Here's the thought process... (assuming your we're more than a bag of chemicals conjecture)
1) Our actions are not just the process of a series of chemical reactions (ie. in our brain)
2) Our actions and thoughts are controlled by some meta-physical entity (ie. a soul)
3) Alcohol affects our thoughts and actions
Therefore, either:
a) Alcohol affects our soul, therefore our soul gets drunk, but is still responsible for our thoughts and actions
b) Alcohol does not affect our soul, therefore our soul does not affect our thoughts and actions
Anyway... just something to think about. From your lack of response... can I assume that you now accept that "Creationism" is just as sensical and valid an explanation of the state of the world as "The Matrix" (In terms of testability at least).
but it does make claims about what the world is like, and I believe that its claims fit reality
So would saying "The world is really an illusion created by robots who have enslaved us (a la the Matrix)". Remember, I can invent any story to explain how things are... but it it isn't testable or falsafiable then it is not science!
You think that evolution is the true explanation of why we are here, but why do you care if I believe something which you think is false?
You are making 2 common mistakes:
1) assuming people who believe in evolution do not believe in God
2) Believing the absence of God implies the absence of morals. It is entirely possible to believe in objective morality.. where morality (just like mathematics) can be discovered through the application of reason
The reason for your pursuit of these things is that you are made in the image of God,
Or, because curiosity gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage by allowing us to gather knowledge and manipulate our environment.
One last thing..
Basing a scientific theory on predictions seems like sketchy reasoning.
This is most certainly not 'sketchy reasoning' and only serves to bolster my argument by showing your ignorance about the scientific process. Very often in science a theory is tested by saying something like this: "If the theory of relativity is true, we should expect to see light bend around gravitational objects". Then we make observations. If our observations match our expectations then it bolsters the theory
Keep in mind, in my previous examples, as well as in all of science the theory is just a model. It might very well be that the reason we see light bend around gravity is due to God, magic, or pixie dust and it just so happens that the theory of relativity lines up with this magic. The model we use to describe what we repeatedly see is called a scientific theory
Now, as a follow-up question (that I sincerely hope you answer). If we are not a 'bag of chemicals' and have a soul... what happens to our soul when we get drunk? If our thoughts and actions are effected by alcohol, then how is our soul affected? If it is not affected, then our soul is not responsible for our thoughts and actions (as these are affected by alcohol) or our soul is responsible for our thoughts and actions.. and therefore our soul can be drunk.
you (and most evolutionists) have a very closed mind at the/possibility/ of a supreme being.
Please point out where this was stated or implied in my parent post
consider: it takes more of an open mind to believe in a supreme being than it does to believe in some that is immdediately replicable.
Incorrect, it takes faith 'open mind' is not the correct term there.
i believe that God is bound by the true laws of science
Circular logic alert: who created those laws? God? Is God all-powerful if he's bound? If he is all powerful then does he have the power to create a law that binds him?
The point of my, and many other posts is that faith and God are not part of the equation of science. God may very well be powering every electrical device... but the model we use to predict how they'll behave is the theory of electricity. Tomorrow God could decide not to power these devices, breaking with our theory.... But we can't base theories on that possibility. We have to build models based on our observations and tests.
1) There is no observation of the formation of the human race... but evolution can make predictions. Basically evolution can say "If evolution occurred, we should expect to see X" X being transitionary states, vestigial organs, and close genetic relations. When we see these things, it lends credence to this theory.
What can creationism make predictions about? How can it be tested?
2) We can see evolutionary processes in other species... so why would it be happening for them, but not humans for some reason?
Congratulations.... you just wrote a very long post to make it perfectly clear you have confused "evolution" with the formation of life.
Technically, evolution doesn't care about the formation of life... it could be though random collision of primordial molecules, or through a protein laced meteorite... who cares? Evolution is only concerned with the continual changes of life after is has formed. It makes hypothesis about this continual change, makes predictions about future observations, and is testable. Creationism meets none of these standards.
Creationism is not falsafiable, because it fundamentally rests on faith. All arguments that are placed forth for Creationism can be used for this theory:
5 Minutes ago, God created the entire world. He created all molecules, and arranged them as he saw fit. He arranged all molecules and cells so that people were made with memories of the past.
