway. And that's after 200000 miles.
See how far we've progressed?
Actually, part of it is that heavier cars get worse mileage (most noticeable in the city, without regenerative braking), and safety standards have improved--more metal keeps you safer in a collision. That said, we could have vastly safer cars if they could focus on dealing with impacts at bumper-level, rather than the chest- and head-level reinforcements necessitated by the infestation of SUVs (which are still between 2 (small SUVs) and 6 (F350 etc) times more likely than standard-bumper cars to kill you).
Oh, yes, motors could be much more efficient now, too. But given our insanely cheap gasoline (yes, $4/gal is that), consumers just don't care.
A telepathy ray that would let all the women in the world know what all the men in the world are actually thinking about. The whole species would go extinct in a single generation.
I like this guy. Here in the we need a government branch for granting honorary citizenship to people who go around publicising how stupid our various government branches are.
This, then, shall be your test. To the engineer who can build her own invisibility cloak, I say that she is worthy of raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm. To all those who dare not face the challenge, their punishment shall be downloading pr0n.
I don't believe your comment was worth a troll mod
Thanks. It's probably my fault for saying something offensive without providing a reference. Oh well, if they're as smart as they think they are, they will do the research themselves:) I'll just offer this one example like any of a thousand others from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Road to 270: West Virginia:
What McCain Has Going For Him:
No state has less educated voters in the aggregate
And so on.
Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more.
Good point. However, it makes me wonder how vehemently I should argue that a platform favouring education and research is more rational. Probably not much. Or is that just an artifact of the particular kind of anti-education agenda favoured by Republicans, which currently involves suppression of science in favour of religious doctrine? Hey, someone who has been ignoring current events will probably think that that's a troll too.
just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior.
I dispute that--on average. I'm not saying that it's cause-and-effect or even that the correlation is 100%, but I will go on record as saying that getting a PhD (at least in science!) is very strongly correlated with being able to think clearly, and to discover and question one's own assumptions. On the other hand, smart people are better at justifying stupidity than dumb people.
Furthermore, while my "Where's Republican Waldo?" challenge referenced AAAS and NAS, the numbers I've seen show that one needn't look as far as PhDs and career academics to see the correlation between more education and voting Democrat. Still no reference. Yeesh. So prove me wrong:)
Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.
Yes--I don't know how many PhDs with more than $250k/year (ie. those who will be "hurt" by Obama's tax plan (if they consider only take-home money as a measure of wealth)) are voting Democrat. My sample are--unanimously--but it's too small and self-selected (an even dozen) to be useful.
Again, there are plenty of non-academics with good BA/BS/MA/MS/legal/medical/etc degrees making piles of money and voting Democrat. Again, I really do need to do things besides track down references, but I'll watch this thread, and if anyone really cares and can't find supporting research, I know I can locate some.
I find it telling that statisticians have long noted the correlation between education levels and political leaning. It is fact: smarter, better educated, and better informed people tend to vote Democrat. Find a Republican in the AAAS or NAS. Why do you suppose that is? The better educated stand more to lose, since they tend to be wealthier. (I have a feeling that there's a golden amount of wealth that allows us the luxury of investing in the future, without the pathology of being obsessed with accumulating money.)
I also find it telling that most everyone saying anything negative about Obama has referred to him using his middle name. This echoes the standard content of the message: "He does not look like us, therefore he must be evil." They don't tend to address actual policy issues, but simply try to instill fear/hatred/uncertainty/doubt based on rumours.
Those are interesting questions, but the really important one is this: can we afford to bet everything on the chance of you being right? Because if global warming turns out to be harmful, it won't just be a little baby tragedy like the World Trade Center bombing, or the latest tsunami, or the 40000 killed every year in the USA by cars, or the last genocide.
Wait a minute... you're looking at the mainstream media to educate you about science? Hello? Is anyone home? You know that corporations who profit from emitting greenhouse gases are spending billions of dollars to try to convince the ignorant masses that nothing's amiss, right? They use the media. Go check out recent peer-reviewed journals on the subject, and then come and tell us that you're not convinced.
And if you want to see the risk-management approach, try here for a silly and excellent quick overview.
I don't say that faith steps in when we don't know how something works.
