But cars haven't looked like that for 100 years, they evolved that way because humans have a natural affinity to anthropomorphic design.
Cars look like faces, because humans like cars to look like faces. So yeah it's subjective, but subjective to most humans.
Every country above the US is considered socialist (socialised health and education etc, not your 1950 Communist Russia version of socialism)
Then combine that with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you take out the 1%ers, the US would be considered 3rd world, which explains nicely why there are lots of homeless people shitting in the streets
Your argument has just evaporated. Time to give up.
No, first it was "the news" (widespread dismissal), then it was "Fox News" (accusation of single-source blindness), then it was back to "the news" after I pointed out yet again that I pull from a variety of sources.
"Fox News" is a subset of "the news" you retard.
and I'm willing to bet you've used them as sources in arguments before.
Well you're wrong again. What do you owe me?
Oh, really? Then if you're familiar with them (I wonder how, since, you know, "the news"), you should also be familiar with the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud that went along with the false accusations hyped up by "progressives".
The difference is dummy, I didn't just read the headline and believe it in face value
The fact is the media and politicians are pandering to "progressive" nutters, with real-world consequences.
Because the news told you so. Congratulations, you are now the stupidest person I've ever argued with on Slashdot.
Progressivism has a continuous history from the 19th century to the 21st. Many of the people who advocated segregation and eugenics are still revered by progressives.
Utter, utter crap.
Bernie Sanders calls himself progressive. I haven't seen anywhere in his policy statements anything about gassing the jews. Although Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims so maybe you've a little confused?
More importantly, though, the fundamental belief was the same back then as it is today, and it is the same belief you keep reiterating, namely that it is the job of government to use scientific results and rational processes for the common good.
What do you prefer, irrational processes? Do you even read what you write?
That belief is so axiomatic for you that you can't even conceive that government could work differently. You are a typical 19th and 20th century progressive.
Being progressive (the regular definition, not you weirdo version) means I'm open to any new ideas. So maybe you are just doing a poor job of selling it.
Not really since society is just a collection of individuals. The issue is that with individuals, its a lot easier to determine conflicting freedoms, a winner and a loser. With groups you have a whole lot of overlap with no easy solutions, and there's not always a winner and a loser. Sometimes everyone loses a little for the sake of a few people not losing a lot.
I was born and educated in Western Europe, but I spent enough time in socialist countries to have a good idea of what socialism is all about, unlike you apparently.
I was born and educated in a 'socialist' country which has better standards of living and education than all but the 1%ers of the US.
I was born poor and am now relatively well off because these systems give people like me a chance out of the swamp.
I meant I have no idea how you are trying to connect science with racism. All sorts of weird ideas have tried to be justified with science, because science is the ultimate bullshit detector. That doesn't make science the bad guy. The fact that science exposes these flaws makes it the good guy in this story.
You're confusing "scientific" with "true". Racial superiority was a widely accepted scientific theory; it happened to be incorrect.
Like the earth was widely accepted to be flat? Fucking humans, they can't be trusted.
And you keep posting links to 'The National Review" which is opinionated conservative junk. Maybe get some more objective sources next time.
So you are saying that the problem with scientific racism was that it was incorrect? If it had been right, the political choices based on it would have been justified?
Depends on what those choices are. Science can merely say a giraffe is taller than a elephant. It doesn't say that giraffes are now justified in persecuting elephants because they aren't as tall as them.
That, in principle, society has the right to prevent people from procreating and to oppress them if science can prove that they actually are mentally or physically inferior on average?
See you've gone all crazy again. See giraffe example above.
See, the problem with scientific racism was not that it was wrong, the problem with scientific racism was that people like you are willing to use scientific claims (whether right or wrong) to violate the rights of individuals for "the good of society".
You use words like "violate" to attach negative emotions. But just like in my red light example, you also agree with this view.
Science shows there is lack of control at intersections causing overall harm to society
We use this science to "violate" people's rights to plow into intersections without stopping. Society is forced against its will to stop when the light is red, and is forced against their will to go when it is green. They all sacrifice liberty for security so deserve neither.
Which part of this don't you agree with?
After the horrors of the 20th century, it is disturbing how common your beliefs are, in particular among people who really ought to know better based on their history.
