Proponents of gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny seem not to have noticed that things have changed since then. Tyrants and their armies, today, need never place themselves in range of your bullets to win.
The world's most advanced army in the world still takes casulties from the wars it fights against third world militias and insurgents.
You seem to imagine it will do better against US citizens. Do you think it would use looser Rules of Engagement? That the full strength of the (volunteer) US army will finally be unleashed if pitted against US citizens?
You're thinking of a best case scenario for the wannabe tyrant, but no one who goes to war ignores the worst case scenarios. An armed and hostile populace is a worst case scenario for tyrants. It means a need for constant vigilance and security, with countless opportunities for tactical and PR mistakes. (Ooops! That schoolbus looked like a threat!)
I'm not saying it makes it impossible for tyranny to happen - but it forces them to work much harder for it.
And thus, firearm ownership no longer is justified by the second amendment. Owners don't constitute a well-armed militia and don't contribute to the security of the state.
Is that why the areas in the US with the strictest gun control have the highest violent crime? Are you suggesting that violent crime is a contribution to state security?
You have a funny idea of the relationship between the US federal gov't and the Constitution. Firearm ownership is an unalienable right of free men, and it was never justified by the second amendment. Rather, the second amendment is a recognition of man's natural rights and a protection against wannabe gun grabbers like yourself.
By your logic, you have no right to free speech unless you can justify it as beneficial to the state. Your sentiments, if long indulged, mean the end of this democratic republic and will end in its transformation into some "liberal" totalitarian state, where your rights exist only if the state allows it.
... Unless there is an advantage in ability on the side of the victim, the attacker always has the upper hand.
"Therefore, we need to disarm all potential victims of criminals."
Sounds awfully stupid when you link those
statements together, doesn't it?
Arguing that criminals will always have the advantage is performing your own fantastical thinking. Criminals are generally not the best and brightest best of society. They target the weak and helpless. When the weak and helpless turn out not to be weak and helpless, that is an effective deterrent.
The point of gun rights is that the "victim" should not be restricted from having a fighting chance. Those who argue for gun control desire helpless victims.
I hope you can detect my sarcasm when I say how well I sleep at night knowing that YOU are out there protecting me from tyranny with your gun. First, you can't do it. Governments have bigger weapons than you. Second, nobody wants you to do it. Indeed, lots of us live in fear that you'll decide that now's the time and start shooting up people.
Have you not noticed you live in the United States of America, as opposed to the American colony of Britain?
I'm glad you've focused on the important point of smug mockery, rather than looking at the complete ineffectiveness of your emotion-based "solution".
You did not understand my correctly. Did you miss the point about sanctioning BOTH sides? Not supplying steel to british would have crippled them a fair bit. Same with not supplying oil to the Japan. To sit out the war, this is what US should have ideally done. Ceased trade with BOTH sides straight off. There would have been considerable less carnage with both sides fairly crippled. And you nailed it. Roosevelt wanted a war that US public did not. So hell bent he was on getting his way, that he did everything possible to initiate one anyways. I will remind you btw, that currently US considers economic warfare exactly same as actual terrorist acts/acts of war. Have you taken a a look at the US laws lately?
So what Asian countries was the US trading with while denying trade to Japan?
Why should Japanese actions force the US to cease mutually beneficial trade with the invaded countries? If Japan gets to unilaterally determine US economic policies, then Japan is involving the US by harming it economically. This undermines your point that the US was inserting itself into conflict.
Aggressive invading country? Was Japan invading USA right then? Or if it is some "fair and justice" principle you are supporting, why then ally with Britain first place which had been invading countries left and right before? We may argue till kingdom come, of the consequences of ceasing trade with both sides. But the key thing to remember is that by actively taking sides, you are entering the fight anyways. So you were NOT sitting it out. I am not debating whether or not Japan needed to be stopped or whether US was wrong or right in entering the war....
Japan was an aggressive invading country because it invaded China to claim its resources. You ought to know as well as I do that the US was acting in response to that. The US response was aimed at discouraging further aggression WITHOUT getting into a shooting war. Japan decided its best response was to start a shooting war with the US. They gained a tactical victory but committed an enormous strategic blunder.
Bringing up Britain is a red herring, since Britain and Japan were not in a state of war at that time. If you want to criticize the US' support of Britain during its conflict with Germany, you should do so, and spend less time bringing up Japan.