Good, because it sure sounded like you were saying that:
Those are questions that science can not answer, because and some point you are left with the question of where did it all start? Something outside the system has to put it in motion. Call him the clock-maker, call him God, call him Thor, whatever. But at some level you have to admit that science does not and can not have the answer.
Here it really looks like you're saying that because science doesn't have the answer, the answer must come from faith.
But that search can't go on for ever. Existence must have a beginning and that beginning must come from outside the system.
Oh? Maybe. But what is wrong with the search going on forever? Conservation of energy may or may not apply outside our universe--what does god eat?
Outside the system means a higher power. [munch]...but logic says that it has to end somewhere.
Oh? Why? Maybe an origin, but why a god? What's wrong with admitting I don't know where, or whether, it ends, and leaving it at that? Why must I infer something precise enough to be a god when I know nothing? Where did this god come from? Isn't a god less likely than a universe, if only because she's more complex? If she's without cause, why must I impute intelligence? Give me some shred of evidence.
I just don't see how "I don't know" turns into "there is a god."
Why is it that faith, which is by definition not "proveable" laid along side science which is by definition proveable.
Actually, science is only disprovable--we have degrees of certainty as more evidence supports a theory, but we can't ever reach 100% confidence.
Why must science always be the opposite of faith.
Because of my original claim. Science is universal. Faith is not. Anyone who tells you something and asks you to "just believe it" is fundamentally an authoritarian, the opposite of someone who asks you to "try to disprove this, find weaknesses, improve it, be smarter than me." Why haven't we moved beyond faith?
Science is the understanding of the world that we live in. In your science, where does all this stuff come from? What happens a split second before the "Big Bang", or if you prefer an ever expanding and contracting universe, what started it all off. Those are questions that science can not answer, because and some point you are left with the question of where did it all start? Something outside the system has to put it in motion.
I don't know.
Your claim is this: "I don't know something. Not only that, but nobody knows. Furthermore, nobody will ever know." What arrogant poppycock! How on earth can you justify that claim?
Are you so terrified of admitting that you don't know something that you have to concoct some elaborate fairytale about what happened? Religions have been doing this for millennia. And you know what? Religion's "understanding" of "why?", once beyond the limit of human knowledge and therefore safe, has been repeatedly proven wrong as science advances. And science does advance, sometimes slowly, but quite inexorably.
ps. Not really relevant, but it turns out that science is answering those questions: it looks like time is probably part of our universe, created at the Big Bang, and quantum randomness is responsible for that little explosion. Similar ones probably go off all the "time". But after more science is done, we'll understand that much better.
When you claim that some group offers no proof of their beliefs and then offer no proof to back up your own argument, it's pretty hard to take you seriously.
I assumed that that little detail of my argument was reasonably self-evident once I'd pointed out the link between groundless bigotry based on skin colour and groundless bigotry based on belief in some particular set of fairytales. However, if you really want an explanation, I'll offer this:
Religion is based on faith--ie. belief without evidence. Any "religion" that is based on evidence is called science, and it works, and it's universal, since the details of establishing the reliability of evidence are pretty well understood (to quote xkcd, "it works, bitches"). If religion were based on evidence, then we would all believe roughly the same thing (although, as usual, the cutting edge (where there is not really enough evidence just yet) will be controversial for a little while).
You're right: I truly don't know how to argue someone out of faith. Very smart people have tried for years. You can show them that their beliefs don't make sense, but it doesn't help. You can try to find things that can fill in the gaps that would be left if they became logical, but that doesn't really help either. You can draw analogies between what they believe and what science understands, but that sends the wrong message. Would you like to tell me how to do better?
Meanwhile, I will openly mock the faithful: since (not just mine, but the best) logical arguments don't work, perhaps public humiliation will at least prevent them from claiming more innocent minds.
Yes, I hold it against him that he belonged to a church. All churches are racist, or close enough: "Here's what we believe. We offer no proof. But if you don't believe it too you aren't one of us." But good luck finding a politician who doesn't belong to a church in this rationality-forsaken country. Americans, I've noticed, tend to be indoctrinated pretty early, never having a chance to learn reason before they're brainwashed by whatever religious organisation did the same thing to their parents. You see, humans all have a deep-seated tendency to be impressionable when they're young, and a good thing it is, usually. Some of us, the best of us, can realise our childhood biases and overcome them. But such people are few and far between.