Complete these sentences... here I'll help and do the first one (this is how science works)
If "The Big Bang" occurred we should observe X (X is background radiation)
Now we go see whether X is observed. If yes, add X to data pool. If no, create testable theory given new larger data pool.... repeat
Your turn
If "Creation" occured, we should observe X....
What is X that allows the testing and predictive ability of creationism
P.S. I'm actually serious, what is X? (ok, there was a little sarcasm there too, but please reply)
How is this "creationist"? Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as with all scientific theories, should be presented as such.
You realize "Electricity" is a theory right? The reason this was thrown out, was because it was a deliberate attempt to confuse school children by muddying the difference between the common usage of the word theory (aka. hunch) and the scientific:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?
In fact, no... but the basic tenant of science is to keep an open mind so why stress this about evolution? Also, as I stated, this was not designed to open students minds but merely to confuse them.
For them it's "Is this infraction worth the risk of a fine?", whereas for actual living, breathing people, the deterrent is "Is this infraction worth the risk of several years of prison?"
Don't people do this as well? What you don't speed? Corporations are different entities as you suggest (although their leaders can be put in prison). Since they are different entities different but equivalent punishments are developed (fines, not being allowed to do business, etc)
In the parent post, you did not adress copyright in anyway whatsoever, please try again. You did rant against DRM, and esoteric distinctions about what a 'CD' is (hint, what is a 'kleenex').
Show me the part in the DMCA that says an author can override access controls in a medium if they want their users to not face access controls. Or where an author can authorize a customer to break the encryption on his/her book so that they can distribute it for free if the author chooses to.
That is entirely asinine, and incorrect. Presumably if an author wanted these things, they would not put them in. The DMCA does not force creators to encrypt their works. I can very well buy a Mac and open iDVD and create any free DVD I want. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... why would an author encrypt a book they want distributed for free. It is illogical arguments like these that cause 'Joe Public' to think we are just a bunch of tinfoil hat nerds. There are good arguments against the DMCA, but saying it restricts authors who want to give out their work is not one of them. (Please note, I am not arguing that it does not restrict the rights of end users, it does. I am just pointing out how silly your argument was)
No, copyright has since been perverted to protect the publisher. This is why the ??AA have been working so hard to both protect their own interests and to snuff out any individualism in their markets. If enough content creators discovered they could self-publish, copyright laws would return to providing control to the creator, and the publishers don't want that to happen.
Copyright has, and remains, something designed to protect the owner of a work (bear in mind, there are many different rights to a work one can own). Sorry to confuse you by not using your preferred author/publisher nomenclature. The xxAA have been working so hard to protect their rights because they realize most people buy their stuff. Many content creators have already discovered that they can self publish... just no one buys them (or not enough at least). You could easily argue that Eminem or Britney spears could leave their publishers and put up a web site and make more money. This could be so... except that they aren't really about music. They are entertainers, they are a brand, a lifestyle... pure marketing. The xxAA is what produces this, and they'd be nothing without it
The GPL is about the abscence of control that the original author has over what happens to his released work
Entirely incorrect. The GPL is still about an author's control of a piece of work insomuch as the author stipulates that his work falls under the GPL and is beholden to the rules stated therein. You've missed the point of the parent's post entirely, that both the GPL and the xxAA are 'entities' that function solely due to copyright so we can not selectively decide copyright is bad in some cases and good in others, just because it benefits us. If the GPL were truly about 'abscence' of control, then I could literally due anything I wanted with the code, including not releasing it. The GPL is not a law, it is only given force through copyrights, which are laws that allow the author to choose how his work is distributed
Actually... the correct term is uneducated. America is not a democracy, and was specifically designed not to be. A true democracy is mob rule, in America we have checks and balances against group abuses of individual rights. Whether it is the bill of rights, or the electoral college... you must admit the founding fathers did a good job in balancing power between group vs. individual, rural vs. urban.
There are lots of bands who aren't on the radio, yet have huge album sales. The issue is not radio reflecting the taste of phillistines; it's radio reflecting its own corporate ambitions,
See... your whole post was written under the impression that radio is a system designed to get people to buy more albums. Radio is a system designed to sell ads to get people to buy things. Perhaps Phish and Dead fans aren't as materialistic and consumeristic as your average B. Spears Fan.