It is the excuse of "we were minding our own business even though we were trying our best to ensure that British won" that I am objecting to.
The US trade embargo of Japan had nothing to do with ensuring that "Britain wins".
The lack of trade between US-Germany during WWII also has a little something to do with the British Navy controlling the body of water in between them. German merchant ships attempting to trade with the US were captured or sunk by the British Navy. That's what happens when one starts a war against an opponent with a superior navy. Can't blame the US for the German inability to protect its own merchant fleet against Britain.
I'll grant that FDR wasn't following the spirit of Neutrality, but he did follow the letter of the law. It was up to Germany to decide if it it was satisfied with that state of things or not. For the majority of WWII, it was.
Your definition of sitting it out(while waging full blown economic warfare) is pretty different from rest of the world. I am not commenting on whether Japan needed to be stopped and how evil they were, and how they were killing babies and barbequing them and eating them raw even etc. etc. But Roosevelt was NOT sitting this one out.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, for the US to sit out WWII, it must continue trade with Imperial Japan, aiding its conquest of Asia by providing it with the war resources it needs? And how is that "sitting it out"?
Ceasing trade to an aggressive invading country is probably the most neutral action available. The US was taking sides in WWII, but they were actions short of full blown war because a significant part of the population didn't want to be an active participant.
Japan chose to make the mistake of removing that restraint with Pearl Harbor. That the US ended up in the war anyways is because of the philosophy of her opponents.
Personally, I think there's a noticeable difference between what you call "full blown economic warfare" and the "total war" that burned or annihilated all of Japan's major cities. That Japan chose the latter is a failure of her WWII leadership.
Oh but MODERN China would revolt... why? Old China didn't. People don't revolt when they are hungry, ESPECIALLY when they can see the hunger is happening to THEM, not US. Check history, it is when people have full bellies, that they revolt. Oh, when the revolution has started rolling, the hungry might join in, or be forced to join but it NEVER starts with the hungry. Anyway, all you need is to feed the soldiers and their immediate family. Kill some hungry grumblers and your family eats. It works very well.
Modern China might be more willing to revolt due to access to communications technology that can bypass the state censors.
Hunger is destabilizing, and brutal suppression triggers foreign diplomacy reaction. "Made in China" suddenly becomes a lot less attractive if it's from a country that murders and starves its citizens on a massive scale. The benefit of the US-China trade goes both ways, and giving up that benefits will make China a poorer (and less stable) country.
1. Poverty is a measure of wealth, not resources. Resources are a part of creating wealth, but it is not the only input. (ex: software products)
2. People are resources. More people is more resources. More people is more minds to innovate and create. More people is more labor.
I don't know that China will live up to the predictions, but that equation you're putting up isn't as "Fail" as you think. (less resources per person is also not necessarily less total resources)
... For example, ditching TSA would be both a liberal thing to do, and a conservative thing to do. Reinstating sodomy laws would be conservative but not liberal. Legalizing weed would be liberal but not conservative. And so on.
Depends on your reference point.
Conserving the status quo is conservative. It's respecting tradition and the way things people decided to do it in the past. Opposite stances on the same issue may be trying to conserve different things - both positions are conservative, but in different ways.
Take abolishing the TSA, for example - trying to keep it is conserving the status quo, but trying to abolish it is also a form of conserving the (previous) status quo. (I prefer the latter, as it also respects liberty and reduces gov't expenses for marginal benefits)
Republicans have always been the less racist of the two parties. Democrats segregated the South by creating and passing the Jim Crow. The Democratic "progressive" president Woodrow Wilson pushed federal segregation.
Desegregation was a bi-partisan act, though Democrats have since been hard at work at creating new racial divisions. (See Affirmative Action)
Yup - they were usually called "liberals" and "progressives", same as they are today. It just so happens that Republicans were a liberal/progressive party since pretty much forever (already during the Civil War), until they were turned around at the end of the Civil Rights era.
Liberal/conservative can be a bit subjective.
Republicans were "liberal" in opposing slavery, but they were also attempting to protect the principles of liberty in the Constitution, which is conservative. (liberty is eroded when a portion of the population are permanent slaves). Same action, but is both liberal and conservative.
Preserving the Union, as Lincoln fought for, was also a "conservative" stance.
So even from its very founding, the Republican party had conservative elements; modern conservatives are not some mutant ideological offspring.