Does Obama still belong to that church? Or did he, upon noticing that it did not respect his personal ethics, leave? If he stopped believing in god or the tooth fairy or what-have-you, then kudos to him, but those who can give up that children's tale after having been brainwashed since childhood are truly marvelous.
As for ACORN, why should I believe you over anyone else? I don't know firsthand what happened, but I find this just as credible as any other source, and vastly more credible than the people running the GOP anti-Obama spin campaign, whom I know for sure have repeatedly lied ("Obama wants to raise taxes on middle class families" etc), exaggerated trivial facts beyond absurdity ("Obama had an acquaintance when he was 7, who later became a terrorist. Cool!" etc...), and, having no message of their own, have done nothing but incite fear, suspicion, and hatred against the "uppity nigger." If you actually still believe their spin machine, I'd love to know why.
If you want a shit-flinging match, you probably ought to name a candidate more ethical than Obama. Ron Paul probably qualifies, but I don't believe that any other current candidate comes remotely close. If you're interested in the truth, you should fling all shit equally, try hard to find what washes off, and see which candidate really ends up smelling the worst.
A very good point. However, one other thing the president can do is bring eloquence to the table. Obama has that in spades as well as more than average good sense, and I dare to hope that they will give him more power than just a veto.
I don't think he's perfect. I just think that the chances of him affecting things for the better are nonzero, which is more than can be said of McCain.
I too shared your bleak outlook until I started looking hard at some numbers. I just want to follow up a couple of your points, in two completely unrelated ways. Firstly, the most important issue, and secondly, who owns these two presidential hopefuls.
it's only a distraction away from the real issue of prohibitions against consensual acts and abusive authority
I agree that this issue would be very important, if we could be sure that we'd be around in 50 years. However, my reading of climate science puts that very much in doubt. It would seem to me from rapidly mounting evidence that if we don't take immediate, profound action on environmental issues, there will be no more consentual acts by anyone. Here is a quick introduction to global risk management, although the presenter has since addressed the underlying questions in great and depressing detail in related videos. Of course, if he's right, then our best chance is to boot the corporations out of the government.
Big business will continue to run the government no matter who wins
I disagree on this one as well. Look at whence the two hopefuls are getting their money. McCain's comes largely from corporations, which is pretty much business as usual. But Obama's comes more from normal citizens (a July report put Obama's mean donation around $68 to McCain's $5754 (allowing for loopholes)), and there's a very interesting breakdown of what kinds of citizens here: McCain's individual donors tend to be CEOs and corporatists (and a smattering of the usual rednecks), whereas Obama's tend to be, well, everyone else. A week-old look puts McCain's median inidividual non-loopholed donation at the limit of $2300, compared to Obama's median, perhaps a little under $200. So it is very reasonable to hope that Obama will answer not to corporations but to the people.
Opening a closed but not locked door and entering a building without permission is still against the law. It is called breaking and entering.
And sending a message to the owner of the door saying, "I couldn't help but notice that you left your door unlocked. You might want to fix that" means that you are breaking the letter of the law, but that says more about the law's being worded poorly than whether you did something wrong. Sadly, lawyers tend to argue about interpretation of law, rather than about justice.
Furthermore, if you say "Please lock your door. You have my secrets, and I must insist that you to take more care with them", then you ought potentially to have a cute legal case.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I'd like to see the moderation system change: when you get mod points, you also get set to browse without seeing anyone else's moderations of articles (threaded still, perhaps, but no sorting by moderation, and ideally without author names or sigs). And of course a "I'm not moderating today" button so you can benefit from the wisdom of others.
On a side note, I take issue with your example. When faith, not reason, influences a thought, that thought should be mocked. Holding people of faith to a lower intellectual standard exemplifies the worst side of Affirmative Action. But I agree with your point--the thought should be mocked because it is ridiculous, not because of groupthink.
And your friend can't call a cab to take her home...
On the contrary. She has to call a cab. There is simply no alternative.
It's always good to hear how egalitarian the liberal side is these days.
Yup. Us liberals want choice, reasonable alternatives, diversity. Why is that always such a fight? Why have Californians been so brainwashed that anyone who suggests that it would be nice if you didn't need a car for every 3-block errand is viewed as a Stalinist?