This whole 'Payola' thing is just the radio companies realizing they can make money off what was once a loss.
But, I think you are 'begging the question'.... my point is that nothing is ever 'evil'... someone always benefits. There aren't any 'evil corporations'... "Killing puppies inc." or "polluting water for fun LLC". So then you have to get in a debate about if it is in the public's interest... No one wants a landfill next door, but everyone wants to throw out their garbage.
have not even said a word about taking out evil corporations
Could you possible explain which ones those are? And what exactly is 'taking out'. Are you saying the government should be able to arbitrarily rule that a certain entity is 'evil' and therefore disband it?
More over, I'd like you to point out some evil corporations, because most likely 'taking them out' will not gain politicians votes, even though you wish it would. This conversation often goes something like this...
Walmart is evil! The politicians would get votes if they'd 'take it out', but they don't because the corporations control them.
So the politicians should impose a tax? Or fine Walmart for being evil? Or something of that nature?
Yes
But don't millions of people shop there? Often because it provides lower prices than anyone else? Wouldn't fining them raise the price to these millions of shoppers?
Umm...
Then wouldn't those millions of shoppers vote against who ever raised their grocery/clothes bill?
Yea, probably
Therefore, aren't the politicians doing exactly what people want? You know, the way a Democracy works?
For Republicans, the Greens offer true conservatism, which means keeping the government out of your personal business, out of your bedroom and out of your library.
Actually.. this is called Liberalism. He is talking about social liberalism, not 'true conservativism'. How do we know this? Because the line about 'keeping the government out of your personal business' means your daily life, not if you actually own a business. If you are an entrepreneur, and want to start a business... taxes and more regulation await. This is not the nature of 'true conservativism'. (If anyone disagrees with that last statement, please inform me where these new government programs and environmental legislation come from)
The Greens are always speaking out against politicians who sell favors to their corporate buddies or other special interests. But the Green party also espouses a system where the government strictly regulates most industry.
The bureaucratic system may well be corrupt but what we really need to address is the corruption in the White House and in Congress-that's who makes the laws and the decisions which support the transnational corporate empire
This is, singularly, the biggest problem with the Green party and its platform. The candidate completely dodges it by setting up a false premise: That it is magically just the people there now that are corrupt, and once we ride these institutions of them, we'll be better. Oh, and also.. no one else will ever come along in the future to abuse these powers, trust us. That is the one issue Greens fail to understand about government, particularly the US government as it is set up. You can not just address the problems of now, but you must guard against the problems of the future. The founding fathers were offered chance at extreme executive power, but they did not take it... not because they were corrupt, they knew they would not be....but because they anticipated people like Nixon and McCarthy.
I am saddened by the fact that the candidate dodged what is the central problem with the Green party. It shows why participation in this 'movement' in its national form is mainly limited to college students and other young people who have not themselves thought this through.
We have to remember that we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants, with, of course, the exception of the Native people of this continent.
Although I don't disagree with the candidates point... his argument for it shows the lack of critical thinking skills that I am mentioning.... Just because we are the children of immigrants does not mean we can not restrict immigration... why? Because the US is different than it was when past immigration took place. This might be hard to grasp.. but imagine if a hypothetical famine ravaged the US... would we be out of line to not allow immigration (presumably to keep our population from growing and stressing food supply), of course not. (Granted, people might not want to come here in the case presented, but it is mainly suggested for example, not plausibility). In keeping with the 'my ancestors did X, therefore I can't rightly stop someone from doing X'... does the candidate think it would be out of line for Germany to sanction Sundan for committing Genocide?
We could easily eliminate the need for nuclear power by conserving more energy. This is a dodge: Let me rephrase Q Nuclear power has made great advances in safety and is not as bad for the environment as most other things we do today... should we support it?
A If we conserved power we could eliminate the need for nuclear power
What the hell is the relation? We'll always need power, and if nuclear is the safest, and most practical, and best for the environment... should we use it? The candidate completely dodges that issue.