Recall another Republican platform from the olden days: Anti-polygamy. Conservation of social traditions, AKA social conservatism.
That logic doesnt follow at all. You dont need to get married to have children, and one could easily conclude that it reduces the number of children because when you are married there are associated penalties for having a child with any other partner, even when the partner you have can't or wont participate.
You don't need to be married to have children, but statistically the children with two parents do a lot better than the ones who do not.
Being married tends to keep the two parents of a child together.
... with the notion being that "You'll get this back when you've learned your lesson".
Never giving it back would be an excellent lesson. Losing wars tend to result in things like territory loss. Giving invaders a "freebie" is a horrible idea.
You want a very tiny chance for any given missile to be a dud, because each failed shot represents people dying and valuable things getting destroyed.
Part of that means quality mil-spec components - but the most important part is inspection and testing. Having a team of qualified technicians and engineers examining each missile to say, "Yeah, it will work" is going to rack up costs very quickly.
The entire "public is less efficient than private" lie that had been repeated so often that everyone now believes it is just that. A lie. The reality is that private industry is far more efficient at corrupting and side stepping morality issues in the quest for a dollar. That *seems* like it's more efficient at first glance, but it actually incurs a giant negative externality that is not accounted for.
Soooo... would we be better off if we had everything run by public industry?
... For all I care, you can be as happy as you want.
Unless you decide to shoot me based on your metric.
What of the friend and families of everyone you decide to execute? It's unlikely that those sort of "bad" people make everyone in their lives miserable. They may be cherished parents or siblings or children- so their death will harm somebody's happiness. And since you're the executioner, you'd be "denying happiness" to their surviving kin.
To get to my actual point - I doubt you'll improve the world by killing off people on that metric.
Depends. In the example given, no they can't. Why? because they don't understand evolution.
No one is saying he is infallible, that is a strawman. stop it.
I am a creationist. I understand the claims of evolution and do not accept them. By Dawkin's claim, I am ignorant, when I have in fact done my homework. He is simply wrong, but you assert otherwise.
Calling them ignorant is giving them the benefit of doubt. The only other options are stupid, crazy, or malicious. Ignorant is by far the kindest way to describe creationists.
So... what is the problem, then?
Sow creationists with your kindness and reap their gratefulness.
Entropy in physical systems is that there is a limit of usable energy in a system. Useful energy does not miraculously pop into existence, but is always taken from another existing pool of useful energy. As the universe is a closed system, this tells us that there was a beginning to the universe when entropy was minimal, and that there will be an end to it when entropy is maximal.
Entropy in information systems is that similar in that there is a limit to useful information in a message. Useful information is not spontaneously generated by noise, but is destroyed by noise. DNA is a code that carries a "message" of genetic templates for a living organism. Random mutation is random noise added to that code. Expecting random mutation to improve an organism's genetic code is expecting random noise to generate something like Lord of the Rings.
You've asserted my understanding is wrong, but you have to show your work. How and why is that understanding is wrong?
Entropy ONLY applies to closed systems. Do you understand that?
If your statement meant anything, a car exposed to the elements (open system) would be expected to survive longer than a car stored in a vault (closed system).
Do you prefer to leave your car outside the garage because it'll be subject to less entropy that way? Even in an open system, entropy is acting on everything within the system. An open system still cannot have a perpetual motion machine, because that requires a loss of entropy; something that does not occur within open or closed systems.
But Dawkins did make a specific claim. He claimed that creationists are largely ignorant of evolution. Being an evolutionary biologist who has debated many creationists, he's better qualified than anyone to make that assertion.
His authority as an evolutionary biologist does not make him infallible. Can someone disagree with Dawkins without being ignorant?
Generalized claims against people are prone to overreach. "Slashdotters believe X", or even "Slashdotters generally believe X" are lazy statements with minimal evidence (did you poll everyone?). They "hit" a large number of people, while also being conveniently difficult to disprove. Better is, "This claim X Is faulty because..." Stick to the ideas and unlink from the personal. After all, your ideas are correct, right? You'll win the intellectual debate without personal attacks, no?
If I claim that anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, that's a pretty big claim that I had better be able to back up.
If not, then not only do I look like a jerk, *I* become the ignorant one. (falsely claiming to lack ignorance).
How about, "You're ignorant of evolution, so let's take some of our time and go over the basics."?