"Whims" is a loaded word, but laws have certainly been used to shape parts of society for the better (health care (still viewed as Stalinist by Americans who don't know any better), safe building codes, infrastructure (especially transportation), energy upgrade rebates, ...).
There's an interesting question here, actually: the exclusive and extreme use of cars in the USA is very harmful to society (I probably don't need to go into this again, but think urban sprawl, pollution, smog, global warming, gridlock, the young/old/and other non-driving groups are essentially incapacitated, traffic accidents to the tune of 40000/year in the USA alone (you think the WTC bombing was bad??))...
Obesity is a nice example of the conundrum. All the evidence points to this: that if we as a society invested heavily in, for example, city planning that was friendly to biking and walking, obesity would plummet (not to mention all that other stuff). With it would plummet heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, and a few thousand other diseases. We would also be wealthier (cheaper car insurance, cheaper gas, cheaper health insurance, cheaper car maintenance, etc...). But most of this is a Microsoft-effect: you need lots of people to buy into it before many of the benefits are realised (eg. why build bike paths for 3 people, or 300, in LA?). There's a chicken-and-egg problem that at some point needs to be addressed by the chicken: change from the top down. Build bike infrastructure first, and then people will use it. Without it, cycling is just not viable in LA.
But building bike paths is definitely not within your constraints on law (life, liberty, property) (well, life qualifies very indirectly). However, neither do roads or subsidised gasoline. Or education. Or basic research, unless that is used in support of your 3.
When is it appropriate for a government to say "we need to instate taxes to create opportunities for our citizens to live better lives"? Many countries do this as a matter of course. The USA does it, as I've said, to provide roads, parking, gas subsidies, education, science research, military, ... Many countries add things like sponsorship of the arts, community services, national historic sites... and it works well! They are healthier and happier and richer, because their government does more than yours does. Is it appropriate? Not if you regard our founding documents as gospel (although any of this could happen at the state level, which I think would be marvellous).
The US governments get their mandates like this (at least in theory): politicians say "if you elect me then I will do ...". So if you believe in democracy, you must believe that the government should do whatever it is that the politicians promised, right? What if they were to promise to help us to become healthier, wealthier, and happier?
This is what bothers me about the health care debate, actually. There are lots of ways to become healthy, but given the above you will please excuse me if I refer only to the driving vs. biking angle for now. Given what Republicans used to stand for (they absolutely don't anymore, but whatever), it would make total sense to make driving more expensive: remove those gasoline handouts, remove auto maker subsidies, build fewer highways, give people the ability to make themselves healthier by choosing wiser forms of transportation. Fuck curative health care--we want to be able to choose for ourselves to live healthily. Just give us that choice!
Your idea that we should artificially raise the price of fuel to teach a lesson... well I disagree with that.
First, getting you to justify your reasons for disagreeing was like pulling hen's teeth. Second, fuel prices are artificially low. I didn't spell out very clearly my main reason for wanting them to be raised--charging people the true cleanup and harm cost for destruction of commons, and endangering innocent people--but I alluded to it. The lesson, then, is this: your actions have real costs. You should pay for them. The catalytic converter that you are required to buy in a new car is a good example: you make a mess, you pay to clean it up. But there are still plenty of toxins and carcinogens and greenhouse gases that cannot be cleaned up like that, and they do need to be cleaned up, and taxing gasoline in order to create a fund for relocating victims of global warming, paying health care costs for people with smog-induced ashtma, etc., is completely reasonable to the extent that those burning gasoline cause these problems. It's more fair than charging a cyclist taxes to clean up after an SUV, right?
Americans don't seem to like that lesson, and want fuel prices to remain artificially low so they can drive their sociopathic SUVs while offloading the true costs onto society. This is not based on natural law, but on greed and laziness and too many emails telling them that their penises are not big enough (there is actual research supporting this last, believe it or not--men who are told that they are effeminate tend to buy larger, more harmful vehicles).
Some of us want alternative transportation. It is not fair, if you will, for you to tax us in order to build roads and parking that subsidise users of cars, even if the cars were perfectly clean and safe. Add to that the cars' destructive power, and you can begin to understand why I'm upset. It seems reasonable to me that governments (the bodies that must be responsible for transportation infrastructure) should provide alternatives (sidewalks, bike paths, ...). And this does indeed happen in countries where gasoline prices are not artificially low.