After the greatest rise in standards of living in all of humanity since the rise of science and critical thought, it's disturbing to hear your beliefs. Although luckily for the rest of us, they are the minority and predominately among old white people, so will eventually die off.
To leave the place in a better position than you found it.
Iraq and Afghanistan were military victories, not losses. They were political losses, as they turned out to be a poor choice, but the US did not lose these wars, the US politicians screwed it all up.
Wibble, wibble. By your definition, the Germans won WW2 since Neville Chamberlain was no longer in power at the end of it, and the Germans had less casualties than the Russians
What would be the conditions of winning in your world?
If Iraq wasn't a whole lot worse than it was when Saddam was running the place.
Afghanistan is still going and the insurgency is just as strong as on day one 15 years ago. If that's your version of victory you're a fucking idiot.
This explains your position. I couldn't get past the first paragraph since it is blatantly false and biased.
"In the face of Europe’s all-too-obvious moral, political, and demographic decline" Really?
It's not obvious to me. Countries like the UK and Germany are not declining, they have lower unemployment than the US and they don't have as many people shitting on the streets.
Maybe a little more critical thought is required before swallowing whatever bullshit they are feeding you?
I'm not European, but thanks for making that embarrassing assumption.
What you are referring to is something from the 19th century that shares nothing with today apart from a few shared letters in the name. Like I said earlier, it' like holding the modern Republicans accountable or Abraham Lincoln owning slaves, or your local church accountable for the Crusades.
Move on, that's how progress happens.
You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.
No, if you could read, it's the same defense. You presented some claims, and have repeatedly failed to back it up with anything substantial.
It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news",
No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news". All your references have been "the news", and I rightly dismiss this as "the news" is not a reliable reference.
I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them,
Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you. Yet rather than enter into the discussion you continue to argue that "the news" explains your entire policital opinion.
The short version is
Fuck at last! Was that really so hard?
that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.
By a media organisation which we've already established is unreliable.
Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him.
By the police which are an interested party in the case.
Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind.
Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. What is correct is that trial by media is a foolish proposition. This is why we have courts.
The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account.
So the system works. What was your problem again?
And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter.
I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?
According to one guy. According to another guy, we are all really being mind controlled by aliens, and according to yet another guy we should be allowed to fuck children.
Do you see how it works yet?
Once you boil down your argument, you've gotten all angry based one or two people's opinions. The courts opinion (the one that actually counts) aligns with your own, so why are you angry? Are you really arguing for people not to be allowed their own opinion, regardless of how stupid it is?
However little it is, it adds up. That's how things are made to be efficient - by adding up lots of tiny improvements. It's very rare these days that by changing one little thing you will get huge improvements.
But the point is, do you value a minute increase in efficiency over a massive decrease in aesthetics?
So, it's a majority decision, you don't like people who believe in "sky fairies" anyway, and in addition, there is good evidence that it would actually benefit society on average. By your political reasoning, that would be a democratic decision, it would be a legitimate decision, and you would support it, right?
Ok so this is why stupid unrealistic hypotheticals get ignored in most intelligent debates.
I'm an atheist. And, I do care about others, which is why I believe that others should have the same free choice in these matters that I do.
What if what you want do negatively impacts someone else's freedom? How do you control that?
This is all the rules are trying to achieve, I want the freedom to run red lights, should I be allowed t do that? Don't tread on me!
You believe that other people's freedoms should be restricted so that society conforms to your preferences, and that is both illiberal and selfish.
Nope. I believe individual freedom have to be restricted in the common interest eg Just like why traffic lights exist. you freedom to drive how you feel like is restricted for the benefit of everyone.
Yes, it does. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Righto, well every time you stop at a red light you have just given up all rights to freedom and saftey.
You know, I spent part of my childhood in a socialist country, and I'm afraid you are totally naive.
Oh so now it's making sense. You were born in a soviet controlled country and now associate Hillary with Stalin. I have many friends from the former Eastern Bloc so assure you I am familiar with the story.
And I believe that the very idea that society should have "standards of legal partnerships" is wrong. Who I love or cohabitate with is none of your or society's business, and shouldn't be subjected to social "standards". You have already accepted a view of government in which it is the responsibility of the state to bind individuals together into a society, you are simply quibbling over the details of the policies that such a state adopts.