If you can show the ignorance first, it's not insulting. (In which case you don't need to call them ignorant, either. Show not tell.)
But what if the opponent is not ignorant of the basics? Then you've made a false claim about his ignorance, and shot your credibility to him right off the bat.
Put another way, give others the benefit of doubt. I know I'm not that good at reading minds - so listen and understand before judging another person's "ignorance". Leave open the possibility of your own ignorance - because it's better to be a fool and stay silent, rather than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Furthermore, most of the insults attack the personal and have little to do with instruction. Contrast:
"You're wrong (on claim X) because this assumption you're working with is incorrect or unjustified".
"You're ignorant" (As a general statement, insulting. For a specific claim, NOT insulting ONLY if you prove the ignorance; but if you can prove the ignorance, you don't need to say this)
"You're stupid" (Are you sure you know enough about this person to say this?)
"You're brainwashed" (See above)
"You're delusional" (If true, why are you wasting your time?)
Basically, all of those insulting terms are generalizations that are going to be inaccurate. It's like saying Slashdot is a bunch of overweight anti-social nerds, and then using that to dismiss anything a Slashdotter says. Even if generally true, it has yet to be proven for any specific individual when you first talk to them.
There is a place for insults in communication in jest and in public debate. But in a 1 to 1 dialogue, insults communicate one thing: "You're not worth my time to correct." If they're not worth your time, why be surprised they feel you're not worth their time, either? If they're really not worth your time, why do you care if you come across as insulting?
Slashdot Mirror
Proponents of gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny seem not to have noticed that things have changed since then. Tyrants and their armies, today, need never place themselves in range of your bullets to win.
The world's most advanced army in the world still takes casulties from the wars it fights against third world militias and insurgents.
You seem to imagine it will do better against US citizens. Do you think it would use looser Rules of Engagement? That the full strength of the (volunteer) US army will finally be unleashed if pitted against US citizens?
You're thinking of a best case scenario for the wannabe tyrant, but no one who goes to war ignores the worst case scenarios. An armed and hostile populace is a worst case scenario for tyrants. It means a need for constant vigilance and security, with countless opportunities for tactical and PR mistakes. (Ooops! That schoolbus looked like a threat!)
I'm not saying it makes it impossible for tyranny to happen - but it forces them to work much harder for it.
And thus, firearm ownership no longer is justified by the second amendment. Owners don't constitute a well-armed militia and don't contribute to the security of the state.
Is that why the areas in the US with the strictest gun control have the highest violent crime? Are you suggesting that violent crime is a contribution to state security?
You have a funny idea of the relationship between the US federal gov't and the Constitution. Firearm ownership is an unalienable right of free men, and it was never justified by the second amendment. Rather, the second amendment is a recognition of man's natural rights and a protection against wannabe gun grabbers like yourself.
By your logic, you have no right to free speech unless you can justify it as beneficial to the state. Your sentiments, if long indulged, mean the end of this democratic republic and will end in its transformation into some "liberal" totalitarian state, where your rights exist only if the state allows it.
... Unless there is an advantage in ability on the side of the victim, the attacker always has the upper hand.
"Therefore, we need to disarm all potential victims of criminals."
Sounds awfully stupid when you link those statements together, doesn't it?
Arguing that criminals will always have the advantage is performing your own fantastical thinking. Criminals are generally not the best and brightest best of society. They target the weak and helpless. When the weak and helpless turn out not to be weak and helpless, that is an effective deterrent.
The point of gun rights is that the "victim" should not be restricted from having a fighting chance. Those who argue for gun control desire helpless victims.
I hope you can detect my sarcasm when I say how well I sleep at night knowing that YOU are out there protecting me from tyranny with your gun. First, you can't do it. Governments have bigger weapons than you. Second, nobody wants you to do it. Indeed, lots of us live in fear that you'll decide that now's the time and start shooting up people.
Have you not noticed you live in the United States of America, as opposed to the American colony of Britain?
I'm glad you've focused on the important point of smug mockery, rather than looking at the complete ineffectiveness of your emotion-based "solution".
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/
Two can play the emotion game. Why does your fear of fellow Americans demand that she be helpless in her situation?
More importantly, why aren't you asking for a law banning mass murder or crime? Wouldn't that be even better than a law banning guns?
That's the problem with people - complete lack of empathy.