Why? Because consumers tend to vote with their wallets, not their ethics or their vaunted ability to make wise decisions. So I like the punitive effect that raising gas to true cost would have. I think it would be a really great thing for this country and for everyone in it. But since you don't like the justification of "your life will be better", it is also extremely easy to justify on grounds of fairness.
I do not agree with your presumption that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and uneducated.
Depends on what you are disagreeing with. I just talked to a creationist, who is obviously ignorant and uneducated, and I took great pains to communicate politely to him because with his lack of academic experience he is likely not used to having to sort message from tone. And, yes, because it was good practice for me. But he took the time to explain his position. You just issued vague attacks without mustering an argument. I assumed that my fundamental assumptions were obvious to anyone with a highschool diploma, and hoped that your education would have taught you to figure out which of them you disagreed with so you could call me on it/them.
You presumed my education lacking with your statement of: "go (back?) to highschool" Well feller, high school was a long time ago, as was college, with the associated degrees. The practical school of life, starting, owning and operating a business and raising a family has taught me as well that your condescending tone gets you off on the wrong foot with most folks.
Grow some skin. If you fail to make a coherent argument based on good analysis, your claims of having an education are a poor defense, no matter how true they are. Where I've failed to make a coherent argument, call me on that. Or ign
You propose to dictate to people how they should go about their lives, telling them how they should do things.
Ah yes, well, those are called "laws". I'm for them, in principle. Sorry you're not. To be more precise, I'm rather for telling people what they can't do (basically, behaving unsustainably or abusing commons). As for what they can, I will offer only suggestions there, but I have some good ones :)
This directly contradicts with the Declaration of Independence and several articles of the Bill of Rights.
If you interpret "Liberty" (or whatever) as the freedom to do whatever you like, then sure. In which case, I'm sure you can see that the quotation/interpretation you furnished provides perfect justification for me to insert a piece of rutabaga into your left nostril. Or dump carcinogens, toxins, greenhouse gases, etc into air that you were thinking of breathing...
The people who wrote that were trying to start a war. It was a political document, not a philosophical one. They were influenced by political philosophy, to be sure, but also by rhetoric, and for that matter completely ignorant of what problems the future would bring. Treating it as gospel is almost as bad as, well, treating gospel as, er, gospel.
If you are too puerile to listen to the content just because of the tone, I suggest going (back?) to highschool.
If you're too ignorant to see the consequences of everyone doing whatever he likes, you could try learning some science.
How exactly does what I say conflict with the principles that this country was founded on? Please quote founding documents. Your vagueness of word suggests vagueness of thought, and you will have to work a little to correct that impression.
Also, I'll ask again the question that you ignored last time: why are so many Americans too arrogant to admit that improvement might be possible? What if the country was founded on flawed principles? The Constitution has been amended a few times and will be amended again--the country now has rules that were not thought of when it was founded. Does that mean you disagree with all of the amendments? You sound like you worship the founding principles and hold them beyond question. I suggest learning some skepticism.
Remember: try to read through the tone and actually address the issues coherently this time.
Thanks so much for letting everyones free will slide, letting us keep our freedom and liberty, within reasonable limits.
Got an alternative? I would think that it's pretty obvious by now that letting people do whatever they want simply doesn't lead to a functional society (I guess that may seem condescending if it's news to you, in which case you probably deserve condescention). You like the vague attacks; do you also like discussing issues and possible solutions?
You're right. But it's quite reasonable to let the minor or sporadic offenses slide, while more aggressively fighting against the really egregious or gratuitous offenders. Individuals who drive small cars are hurting me and you much less than those who drive SUVs, who are hurting us much less than city planners who deny us the ability to choose efficient transportation.
Really, you should be able to figure this out for yourself. But we all think along different lines. Here's a crude working definition for "minor or sporadic": if everyone in the world behaved in this way, we could go on doing it forever. The synonym you've probably heard is "sustainable". Ring a bell?
First, why are so many Americans so arrogantly unwilling to admit that there could possibly be room for improvement?
Second, I wasn't referring to the fact that every time you drive, you hurt yourself. You're welcome to do that. I was referring to the fact that every time you drive, you hurt me. Why should I not be allowed to defend myself?