Oh dear, the state doesn't bind people into a society, society elects an administration to set some ground rules for the greater good. And it actually turns out that the concept of marriage creates a greater good to society.
The particular "scientific" justifications used to deprive people of their liberties change every few years. A century ago, it was scientific racism, these days, it's other pseudo-science.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Racism was never scientific, the racists tried to validate their view with science and science proved them wrong. It's one of the great things about science, it doesn't give a fuck what you believe.
Pseudo science isn't progressive, since it contributes nothing to human progress. You are just making stuff up now.
Progressive policies improve some lives at the expense of harming others and interfering with civil liberties. And the fact that progressives accept those tradeoffs is at the heart of what's wrong with progressivism as a political movement.
But you yourself accept these too. Everyone does. This is what is wrong with the "don't tread on me" logic, the hypocrisy.
Every society needs rules that limit what others can do, it is the only way a society can function. Do you have any examples of a society that has no rules?
What any minority group should be well aware of is that they are at grave risk of being declared the minority that needs to be sterilized, expropriated, and/or silenced "for the common good", as progressive have historically done that to liberals, to the disabled, to homosexuals, to blacks, to Jews, and to many other minority groups. Being temporarily favored by progressives isn't worth the serious downsides.
Dude you have some issues there that won't be uncovered here.
I'm actually happy to lose a little efficiency for the sake of looking like a normal car.
What are we talking here 1%? 2%? 5% reduction in range? 400km serves me just as well as 426km, but looking stupid doesn't serve me at all.
Electric Vehicles are just playing a sly shell game with gas & particulate emission, shuffling it across town to the coal fired electric plant that's shoveling that juice into your wall charger.
This is a well worn myth as demonstrated by others here already.
It's a shame you wrote so much and I didn't read it because you lost me in the first paragraph...
The good thing is that old media doesn't really matter as much anymore. The average age of a newspaper reader is advancing nearly 5 years for every year of real time. That is huge, 5 years is a massive demographic who just downed their newspapers.
Because "newspapers" just turned into stupid gossip columns littered with click-bait. It was a race to the bottom and they're all winning.
But my personal life expectancy isn't determined by population averages.
So you only care about yourself? That's not very "Christian".
The fact that Americans have more freedom to overeat and engage in dangerous activities doesn't affect me
It does actually, you just don't realise it. That's why more people die from gun violence in the US than in every other comparable nation. That's what TFA is about, 1%ers who are complaining that homeless people are shitting on their streets. Those other people's freedom to shit anywhere is affecting them True Freedom means greater risks from others exercising their freedom, which is why rules inevitably get created in even the simplest societies.
Even if you support the privatised/insurance model, every idiot injuring themselves raises your premium, so it affects you. It affects you under the pure capitalist model, it affects you under the socialist model. But the data tells us that it is likely to affect you slightly less overall under a socialist model.
Representative democracies were intended to address some of the problems with majoritarianism but are prone to corruption.
Human nature is prone to corruption, which is why independent oversight was invented. Even Richard Nixon knew that when he created the EPA.
To the small degree that the European model delivers on its promises, it does so by helping those below average by harming and limiting those above average and paying massive social and economic costs (cf. the massive youth unemployment). That's why people like me leave.
Germany has lowest unemployment rate of just about anywhere on earth.
US unemployment has halved since the "progressive left" took power.
You can't cherry pick numbers to suit your argument.
There is nothing wrong with progressive attitudes. There is everything wrong with progressive politics.
We're going around in circles now. Politics is just a representation of attitude. eg If I think two people should be allowed to demonstrate their love for each other by society's standard of legal partnership, I will support a political party that share's that view.
Because people in the 19th century were racist, you refuse to support any political movement that existed in the 19th century? It all sounds a bit ridiculous.
So now you've moved back from bashing "Fox News" to "the news".
Give up. you sound ridiculous now.
A simple search will show a great number of sources. But you want to bury your head in the sand, and pretend nothing is going on that isn't happening to you personally.
Burden, proof, claimant. Let me know when you graduate high school.