Where's your empathy for people who successfully defend themselves from harm using guns?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/
A gun ban renders them helpless. What do you think a home intruder is going to do to a 12 year old girl who can't defend herself?
In much smaller numbers.
So to reduce the impact of a few loonies, you would disarm everyone.
Are you aware that guns can also be used for self-defense?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/
Why should this 12 year old girl be left helpless against a home intruder?
Our country makes it too easy for nutcases to have guns. I, for one, would give up the right to bear arms for everyone, and not miss it.
You would disarm every law abiding citizen, open the way for tyranny, and still fail to prevent nutcases from using guns to murder people.
Prohibition didn't prevent alcohol from being consumed. Why do you think a gun ban would prevent criminals from using guns in crime?
You did not understand my correctly. Did you miss the point about sanctioning BOTH sides? Not supplying steel to british would have crippled them a fair bit. Same with not supplying oil to the Japan. To sit out the war, this is what US should have ideally done. Ceased trade with BOTH sides straight off. There would have been considerable less carnage with both sides fairly crippled. And you nailed it. Roosevelt wanted a war that US public did not. So hell bent he was on getting his way, that he did everything possible to initiate one anyways. I will remind you btw, that currently US considers economic warfare exactly same as actual terrorist acts/acts of war. Have you taken a a look at the US laws lately?
So what Asian countries was the US trading with while denying trade to Japan?
Why should Japanese actions force the US to cease mutually beneficial trade with the invaded countries? If Japan gets to unilaterally determine US economic policies, then Japan is involving the US by harming it economically. This undermines your point that the US was inserting itself into conflict.
Aggressive invading country? Was Japan invading USA right then? Or if it is some "fair and justice" principle you are supporting, why then ally with Britain first place which had been invading countries left and right before? We may argue till kingdom come, of the consequences of ceasing trade with both sides. But the key thing to remember is that by actively taking sides, you are entering the fight anyways. So you were NOT sitting it out. I am not debating whether or not Japan needed to be stopped or whether US was wrong or right in entering the war. ...
Japan was an aggressive invading country because it invaded China to claim its resources. You ought to know as well as I do that the US was acting in response to that. The US response was aimed at discouraging further aggression WITHOUT getting into a shooting war. Japan decided its best response was to start a shooting war with the US. They gained a tactical victory but committed an enormous strategic blunder.
Bringing up Britain is a red herring, since Britain and Japan were not in a state of war at that time. If you want to criticize the US' support of Britain during its conflict with Germany, you should do so, and spend less time bringing up Japan.
It is the excuse of "we were minding our own business even though we were trying our best to ensure that British won" that I am objecting to.
The US trade embargo of Japan had nothing to do with ensuring that "Britain wins".
The lack of trade between US-Germany during WWII also has a little something to do with the British Navy controlling the body of water in between them. German merchant ships attempting to trade with the US were captured or sunk by the British Navy. That's what happens when one starts a war against an opponent with a superior navy. Can't blame the US for the German inability to protect its own merchant fleet against Britain.
I'll grant that FDR wasn't following the spirit of Neutrality, but he did follow the letter of the law. It was up to Germany to decide if it it was satisfied with that state of things or not. For the majority of WWII, it was.
Your definition of sitting it out(while waging full blown economic warfare) is pretty different from rest of the world. I am not commenting on whether Japan needed to be stopped and how evil they were, and how they were killing babies and barbequing them and eating them raw even etc. etc. But Roosevelt was NOT sitting this one out.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, for the US to sit out WWII, it must continue trade with Imperial Japan, aiding its conquest of Asia by providing it with the war resources it needs? And how is that "sitting it out"?
Ceasing trade to an aggressive invading country is probably the most neutral action available. The US was taking sides in WWII, but they were actions short of full blown war because a significant part of the population didn't want to be an active participant.
Japan chose to make the mistake of removing that restraint with Pearl Harbor. That the US ended up in the war anyways is because of the philosophy of her opponents.
Personally, I think there's a noticeable difference between what you call "full blown economic warfare" and the "total war" that burned or annihilated all of Japan's major cities. That Japan chose the latter is a failure of her WWII leadership.
Oh but MODERN China would revolt... why? Old China didn't. People don't revolt when they are hungry, ESPECIALLY when they can see the hunger is happening to THEM, not US. Check history, it is when people have full bellies, that they revolt. Oh, when the revolution has started rolling, the hungry might join in, or be forced to join but it NEVER starts with the hungry. Anyway, all you need is to feed the soldiers and their immediate family. Kill some hungry grumblers and your family eats. It works very well.