They kept the invention a secret for 50 years... This isn't so different from what we see today in patent laws, which most people on./ think are crazy (myself included).
Actually... isn't this exactly what the patent system solves? Someone invents a great new invention and doesn't have to keep it a secret. Since there is a legal system of enforcement where they can still be compensated for their invention and still give it a wide distribution through licensing.
Now, I agree there are problems with the current system... but the example more clearly shows the problems with the alternative... Also, since there was no legal framework, they could have kept the invention secret indefinitely, unlike patents which expires.
But encouraging consumption is only one side of pro-consumer propaganda--those of us who resist the consumerist religion are held up for derision
Wrong... the reason "those of us who resist consumerism" are met with derision is that people who advocate "environmentalism, socialism, universal healthcare" don't realize they are advocating taking from those who actually resist consumerism.
This is why you are met with derision, because you want to take others earnings based on a cartoonish view of the world. In reality, most millionaires in America are first generation, and are that way by resisting consumerism (living below their means) source. The problem with socialism is that it punishes these people.
This is the beauty of America: everyone is allowed to do what they want. Socialists don't like that, they think those who choose wisely should be punished to help those who choose poorly.
As for the beauty of the French health care system:
1) It is (as environmentalists like to say lately*) 'unsustainable'. They are having serious trouble funding it... why? Because people will take as much as possible from it because it costs them nothing, it is the tragedy of the commons. This also has the other serious effect...
2) Just wait until a killer bacterial infection breaks out there, resistant to all antibiotics. This is a world wide problem, but it is particularly problematic in France... since they are free, worrying parents typically ask doctors for, and get, antibiotics for all kinds of ailments that they can not fix. What they do, however, is cause resistant strains to emerge. (This was a side article in the Economist earlier, can't find the link)
* Notice that the new environmental buzzword is 'sustainable'. Wonder where that came from? The reason being is that environmentalists have been talking about the end of the world for the last 20-30 years, and have most always been wrong. Therefore, sustainable is the new world because there are no firm dates. Things could easily keep getting better and better... but they can always say 'its not sustainable'... and no one can prove them wrong.
This is something a lot of movements go through, and very similar to mid-19th century America. Many many religious leaders combed the bible, and 'deciphered' the date for the judgment day. As you can imagine, this did not happen. They eventually invented the idea of 'rapture'. The idea that the end could happen at any time, but it is not predictable, so we must constantly be faithful and on guard... Similar to how the economy can keep getting better and better, standards of living can keep going up... but watch out.. it is 'unsustainable' (instead of saying.. we will run out of oil in X years like they used to)
and putting it into a retirement fund don't fuck it up and leave with nothing.
Umm... is that the charter of the SEC? This area I'm a little grey on, so feel free to educate me. I thought it was more in charge with investor fraud and exchange of securities, not the funding of pension plans. Even if this is the case, they must be doing a crappy job as many of the larger companies are going to default on their pension payments as they haven't even been paying them lately (Look at the airlines). Guess who is insuring those accounts.. that's right, taxpayers. Get ready, it will be a huge S&L style fleecing.
Personally, I don't mind if $10 of my federal income tax goes toward protecting the public at large from having their reitrement savings pillaged by unscrupulous fucktards.
That's nice, but given my previous statement.. that becomes: "Personally, I don't mind paying $10 for a agency that doesn't do what its supposed to". That's nice, but I do.... Usually those that "don't mind" paying taxes are those that can afford to pay them... if that $10 was really important to you, I don't think you'd give the agency such an easy pass (considering they aren't even doing what you say they are supposed to).
Slashdot Mirror
And MIT prize funds of $13,000, i think i want to be sick.
How much does tuition cost you over there in the UK?
I'd guess that our soul isn't effected by alcohol
Here's the thought process... (assuming your we're more than a bag of chemicals conjecture)
1) Our actions are not just the process of a series of chemical reactions (ie. in our brain)
2) Our actions and thoughts are controlled by some meta-physical entity (ie. a soul)
3) Alcohol affects our thoughts and actions
Therefore, either:
a) Alcohol affects our soul, therefore our soul gets drunk, but is still responsible for our thoughts and actions
b) Alcohol does not affect our soul, therefore our soul does not affect our thoughts and actions
Anyway... just something to think about. From your lack of response... can I assume that you now accept that "Creationism" is just as sensical and valid an explanation of the state of the world as "The Matrix" (In terms of testability at least).