And of course your comment that Bernie and Hillary are "less authoritarian than the other guys"
SO, when did you stop beating your wife?
Would you prefer execution by firing squad, or by hanging?
What? Do you even know how to read?
Authoritarian is a political position, just like Libertarian, or Left or Right. I don't make these up, each candidate positions themselves on the political spectrum based on their policy choices.
Based on policy analysis, Bernie is the least Authoritarian candidate still remaining, followed by Hillary. while Trump and Cruz are the most Authoritarian. Is this news to you?
Numbers, party platforms, and laws, however, do tell the full story: government is in bed with Christian churches in much of Europe. You have to be utterly blind not to see that.
Got any specifics? I'm well aware of the historical connection of the church to everywhere, but my point was even if the Queen of England was fucking the Pope, more people will still vote for an Atheist leader in Europe than the US. And they don't force their religion onto their currency.
You asked for good places to live in the US and were concerned about religion being "public policy". And I responded that religion is much less "public policy" in the US than in Europe, and that even when Americans are religious, they tend to be quite tolerant.
In some places. The US is a vast nation so it varies from place to place.
You want to talk about Christianity in politics? Note that even on gay marriage, Germany (one of the more "progressive" European countries on gay rights) has always been behind the US.
Nice. You chose Germany because it is the one country that is behind the US, but ignored the other dozen that are in front?
Well, as a gay man, I'm glad I emigrated from the "sophisticated and progressive" European culture to the "barbaric" American culture.
I'm glad you are happy, but that doesn't mean that progressive (not 19th century US progressive) policies don't improve lives.
Any minority group should be well aware of the that.
I don't know that you understand the meaning of the word "lose". The only recent war that America lost was Vietnam, and that was down to political issues, not issues with the military.
So you consider Iraq and Afghanistan a victory? Really?
The biggest strategic blunder in modern history and you call that a win? Fucking hell, what's in the water over there?
Iraq was won in a matter of a week, Afghanistan took longer, but seems to have achieved its goals. ISIS is a failure of the Iraqi army, and their president for choosing to fall on his sword rather than accept help from the US.
You claimed that my statement that progressivism favored segregation and eugenics was "loony". I recalled the history for you.
Not my history. But in any case, segregation was human history, so everyone thought like that at one point. So it doesn't really carry any weight in this context.
That is absolutely false: many people strongly opposed progressive policies at the time. Their objection wasn't to the scientific conclusions, their objection was to the idea that majorities have the right to interfere in the private lives of people for the public's benefit. You obviously still haven't learned from those mistakes.
The idea that the majority rule is called a democracy. What you are arguing against is not progressiveness, it the democratic model.
If you have a better alternative, I'm all ears.
You say that as if "forward" were something a large number of people agree on.
"Most people" because that the definition of how a democratic system works.
From your other postings, I would say that it is you who is trying to keep people back and whose idea of "progress" is some stagnant European middle class hell.
If hell means longer life expectancy, greater access to health and education, lower corruption, and greater social mobility then I guess so. Do you not want these things? Or do you prefer a heaven where homeless people litter the streets, shitting and pissing everywhere, and you have the highest risk of a violent death than most other developed countries?
What metrics do you use when coming up with such things?
I was born in one of those countries and have lived in several of them. Yes, I see the pattern, obviously, you don't.
Yet musn't have paid much attention.
And I'm not saying Europe is perfect and the US is terrible. There's good and bad in both, I just reject the notion that progressive attitudes have brought about all the world's evils, when clearly a lot of "progressive" nations are doing quite well (as the measurable statistics demonstrate)
Your source so far has been "the news". When you learn to cite something more reliable than that, then we can discuss.
You've raised four points above, Rape Hysteria, Black Lives Matter, Free speech and LGBT, none of which are anything more than tabloid headlines.
There maybe be true stories behind those headlines, but without some sort of reliable reference it is simply that, a sensationalist headline designed to evoke an emotional response. And it has clearly worked on you.
Slashdot Mirror
But cars haven't looked like that for 100 years, they evolved that way because humans have a natural affinity to anthropomorphic design.
Cars look like faces, because humans like cars to look like faces. So yeah it's subjective, but subjective to most humans.