Modern China might be more willing to revolt due to access to communications technology that can bypass the state censors.
Hunger is destabilizing, and brutal suppression triggers foreign diplomacy reaction. "Made in China" suddenly becomes a lot less attractive if it's from a country that murders and starves its citizens on a massive scale. The benefit of the US-China trade goes both ways, and giving up that benefits will make China a poorer (and less stable) country.
More people + less resources = less poverty
Fail.
1. Poverty is a measure of wealth, not resources. Resources are a part of creating wealth, but it is not the only input. (ex: software products)
2. People are resources. More people is more resources. More people is more minds to innovate and create. More people is more labor.
I don't know that China will live up to the predictions, but that equation you're putting up isn't as "Fail" as you think. (less resources per person is also not necessarily less total resources)
Depends on your reference point.
Conserving the status quo is conservative. It's respecting tradition and the way things people decided to do it in the past. Opposite stances on the same issue may be trying to conserve different things - both positions are conservative, but in different ways.
Take abolishing the TSA, for example - trying to keep it is conserving the status quo, but trying to abolish it is also a form of conserving the (previous) status quo. (I prefer the latter, as it also respects liberty and reduces gov't expenses for marginal benefits)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Look at the voting by party:
Democratic Party: 152 - 96 (61- 39%)
Republican Party: 138 - 34 (80 - 20%)
Republicans have always been the less racist of the two parties. Democrats segregated the South by creating and passing the Jim Crow. The Democratic "progressive" president Woodrow Wilson pushed federal segregation.
Desegregation was a bi-partisan act, though Democrats have since been hard at work at creating new racial divisions. (See Affirmative Action)
Yup - they were usually called "liberals" and "progressives", same as they are today. It just so happens that Republicans were a liberal/progressive party since pretty much forever (already during the Civil War), until they were turned around at the end of the Civil Rights era.
Liberal/conservative can be a bit subjective.
Republicans were "liberal" in opposing slavery, but they were also attempting to protect the principles of liberty in the Constitution, which is conservative. (liberty is eroded when a portion of the population are permanent slaves). Same action, but is both liberal and conservative.
Preserving the Union, as Lincoln fought for, was also a "conservative" stance.
So even from its very founding, the Republican party had conservative elements; modern conservatives are not some mutant ideological offspring.
Recall another Republican platform from the olden days: Anti-polygamy. Conservation of social traditions, AKA social conservatism.
That logic doesnt follow at all. You dont need to get married to have children, and one could easily conclude that it reduces the number of children because when you are married there are associated penalties for having a child with any other partner, even when the partner you have can't or wont participate.
You don't need to be married to have children, but statistically the children with two parents do a lot better than the ones who do not.
Being married tends to keep the two parents of a child together.
... with the notion being that "You'll get this back when you've learned your lesson".
Never giving it back would be an excellent lesson. Losing wars tend to result in things like territory loss. Giving invaders a "freebie" is a horrible idea.
I suspect a large portion of the cost is labor.
You want a very tiny chance for any given missile to be a dud, because each failed shot represents people dying and valuable things getting destroyed.
Part of that means quality mil-spec components - but the most important part is inspection and testing. Having a team of qualified technicians and engineers examining each missile to say, "Yeah, it will work" is going to rack up costs very quickly.
The entire "public is less efficient than private" lie that had been repeated so often that everyone now believes it is just that. A lie. The reality is that private industry is far more efficient at corrupting and side stepping morality issues in the quest for a dollar. That *seems* like it's more efficient at first glance, but it actually incurs a giant negative externality that is not accounted for.
Soooo ... would we be better off if we had everything run by public industry?
Unless you decide to shoot me based on your metric.
What of the friend and families of everyone you decide to execute? It's unlikely that those sort of "bad" people make everyone in their lives miserable. They may be cherished parents or siblings or children- so their death will harm somebody's happiness. And since you're the executioner, you'd be "denying happiness" to their surviving kin.
To get to my actual point - I doubt you'll improve the world by killing off people on that metric.
Do you want to know what I think about people who deny others happiness? They should be taken out back and shot. Twice. Right now.
Your bloodthirstiness makes me unhappy.
Now what?
Depends. In the example given, no they can't. Why? because they don't understand evolution. No one is saying he is infallible, that is a strawman. stop it.