Creation doesn't make scientific predictions
Which is why it doesn't belong in "Science" class
but it does make claims about what the world is like, and I believe that its claims fit reality
So would saying "The world is really an illusion created by robots who have enslaved us (a la the Matrix)". Remember, I can invent any story to explain how things are... but it it isn't testable or falsafiable then it is not science!
You think that evolution is the true explanation of why we are here, but why do you care if I believe something which you think is false?
You are making 2 common mistakes:
1) assuming people who believe in evolution do not believe in God
2) Believing the absence of God implies the absence of morals. It is entirely possible to believe in objective morality.. where morality (just like mathematics) can be discovered through the application of reason
The reason for your pursuit of these things is that you are made in the image of God,
Or, because curiosity gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage by allowing us to gather knowledge and manipulate our environment.
One last thing..
Basing a scientific theory on predictions seems like sketchy reasoning.
This is most certainly not 'sketchy reasoning' and only serves to bolster my argument by showing your ignorance about the scientific process. Very often in science a theory is tested by saying something like this: "If the theory of relativity is true, we should expect to see light bend around gravitational objects". Then we make observations. If our observations match our expectations then it bolsters the theory
Keep in mind, in my previous examples, as well as in all of science the theory is just a model. It might very well be that the reason we see light bend around gravity is due to God, magic, or pixie dust and it just so happens that the theory of relativity lines up with this magic. The model we use to describe what we repeatedly see is called a scientific theory
Now, as a follow-up question (that I sincerely hope you answer). If we are not a 'bag of chemicals' and have a soul... what happens to our soul when we get drunk? If our thoughts and actions are effected by alcohol, then how is our soul affected? If it is not affected, then our soul is not responsible for our thoughts and actions (as these are affected by alcohol) or our soul is responsible for our thoughts and actions.. and therefore our soul can be drunk.
you (and most evolutionists) have a very closed mind at the /possibility/ of a supreme being.
Please point out where this was stated or implied in my parent post
consider: it takes more of an open mind to believe in a supreme being than it does to believe in some that is immdediately replicable.
Incorrect, it takes faith 'open mind' is not the correct term there.
i believe that God is bound by the true laws of science
Circular logic alert: who created those laws? God? Is God all-powerful if he's bound? If he is all powerful then does he have the power to create a law that binds him?
The point of my, and many other posts is that faith and God are not part of the equation of science. God may very well be powering every electrical device... but the model we use to predict how they'll behave is the theory of electricity. Tomorrow God could decide not to power these devices, breaking with our theory.... But we can't base theories on that possibility. We have to build models based on our observations and tests.
1) There is no observation of the formation of the human race... but evolution can make predictions. Basically evolution can say "If evolution occurred, we should expect to see X" X being transitionary states, vestigial organs, and close genetic relations. When we see these things, it lends credence to this theory.
What can creationism make predictions about? How can it be tested?
2) We can see evolutionary processes in other species... so why would it be happening for them, but not humans for some reason?
Congratulations.... you just wrote a very long post to make it perfectly clear you have confused "evolution" with the formation of life.
Technically, evolution doesn't care about the formation of life... it could be though random collision of primordial molecules, or through a protein laced meteorite... who cares? Evolution is only concerned with the continual changes of life after is has formed. It makes hypothesis about this continual change, makes predictions about future observations, and is testable. Creationism meets none of these standards.
Creationism is not falsafiable, because it fundamentally rests on faith. All arguments that are placed forth for Creationism can be used for this theory:
5 Minutes ago, God created the entire world. He created all molecules, and arranged them as he saw fit. He arranged all molecules and cells so that people were made with memories of the past.
Complete these sentences... here I'll help and do the first one (this is how science works)
If "The Big Bang" occurred we should observe X (X is background radiation)
Now we go see whether X is observed. If yes, add X to data pool. If no, create testable theory given new larger data pool.... repeat
Your turn
If "Creation" occured, we should observe X....