I challenge you to name a single socialist country whose standard of living comes even close to that of the US.
Let. Me. Fucking. Google. That. For. You:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Every country above the US is considered socialist (socialised health and education etc, not your 1950 Communist Russia version of socialism)
Then combine that with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you take out the 1%ers, the US would be considered 3rd world, which explains nicely why there are lots of homeless people shitting in the streets
Your argument has just evaporated. Time to give up.
No, first it was "the news" (widespread dismissal), then it was "Fox News" (accusation of single-source blindness), then it was back to "the news" after I pointed out yet again that I pull from a variety of sources.
"Fox News" is a subset of "the news" you retard.
and I'm willing to bet you've used them as sources in arguments before.
Well you're wrong again. What do you owe me?
Oh, really? Then if you're familiar with them (I wonder how, since, you know, "the news"), you should also be familiar with the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud that went along with the false accusations hyped up by "progressives".
The difference is dummy, I didn't just read the headline and believe it in face value
The fact is the media and politicians are pandering to "progressive" nutters, with real-world consequences.
Because the news told you so. Congratulations, you are now the stupidest person I've ever argued with on Slashdot.
Progressivism has a continuous history from the 19th century to the 21st. Many of the people who advocated segregation and eugenics are still revered by progressives.
Utter, utter crap.
Bernie Sanders calls himself progressive. I haven't seen anywhere in his policy statements anything about gassing the jews. Although Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims so maybe you've a little confused?
More importantly, though, the fundamental belief was the same back then as it is today, and it is the same belief you keep reiterating, namely that it is the job of government to use scientific results and rational processes for the common good.
What do you prefer, irrational processes? Do you even read what you write?
That belief is so axiomatic for you that you can't even conceive that government could work differently. You are a typical 19th and 20th century progressive.
Being progressive (the regular definition, not you weirdo version) means I'm open to any new ideas. So maybe you are just doing a poor job of selling it.
That's not what happened so you are now lying to cover your position.
The two are entirely different concepts.
Not really since society is just a collection of individuals. The issue is that with individuals, its a lot easier to determine conflicting freedoms, a winner and a loser. With groups you have a whole lot of overlap with no easy solutions, and there's not always a winner and a loser. Sometimes everyone loses a little for the sake of a few people not losing a lot.
I was born and educated in Western Europe, but I spent enough time in socialist countries to have a good idea of what socialism is all about, unlike you apparently.
I was born and educated in a 'socialist' country which has better standards of living and education than all but the 1%ers of the US.
I was born poor and am now relatively well off because these systems give people like me a chance out of the swamp.
Obviously not, which is an embarrassing lapse of historical knowledge on your part.
I meant I have no idea how you are trying to connect science with racism. All sorts of weird ideas have tried to be justified with science, because science is the ultimate bullshit detector. That doesn't make science the bad guy. The fact that science exposes these flaws makes it the good guy in this story.
You're confusing "scientific" with "true". Racial superiority was a widely accepted scientific theory; it happened to be incorrect.
Like the earth was widely accepted to be flat? Fucking humans, they can't be trusted.
And you keep posting links to 'The National Review" which is opinionated conservative junk. Maybe get some more objective sources next time.
So you are saying that the problem with scientific racism was that it was incorrect? If it had been right, the political choices based on it would have been justified?
Depends on what those choices are. Science can merely say a giraffe is taller than a elephant. It doesn't say that giraffes are now justified in persecuting elephants because they aren't as tall as them.
That, in principle, society has the right to prevent people from procreating and to oppress them if science can prove that they actually are mentally or physically inferior on average?
See you've gone all crazy again. See giraffe example above.
See, the problem with scientific racism was not that it was wrong, the problem with scientific racism was that people like you are willing to use scientific claims (whether right or wrong) to violate the rights of individuals for "the good of society".
You use words like "violate" to attach negative emotions. But just like in my red light example, you also agree with this view.
Science shows there is lack of control at intersections causing overall harm to society
We use this science to "violate" people's rights to plow into intersections without stopping. Society is forced against its will to stop when the light is red, and is forced against their will to go when it is green. They all sacrifice liberty for security so deserve neither.
Which part of this don't you agree with?