Yeah, I know it's cheaper now. Frankly, I'm disgusted. For example, I just got off the phone with a friend in LA who needs to take her car to the mechanic, and physically cannot bike back, because the good people of LA are so addicted to their cars, so blind to any other form of transportation, so deeply and profoundly ass-fucked by their own heads, that there is no way to walk or bike the 3 miles that she needs to go without a car.
Americans really need to endure higher gas prices for longer, because their greed and laziness know of no other language that will teach them to stop forcing everyone to drive everywhere.
My 1990 Audi 200 station wagon, with full-time all-wheel drive (there is absolutely nothing on the road that can touch its handling in the snow; that iteration of Quattro is stunning), gets about 28 on the highway. And that's after 200000 miles.
See how far we've progressed?
Actually, part of it is that heavier cars get worse mileage (most noticeable in the city, without regenerative braking), and safety standards have improved--more metal keeps you safer in a collision. That said, we could have vastly safer cars if they could focus on dealing with impacts at bumper-level, rather than the chest- and head-level reinforcements necessitated by the infestation of SUVs (which are still between 2 (small SUVs) and 6 (F350 etc) times more likely than standard-bumper cars to kill you).
Oh, yes, motors could be much more efficient now, too. But given our insanely cheap gasoline (yes, $4/gal is that), consumers just don't care.
A telepathy ray that would let all the women in the world know what all the men in the world are actually thinking about. The whole species would go extinct in a single generation.
I like this guy. Here in the we need a government branch for granting honorary citizenship to people who go around publicising how stupid our various government branches are.
This, then, shall be your test. To the engineer who can build her own invisibility cloak, I say that she is worthy of raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm. To all those who dare not face the challenge, their punishment shall be downloading pr0n.
If TV "caused" teen pregnancy
I knew this country's sex ed programs were bad, but... wow... ;)
Weird. Is that sort of like Catholics who use contraception?
I don't believe your comment was worth a troll mod
Thanks. It's probably my fault for saying something offensive without providing a reference. Oh well, if they're as smart as they think they are, they will do the research themselves :) I'll just offer this one example like any of a thousand others from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Road to 270: West Virginia:
What McCain Has Going For Him:
No state has less educated voters in the aggregate
And so on.
Rather the democratic platform favor's schools FAR more.
Good point. However, it makes me wonder how vehemently I should argue that a platform favouring education and research is more rational. Probably not much. Or is that just an artifact of the particular kind of anti-education agenda favoured by Republicans, which currently involves suppression of science in favour of religious doctrine? Hey, someone who has been ignoring current events will probably think that that's a troll too.
just because I have a PHD doesn't mean I am predisposed to rational behavior.
I dispute that--on average. I'm not saying that it's cause-and-effect or even that the correlation is 100%, but I will go on record as saying that getting a PhD (at least in science!) is very strongly correlated with being able to think clearly, and to discover and question one's own assumptions. On the other hand, smart people are better at justifying stupidity than dumb people.
Furthermore, while my "Where's Republican Waldo?" challenge referenced AAAS and NAS, the numbers I've seen show that one needn't look as far as PhDs and career academics to see the correlation between more education and voting Democrat. Still no reference. Yeesh. So prove me wrong :)
Also the better educated are not always the wealthier. Of the PHDs I know they tend to be poorer as they took the instructor route.
Yes--I don't know how many PhDs with more than $250k/year (ie. those who will be "hurt" by Obama's tax plan (if they consider only take-home money as a measure of wealth)) are voting Democrat. My sample are--unanimously--but it's too small and self-selected (an even dozen) to be useful.
Again, there are plenty of non-academics with good BA/BS/MA/MS/legal/medical/etc degrees making piles of money and voting Democrat. Again, I really do need to do things besides track down references, but I'll watch this thread, and if anyone really cares and can't find supporting research, I know I can locate some.
I find it telling that statisticians have long noted the correlation between education levels and political leaning. It is fact: smarter, better educated, and better informed people tend to vote Democrat. Find a Republican in the AAAS or NAS. Why do you suppose that is? The better educated stand more to lose, since they tend to be wealthier. (I have a feeling that there's a golden amount of wealth that allows us the luxury of investing in the future, without the pathology of being obsessed with accumulating money.)