What is X that allows the testing and predictive ability of creationism
P.S. I'm actually serious, what is X? (ok, there was a little sarcasm there too, but please reply)
How is this "creationist"? Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as with all scientific theories, should be presented as such.
You realize "Electricity" is a theory right? The reason this was thrown out, was because it was a deliberate attempt to confuse school children by muddying the difference between the common usage of the word theory (aka. hunch) and the scientific:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?
In fact, no... but the basic tenant of science is to keep an open mind so why stress this about evolution? Also, as I stated, this was not designed to open students minds but merely to confuse them.
company which exists merely to screw you over.
And by screw you over you mean "exists to provide you with products that you voluntarily purchase because they make your life better."
Oh wait, nevermind... I forgot Apple Computer was founded with the purpose of sneaking out in the night and slashing people's tires.
get cut off in traffic? Yup, that's Apple's doing too!
For them it's "Is this infraction worth the risk of a fine?", whereas for actual living, breathing people, the deterrent is "Is this infraction worth the risk of several years of prison?"
Don't people do this as well? What you don't speed? Corporations are different entities as you suggest (although their leaders can be put in prison). Since they are different entities different but equivalent punishments are developed (fines, not being allowed to do business, etc)
Maybe if she wants to be such a model citizen, she should start out by not running around topless during spring break.
Insightful? You realize that's why we have the concept of 'a minor' right? So that dumb youthful indiscretions do not tarnish one's life for ever?
In the parent post, you did not adress copyright in anyway whatsoever, please try again. You did rant against DRM, and esoteric distinctions about what a 'CD' is (hint, what is a 'kleenex').
Show me the part in the DMCA that says an author can override access controls in a medium if they want their users to not face access controls. Or where an author can authorize a customer to break the encryption on his/her book so that they can distribute it for free if the author chooses to.
That is entirely asinine, and incorrect. Presumably if an author wanted these things, they would not put them in. The DMCA does not force creators to encrypt their works. I can very well buy a Mac and open iDVD and create any free DVD I want. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... why would an author encrypt a book they want distributed for free. It is illogical arguments like these that cause 'Joe Public' to think we are just a bunch of tinfoil hat nerds. There are good arguments against the DMCA, but saying it restricts authors who want to give out their work is not one of them. (Please note, I am not arguing that it does not restrict the rights of end users, it does. I am just pointing out how silly your argument was)
No, copyright has since been perverted to protect the publisher. This is why the ??AA have been working so hard to both protect their own interests and to snuff out any individualism in their markets. If enough content creators discovered they could self-publish, copyright laws would return to providing control to the creator, and the publishers don't want that to happen.
Copyright has, and remains, something designed to protect the owner of a work (bear in mind, there are many different rights to a work one can own). Sorry to confuse you by not using your preferred author/publisher nomenclature. The xxAA have been working so hard to protect their rights because they realize most people buy their stuff. Many content creators have already discovered that they can self publish... just no one buys them (or not enough at least). You could easily argue that Eminem or Britney spears could leave their publishers and put up a web site and make more money. This could be so... except that they aren't really about music. They are entertainers, they are a brand, a lifestyle... pure marketing. The xxAA is what produces this, and they'd be nothing without it
The GPL is about the abscence of control that the original author has over what happens to his released work
Entirely incorrect. The GPL is still about an author's control of a piece of work insomuch as the author stipulates that his work falls under the GPL and is beholden to the rules stated therein. You've missed the point of the parent's post entirely, that both the GPL and the xxAA are 'entities' that function solely due to copyright so we can not selectively decide copyright is bad in some cases and good in others, just because it benefits us. If the GPL were truly about 'abscence' of control, then I could literally due anything I wanted with the code, including not releasing it. The GPL is not a law, it is only given force through copyrights, which are laws that allow the author to choose how his work is distributed
Every new idea that is introduced is liberal at first.
Read another way: Every good idea was once new... therefore every new idea is good...
That just doesn't follow, even if you agree with his point.
then you are simply naive, imho
Actually... the correct term is uneducated. America is not a democracy, and was specifically designed not to be. A true democracy is mob rule, in America we have checks and balances against group abuses of individual rights. Whether it is the bill of rights, or the electoral college... you must admit the founding fathers did a good job in balancing power between group vs. individual, rural vs. urban.