After the horrors of the 20th century, it is disturbing how common your beliefs are, in particular among people who really ought to know better based on their history.
After the greatest rise in standards of living in all of humanity since the rise of science and critical thought, it's disturbing to hear your beliefs. Although luckily for the rest of us, they are the minority and predominately among old white people, so will eventually die off.
What are your conditions for winning?
To leave the place in a better position than you found it.
Iraq and Afghanistan were military victories, not losses. They were political losses, as they turned out to be a poor choice, but the US did not lose these wars, the US politicians screwed it all up.
Wibble, wibble. By your definition, the Germans won WW2 since Neville Chamberlain was no longer in power at the end of it, and the Germans had less casualties than the Russians
What would be the conditions of winning in your world?
If Iraq wasn't a whole lot worse than it was when Saddam was running the place. Afghanistan is still going and the insurgency is just as strong as on day one 15 years ago. If that's your version of victory you're a fucking idiot.
This explains your position. I couldn't get past the first paragraph since it is blatantly false and biased.
"In the face of Europe’s all-too-obvious moral, political, and demographic decline" Really?
It's not obvious to me. Countries like the UK and Germany are not declining, they have lower unemployment than the US and they don't have as many people shitting on the streets.
Maybe a little more critical thought is required before swallowing whatever bullshit they are feeding you?
I'm not European, but thanks for making that embarrassing assumption.
What you are referring to is something from the 19th century that shares nothing with today apart from a few shared letters in the name. Like I said earlier, it' like holding the modern Republicans accountable or Abraham Lincoln owning slaves, or your local church accountable for the Crusades.
Move on, that's how progress happens.
You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.
No, if you could read, it's the same defense. You presented some claims, and have repeatedly failed to back it up with anything substantial.
It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news",
No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news". All your references have been "the news", and I rightly dismiss this as "the news" is not a reliable reference.
I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them,
Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you. Yet rather than enter into the discussion you continue to argue that "the news" explains your entire policital opinion.
The short version is
Fuck at last! Was that really so hard?
that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.
Good so far.
Brown was called "a gentle giant".
By a media organisation which we've already established is unreliable.
Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him.
By the police which are an interested party in the case.
Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind.
Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. What is correct is that trial by media is a foolish proposition. This is why we have courts.
The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account.
So the system works. What was your problem again?
And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter.
I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?
Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.
According to one guy. According to another guy, we are all really being mind controlled by aliens, and according to yet another guy we should be allowed to fuck children.
Do you see how it works yet? Once you boil down your argument, you've gotten all angry based one or two people's opinions. The courts opinion (the one that actually counts) aligns with your own, so why are you angry? Are you really arguing for people not to be allowed their own opinion, regardless of how stupid it is?
However little it is, it adds up. That's how things are made to be efficient - by adding up lots of tiny improvements. It's very rare these days that by changing one little thing you will get huge improvements.
But the point is, do you value a minute increase in efficiency over a massive decrease in aesthetics?
So, it's a majority decision, you don't like people who believe in "sky fairies" anyway, and in addition, there is good evidence that it would actually benefit society on average. By your political reasoning, that would be a democratic decision, it would be a legitimate decision, and you would support it, right?
Ok so this is why stupid unrealistic hypotheticals get ignored in most intelligent debates.
I'm an atheist. And, I do care about others, which is why I believe that others should have the same free choice in these matters that I do.
What if what you want do negatively impacts someone else's freedom? How do you control that?
This is all the rules are trying to achieve, I want the freedom to run red lights, should I be allowed t do that? Don't tread on me!
You believe that other people's freedoms should be restricted so that society conforms to your preferences, and that is both illiberal and selfish.
Nope. I believe individual freedom have to be restricted in the common interest eg Just like why traffic lights exist. you freedom to drive how you feel like is restricted for the benefit of everyone.
Yes, it does. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Righto, well every time you stop at a red light you have just given up all rights to freedom and saftey.
You know, I spent part of my childhood in a socialist country, and I'm afraid you are totally naive.
Oh so now it's making sense. You were born in a soviet controlled country and now associate Hillary with Stalin.
I have many friends from the former Eastern Bloc so assure you I am familiar with the story.