I also find it telling that most everyone saying anything negative about Obama has referred to him using his middle name. This echoes the standard content of the message: "He does not look like us, therefore he must be evil." They don't tend to address actual policy issues, but simply try to instill fear/hatred/uncertainty/doubt based on rumours.
Could we, as a society, maybe move beyond that?
Those are interesting questions, but the really important one is this: can we afford to bet everything on the chance of you being right? Because if global warming turns out to be harmful, it won't just be a little baby tragedy like the World Trade Center bombing, or the latest tsunami, or the 40000 killed every year in the USA by cars, or the last genocide.
Wait a minute... you're looking at the mainstream media to educate you about science? Hello? Is anyone home? You know that corporations who profit from emitting greenhouse gases are spending billions of dollars to try to convince the ignorant masses that nothing's amiss, right? They use the media. Go check out recent peer-reviewed journals on the subject, and then come and tell us that you're not convinced.
And if you want to see the risk-management approach, try here for a silly and excellent quick overview.
I don't say that faith steps in when we don't know how something works.
Good, because it sure sounded like you were saying that:
Those are questions that science can not answer, because and some point you are left with the question of where did it all start? Something outside the system has to put it in motion. Call him the clock-maker, call him God, call him Thor, whatever. But at some level you have to admit that science does not and can not have the answer.
Here it really looks like you're saying that because science doesn't have the answer, the answer must come from faith.
But that search can't go on for ever. Existence must have a beginning and that beginning must come from outside the system.
Oh? Maybe. But what is wrong with the search going on forever? Conservation of energy may or may not apply outside our universe--what does god eat?
Outside the system means a higher power. [munch] ...but logic says that it has to end somewhere.
Oh? Why? Maybe an origin, but why a god? What's wrong with admitting I don't know where, or whether, it ends, and leaving it at that? Why must I infer something precise enough to be a god when I know nothing? Where did this god come from? Isn't a god less likely than a universe, if only because she's more complex? If she's without cause, why must I impute intelligence? Give me some shred of evidence.
I just don't see how "I don't know" turns into "there is a god."
Why is it that faith, which is by definition not "proveable" laid along side science which is by definition proveable.
Actually, science is only disprovable--we have degrees of certainty as more evidence supports a theory, but we can't ever reach 100% confidence.
Why must science always be the opposite of faith.
Because of my original claim. Science is universal. Faith is not. Anyone who tells you something and asks you to "just believe it" is fundamentally an authoritarian, the opposite of someone who asks you to "try to disprove this, find weaknesses, improve it, be smarter than me." Why haven't we moved beyond faith?
Science is the understanding of the world that we live in. In your science, where does all this stuff come from? What happens a split second before the "Big Bang", or if you prefer an ever expanding and contracting universe, what started it all off. Those are questions that science can not answer, because and some point you are left with the question of where did it all start? Something outside the system has to put it in motion.
I don't know.
Your claim is this: "I don't know something. Not only that, but nobody knows. Furthermore, nobody will ever know." What arrogant poppycock! How on earth can you justify that claim?
Are you so terrified of admitting that you don't know something that you have to concoct some elaborate fairytale about what happened? Religions have been doing this for millennia. And you know what? Religion's "understanding" of "why?", once beyond the limit of human knowledge and therefore safe, has been repeatedly proven wrong as science advances. And science does advance, sometimes slowly, but quite inexorably.
ps. Not really relevant, but it turns out that science is answering those questions: it looks like time is probably part of our universe, created at the Big Bang, and quantum randomness is responsible for that little explosion. Similar ones probably go off all the "time". But after more science is done, we'll understand that much better.
When you claim that some group offers no proof of their beliefs and then offer no proof to back up your own argument, it's pretty hard to take you seriously.
I assumed that that little detail of my argument was reasonably self-evident once I'd pointed out the link between groundless bigotry based on skin colour and groundless bigotry based on belief in some particular set of fairytales. However, if you really want an explanation, I'll offer this:
Religion is based on faith--ie. belief without evidence. Any "religion" that is based on evidence is called science, and it works, and it's universal, since the details of establishing the reliability of evidence are pretty well understood (to quote xkcd, "it works, bitches"). If religion were based on evidence, then we would all believe roughly the same thing (although, as usual, the cutting edge (where there is not really enough evidence just yet) will be controversial for a little while).