If you're critical you jump to the top of the queue. If you're non critical you're on a waiting list.
Which basically means you have a health care where you sit around and wait until you are critical, then are treated for free.
We have that in the US, they are called Emergency Rooms.
There are lots of bands who aren't on the radio, yet have huge album sales. The issue is not radio reflecting the taste of phillistines; it's radio reflecting its own corporate ambitions,
See... your whole post was written under the impression that radio is a system designed to get people to buy more albums. Radio is a system designed to sell ads to get people to buy things. Perhaps Phish and Dead fans aren't as materialistic and consumeristic as your average B. Spears Fan.
This whole 'Payola' thing is just the radio companies realizing they can make money off what was once a loss.
But, I think you are 'begging the question'.... my point is that nothing is ever 'evil'... someone always benefits. There aren't any 'evil corporations'... "Killing puppies inc." or "polluting water for fun LLC". So then you have to get in a debate about if it is in the public's interest... No one wants a landfill next door, but everyone wants to throw out their garbage.
have not even said a word about taking out evil corporations
Could you possible explain which ones those are? And what exactly is 'taking out'. Are you saying the government should be able to arbitrarily rule that a certain entity is 'evil' and therefore disband it?
More over, I'd like you to point out some evil corporations, because most likely 'taking them out' will not gain politicians votes, even though you wish it would. This conversation often goes something like this...
Walmart is evil! The politicians would get votes if they'd 'take it out', but they don't because the corporations control them.
So the politicians should impose a tax? Or fine Walmart for being evil? Or something of that nature?
Yes
But don't millions of people shop there? Often because it provides lower prices than anyone else? Wouldn't fining them raise the price to these millions of shoppers?
Umm...
Then wouldn't those millions of shoppers vote against who ever raised their grocery/clothes bill?
Yea, probably
Therefore, aren't the politicians doing exactly what people want? You know, the way a Democracy works?
I think you get the point...
For Republicans, the Greens offer true conservatism, which means keeping the government out of your personal business, out of your bedroom and out of your library.
.but because they anticipated people like Nixon and McCarthy.
Actually.. this is called Liberalism. He is talking about social liberalism, not 'true conservativism'. How do we know this? Because the line about 'keeping the government out of your personal business' means your daily life, not if you actually own a business. If you are an entrepreneur, and want to start a business... taxes and more regulation await. This is not the nature of 'true conservativism'. (If anyone disagrees with that last statement, please inform me where these new government programs and environmental legislation come from)
The Greens are always speaking out against politicians who sell favors to their corporate buddies or other special interests. But the Green party also espouses a system where the government strictly regulates most industry.
The bureaucratic system may well be corrupt but what we really need to address is the corruption in the White House and in Congress-that's who makes the laws and the decisions which support the transnational corporate empire
This is, singularly, the biggest problem with the Green party and its platform. The candidate completely dodges it by setting up a false premise: That it is magically just the people there now that are corrupt, and once we ride these institutions of them, we'll be better. Oh, and also.. no one else will ever come along in the future to abuse these powers, trust us. That is the one issue Greens fail to understand about government, particularly the US government as it is set up. You can not just address the problems of now, but you must guard against the problems of the future. The founding fathers were offered chance at extreme executive power, but they did not take it... not because they were corrupt, they knew they would not be...
I am saddened by the fact that the candidate dodged what is the central problem with the Green party. It shows why participation in this 'movement' in its national form is mainly limited to college students and other young people who have not themselves thought this through.
We have to remember that we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants, with, of course, the exception of the Native people of this continent.
Although I don't disagree with the candidates point... his argument for it shows the lack of critical thinking skills that I am mentioning.... Just because we are the children of immigrants does not mean we can not restrict immigration... why? Because the US is different than it was when past immigration took place. This might be hard to grasp.. but imagine if a hypothetical famine ravaged the US... would we be out of line to not allow immigration (presumably to keep our population from growing and stressing food supply), of course not. (Granted, people might not want to come here in the case presented, but it is mainly suggested for example, not plausibility). In keeping with the 'my ancestors did X, therefore I can't rightly stop someone from doing X'... does the candidate think it would be out of line for Germany to sanction Sundan for committing Genocide?