And I believe that the very idea that society should have "standards of legal partnerships" is wrong. Who I love or cohabitate with is none of your or society's business, and shouldn't be subjected to social "standards". You have already accepted a view of government in which it is the responsibility of the state to bind individuals together into a society, you are simply quibbling over the details of the policies that such a state adopts.
Oh dear, the state doesn't bind people into a society, society elects an administration to set some ground rules for the greater good. And it actually turns out that the concept of marriage creates a greater good to society.
The particular "scientific" justifications used to deprive people of their liberties change every few years. A century ago, it was scientific racism, these days, it's other pseudo-science.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Racism was never scientific, the racists tried to validate their view with science and science proved them wrong. It's one of the great things about science, it doesn't give a fuck what you believe.
Pseudo science isn't progressive, since it contributes nothing to human progress. You are just making stuff up now.
Progressive policies improve some lives at the expense of harming others and interfering with civil liberties. And the fact that progressives accept those tradeoffs is at the heart of what's wrong with progressivism as a political movement.
But you yourself accept these too. Everyone does. This is what is wrong with the "don't tread on me" logic, the hypocrisy.
Every society needs rules that limit what others can do, it is the only way a society can function. Do you have any examples of a society that has no rules?
What any minority group should be well aware of is that they are at grave risk of being declared the minority that needs to be sterilized, expropriated, and/or silenced "for the common good", as progressive have historically done that to liberals, to the disabled, to homosexuals, to blacks, to Jews, and to many other minority groups. Being temporarily favored by progressives isn't worth the serious downsides.
Dude you have some issues there that won't be uncovered here.
I'm actually happy to lose a little efficiency for the sake of looking like a normal car.
What are we talking here 1%? 2%? 5% reduction in range? 400km serves me just as well as 426km, but looking stupid doesn't serve me at all.
Electric Vehicles are just playing a sly shell game with gas & particulate emission, shuffling it across town to the coal fired electric plant that's shoveling that juice into your wall charger.
This is a well worn myth as demonstrated by others here already.
It's a shame you wrote so much and I didn't read it because you lost me in the first paragraph...
The good thing is that old media doesn't really matter as much anymore. The average age of a newspaper reader is advancing nearly 5 years for every year of real time. That is huge, 5 years is a massive demographic who just downed their newspapers.
Because "newspapers" just turned into stupid gossip columns littered with click-bait. It was a race to the bottom and they're all winning.
But my personal life expectancy isn't determined by population averages.
So you only care about yourself? That's not very "Christian".
The fact that Americans have more freedom to overeat and engage in dangerous activities doesn't affect me
It does actually, you just don't realise it. That's why more people die from gun violence in the US than in every other comparable nation. That's what TFA is about, 1%ers who are complaining that homeless people are shitting on their streets. Those other people's freedom to shit anywhere is affecting them
True Freedom means greater risks from others exercising their freedom, which is why rules inevitably get created in even the simplest societies.
Even if you support the privatised/insurance model, every idiot injuring themselves raises your premium, so it affects you. It affects you under the pure capitalist model, it affects you under the socialist model. But the data tells us that it is likely to affect you slightly less overall under a socialist model.
Representative democracies were intended to address some of the problems with majoritarianism but are prone to corruption.
Human nature is prone to corruption, which is why independent oversight was invented. Even Richard Nixon knew that when he created the EPA.
To the small degree that the European model delivers on its promises, it does so by helping those below average by harming and limiting those above average and paying massive social and economic costs (cf. the massive youth unemployment). That's why people like me leave.
Germany has lowest unemployment rate of just about anywhere on earth.
US unemployment has halved since the "progressive left" took power.
You can't cherry pick numbers to suit your argument.
There is nothing wrong with progressive attitudes. There is everything wrong with progressive politics.
We're going around in circles now. Politics is just a representation of attitude. eg If I think two people should be allowed to demonstrate their love for each other by society's standard of legal partnership, I will support a political party that share's that view.
Because people in the 19th century were racist, you refuse to support any political movement that existed in the 19th century? It all sounds a bit ridiculous.
So now you've moved back from bashing "Fox News" to "the news".
Give up. you sound ridiculous now.
A simple search will show a great number of sources. But you want to bury your head in the sand, and pretend nothing is going on that isn't happening to you personally.