You're right: I truly don't know how to argue someone out of faith. Very smart people have tried for years. You can show them that their beliefs don't make sense, but it doesn't help. You can try to find things that can fill in the gaps that would be left if they became logical, but that doesn't really help either. You can draw analogies between what they believe and what science understands, but that sends the wrong message. Would you like to tell me how to do better?
Meanwhile, I will openly mock the faithful: since (not just mine, but the best) logical arguments don't work, perhaps public humiliation will at least prevent them from claiming more innocent minds.
Yes, I hold it against him that he belonged to a church. All churches are racist, or close enough: "Here's what we believe. We offer no proof. But if you don't believe it too you aren't one of us." But good luck finding a politician who doesn't belong to a church in this rationality-forsaken country. Americans, I've noticed, tend to be indoctrinated pretty early, never having a chance to learn reason before they're brainwashed by whatever religious organisation did the same thing to their parents. You see, humans all have a deep-seated tendency to be impressionable when they're young, and a good thing it is, usually. Some of us, the best of us, can realise our childhood biases and overcome them. But such people are few and far between.
Does Obama still belong to that church? Or did he, upon noticing that it did not respect his personal ethics, leave? If he stopped believing in god or the tooth fairy or what-have-you, then kudos to him, but those who can give up that children's tale after having been brainwashed since childhood are truly marvelous.
As for ACORN, why should I believe you over anyone else? I don't know firsthand what happened, but I find this just as credible as any other source, and vastly more credible than the people running the GOP anti-Obama spin campaign, whom I know for sure have repeatedly lied ("Obama wants to raise taxes on middle class families" etc), exaggerated trivial facts beyond absurdity ("Obama had an acquaintance when he was 7, who later became a terrorist. Cool!" etc...), and, having no message of their own, have done nothing but incite fear, suspicion, and hatred against the "uppity nigger." If you actually still believe their spin machine, I'd love to know why.
If you want a shit-flinging match, you probably ought to name a candidate more ethical than Obama. Ron Paul probably qualifies, but I don't believe that any other current candidate comes remotely close. If you're interested in the truth, you should fling all shit equally, try hard to find what washes off, and see which candidate really ends up smelling the worst.
A very good point. However, one other thing the president can do is bring eloquence to the table. Obama has that in spades as well as more than average good sense, and I dare to hope that they will give him more power than just a veto.
I don't think he's perfect. I just think that the chances of him affecting things for the better are nonzero, which is more than can be said of McCain.
it's only a distraction away from the real issue of prohibitions against consensual acts and abusive authority
I agree that this issue would be very important, if we could be sure that we'd be around in 50 years. However, my reading of climate science puts that very much in doubt. It would seem to me from rapidly mounting evidence that if we don't take immediate, profound action on environmental issues, there will be no more consentual acts by anyone. Here is a quick introduction to global risk management, although the presenter has since addressed the underlying questions in great and depressing detail in related videos. Of course, if he's right, then our best chance is to boot the corporations out of the government.
Big business will continue to run the government no matter who wins
I disagree on this one as well. Look at whence the two hopefuls are getting their money. McCain's comes largely from corporations, which is pretty much business as usual. But Obama's comes more from normal citizens (a July report put Obama's mean donation around $68 to McCain's $5754 (allowing for loopholes)), and there's a very interesting breakdown of what kinds of citizens here: McCain's individual donors tend to be CEOs and corporatists (and a smattering of the usual rednecks), whereas Obama's tend to be, well, everyone else. A week-old look puts McCain's median inidividual non-loopholed donation at the limit of $2300, compared to Obama's median, perhaps a little under $200. So it is very reasonable to hope that Obama will answer not to corporations but to the people.
Opening a closed but not locked door and entering a building without permission is still against the law. It is called breaking and entering.
And sending a message to the owner of the door saying, "I couldn't help but notice that you left your door unlocked. You might want to fix that" means that you are breaking the letter of the law, but that says more about the law's being worded poorly than whether you did something wrong. Sadly, lawyers tend to argue about interpretation of law, rather than about justice.
Furthermore, if you say "Please lock your door. You have my secrets, and I must insist that you to take more care with them", then you ought potentially to have a cute legal case.