We could easily eliminate the need for nuclear power by conserving more energy.
This is a dodge: Let me rephrase
Q Nuclear power has made great advances in safety and is not as bad for the environment as most other things we do today... should we support it?
A If we conserved power we could eliminate the need for nuclear power
What the hell is the relation? We'll always need power, and if nuclear is the safest, and most practical, and best for the environment... should we use it? The candidate completely dodges that issue.
We could replace nuclear power-and coal
They kept the invention a secret for 50 years ... This isn't so different from what we see today in patent laws, which most people on ./ think are crazy (myself included).
Actually... isn't this exactly what the patent system solves? Someone invents a great new invention and doesn't have to keep it a secret. Since there is a legal system of enforcement where they can still be compensated for their invention and still give it a wide distribution through licensing.
Now, I agree there are problems with the current system... but the example more clearly shows the problems with the alternative... Also, since there was no legal framework, they could have kept the invention secret indefinitely, unlike patents which expires.
---Lane
But encouraging consumption is only one side of pro-consumer propaganda--those of us who resist the consumerist religion are held up for derision
Wrong... the reason "those of us who resist consumerism" are met with derision is that people who advocate "environmentalism, socialism, universal healthcare" don't realize they are advocating taking from those who actually resist consumerism.
This is why you are met with derision, because you want to take others earnings based on a cartoonish view of the world. In reality, most millionaires in America are first generation, and are that way by resisting consumerism (living below their means) source. The problem with socialism is that it punishes these people.
This is the beauty of America: everyone is allowed to do what they want. Socialists don't like that, they think those who choose wisely should be punished to help those who choose poorly.
As for the beauty of the French health care system:
1) It is (as environmentalists like to say lately*) 'unsustainable'. They are having serious trouble funding it... why? Because people will take as much as possible from it because it costs them nothing, it is the tragedy of the commons. This also has the other serious effect...
2) Just wait until a killer bacterial infection breaks out there, resistant to all antibiotics. This is a world wide problem, but it is particularly problematic in France... since they are free, worrying parents typically ask doctors for, and get, antibiotics for all kinds of ailments that they can not fix. What they do, however, is cause resistant strains to emerge. (This was a side article in the Economist earlier, can't find the link)
* Notice that the new environmental buzzword is 'sustainable'. Wonder where that came from? The reason being is that environmentalists have been talking about the end of the world for the last 20-30 years, and have most always been wrong. Therefore, sustainable is the new world because there are no firm dates. Things could easily keep getting better and better... but they can always say 'its not sustainable'... and no one can prove them wrong.
This is something a lot of movements go through, and very similar to mid-19th century America. Many many religious leaders combed the bible, and 'deciphered' the date for the judgment day. As you can imagine, this did not happen. They eventually invented the idea of 'rapture'. The idea that the end could happen at any time, but it is not predictable, so we must constantly be faithful and on guard... Similar to how the economy can keep getting better and better, standards of living can keep going up... but watch out.. it is 'unsustainable' (instead of saying.. we will run out of oil in X years like they used to)
---Lane
Hi Nick
and putting it into a retirement fund don't fuck it up and leave with nothing.
Umm... is that the charter of the SEC? This area I'm a little grey on, so feel free to educate me. I thought it was more in charge with investor fraud and exchange of securities, not the funding of pension plans. Even if this is the case, they must be doing a crappy job as many of the larger companies are going to default on their pension payments as they haven't even been paying them lately (Look at the airlines). Guess who is insuring those accounts.. that's right, taxpayers. Get ready, it will be a huge S&L style fleecing.
Personally, I don't mind if $10 of my federal income tax goes toward protecting the public at large from having their reitrement savings pillaged by unscrupulous fucktards.
That's nice, but given my previous statement.. that becomes: "Personally, I don't mind paying $10 for a agency that doesn't do what its supposed to". That's nice, but I do.... Usually those that "don't mind" paying taxes are those that can afford to pay them... if that $10 was really important to you, I don't think you'd give the agency such an easy pass (considering they aren't even doing what you say they are supposed to).