Burden, proof, claimant. Let me know when you graduate high school.
And of course your comment that Bernie and Hillary are "less authoritarian than the other guys" SO, when did you stop beating your wife? Would you prefer execution by firing squad, or by hanging?
What? Do you even know how to read?
Authoritarian is a political position, just like Libertarian, or Left or Right. I don't make these up, each candidate positions themselves on the political spectrum based on their policy choices.
Based on policy analysis, Bernie is the least Authoritarian candidate still remaining, followed by Hillary. while Trump and Cruz are the most Authoritarian.
Is this news to you?
So according to your logic, preventing a car theft is a bad thing,
No. And you might have to construct you argument a bit better, as this really makes no sense.
Numbers, party platforms, and laws, however, do tell the full story: government is in bed with Christian churches in much of Europe. You have to be utterly blind not to see that.
Got any specifics? I'm well aware of the historical connection of the church to everywhere, but my point was even if the Queen of England was fucking the Pope, more people will still vote for an Atheist leader in Europe than the US. And they don't force their religion onto their currency.
You asked for good places to live in the US and were concerned about religion being "public policy". And I responded that religion is much less "public policy" in the US than in Europe, and that even when Americans are religious, they tend to be quite tolerant.
In some places. The US is a vast nation so it varies from place to place.
You want to talk about Christianity in politics? Note that even on gay marriage, Germany (one of the more "progressive" European countries on gay rights) has always been behind the US.
Nice. You chose Germany because it is the one country that is behind the US, but ignored the other dozen that are in front?
Well, as a gay man, I'm glad I emigrated from the "sophisticated and progressive" European culture to the "barbaric" American culture.
I'm glad you are happy, but that doesn't mean that progressive (not 19th century US progressive) policies don't improve lives.
Any minority group should be well aware of the that.
I don't know that you understand the meaning of the word "lose". The only recent war that America lost was Vietnam, and that was down to political issues, not issues with the military.
So you consider Iraq and Afghanistan a victory? Really?
The biggest strategic blunder in modern history and you call that a win? Fucking hell, what's in the water over there?
Iraq was won in a matter of a week, Afghanistan took longer, but seems to have achieved its goals. ISIS is a failure of the Iraqi army, and their president for choosing to fall on his sword rather than accept help from the US.
Oh ok then....
You claimed that my statement that progressivism favored segregation and eugenics was "loony". I recalled the history for you.
Not my history. But in any case, segregation was human history, so everyone thought like that at one point. So it doesn't really carry any weight in this context.
That is absolutely false: many people strongly opposed progressive policies at the time. Their objection wasn't to the scientific conclusions, their objection was to the idea that majorities have the right to interfere in the private lives of people for the public's benefit. You obviously still haven't learned from those mistakes.
The idea that the majority rule is called a democracy. What you are arguing against is not progressiveness, it the democratic model.
If you have a better alternative, I'm all ears.
You say that as if "forward" were something a large number of people agree on.
"Most people" because that the definition of how a democratic system works.
From your other postings, I would say that it is you who is trying to keep people back and whose idea of "progress" is some stagnant European middle class hell.
If hell means longer life expectancy, greater access to health and education, lower corruption, and greater social mobility then I guess so. Do you not want these things? Or do you prefer a heaven where homeless people litter the streets, shitting and pissing everywhere, and you have the highest risk of a violent death than most other developed countries?
What metrics do you use when coming up with such things?
I was born in one of those countries and have lived in several of them. Yes, I see the pattern, obviously, you don't.
Yet musn't have paid much attention.
And I'm not saying Europe is perfect and the US is terrible. There's good and bad in both, I just reject the notion that progressive attitudes have brought about all the world's evils, when clearly a lot of "progressive" nations are doing quite well (as the measurable statistics demonstrate)
Your source so far has been "the news". When you learn to cite something more reliable than that, then we can discuss.
You've raised four points above, Rape Hysteria, Black Lives Matter, Free speech and LGBT, none of which are anything more than tabloid headlines.
There maybe be true stories behind those headlines, but without some sort of reliable reference it is simply that, a sensationalist headline designed to evoke an emotional response. And it has clearly worked on you.