I am a creationist. I understand the claims of evolution and do not accept them. By Dawkin's claim, I am ignorant, when I have in fact done my homework. He is simply wrong, but you assert otherwise.
Come, show me my ignorance.
Calling them ignorant is giving them the benefit of doubt. The only other options are stupid, crazy, or malicious. Ignorant is by far the kindest way to describe creationists.
So ... what is the problem, then?
Sow creationists with your kindness and reap their gratefulness.
"Entropy works with information " not really,. but you probably wouldn't understand why, so lets move on to your larger mistaken point.
Funny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
Entropy in physical systems is that there is a limit of usable energy in a system. Useful energy does not miraculously pop into existence, but is always taken from another existing pool of useful energy. As the universe is a closed system, this tells us that there was a beginning to the universe when entropy was minimal, and that there will be an end to it when entropy is maximal.
Entropy in information systems is that similar in that there is a limit to useful information in a message. Useful information is not spontaneously generated by noise, but is destroyed by noise. DNA is a code that carries a "message" of genetic templates for a living organism. Random mutation is random noise added to that code. Expecting random mutation to improve an organism's genetic code is expecting random noise to generate something like Lord of the Rings.
You've asserted my understanding is wrong, but you have to show your work. How and why is that understanding is wrong?
Entropy ONLY applies to closed systems. Do you understand that?
If your statement meant anything, a car exposed to the elements (open system) would be expected to survive longer than a car stored in a vault (closed system).
Do you prefer to leave your car outside the garage because it'll be subject to less entropy that way? Even in an open system, entropy is acting on everything within the system. An open system still cannot have a perpetual motion machine, because that requires a loss of entropy; something that does not occur within open or closed systems.
But Dawkins did make a specific claim. He claimed that creationists are largely ignorant of evolution. Being an evolutionary biologist who has debated many creationists, he's better qualified than anyone to make that assertion.
His authority as an evolutionary biologist does not make him infallible. Can someone disagree with Dawkins without being ignorant?
Generalized claims against people are prone to overreach. "Slashdotters believe X", or even "Slashdotters generally believe X" are lazy statements with minimal evidence (did you poll everyone?). They "hit" a large number of people, while also being conveniently difficult to disprove. Better is, "This claim X Is faulty because ..." Stick to the ideas and unlink from the personal. After all, your ideas are correct, right? You'll win the intellectual debate without personal attacks, no?
If I claim that anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, that's a pretty big claim that I had better be able to back up.
If not, then not only do I look like a jerk, *I* become the ignorant one. (falsely claiming to lack ignorance).
How about, "You're ignorant of evolution, so let's take some of our time and go over the basics."?
If you can show the ignorance first, it's not insulting. (In which case you don't need to call them ignorant, either. Show not tell.)
But what if the opponent is not ignorant of the basics? Then you've made a false claim about his ignorance, and shot your credibility to him right off the bat.
Put another way, give others the benefit of doubt. I know I'm not that good at reading minds - so listen and understand before judging another person's "ignorance". Leave open the possibility of your own ignorance - because it's better to be a fool and stay silent, rather than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Ever heard of "tact"?
Furthermore, most of the insults attack the personal and have little to do with instruction. Contrast:
"You're wrong (on claim X) because this assumption you're working with is incorrect or unjustified".
"You're ignorant" (As a general statement, insulting. For a specific claim, NOT insulting ONLY if you prove the ignorance; but if you can prove the ignorance, you don't need to say this)
"You're stupid" (Are you sure you know enough about this person to say this?)
"You're brainwashed" (See above)
"You're delusional" (If true, why are you wasting your time?)
Basically, all of those insulting terms are generalizations that are going to be inaccurate. It's like saying Slashdot is a bunch of overweight anti-social nerds, and then using that to dismiss anything a Slashdotter says. Even if generally true, it has yet to be proven for any specific individual when you first talk to them.
There is a place for insults in communication in jest and in public debate. But in a 1 to 1 dialogue, insults communicate one thing: "You're not worth my time to correct." If they're not worth your time, why be surprised they feel you're not worth their time, either? If they're really not worth your time, why do you care if you come across as insulting?
Funny that you have to believe, "In the past, a simple life-form evolved into modern man" in order to practice biology.
How is that belief necessary to understanding DNA, genes, or organic chemistry?