I'm a communist, and I think that Stalin was a fascis disguised as a communist. For instance,on several issues, like human rights, there isn't a clear difference between Stalin and Hitler. If you read a little about the communist ideology you will see that the individual freedom and democracy aren't opposed. The communism is just a way to distribute the work and the profits. Such as there is not private property of the production media (factories for instance). But you still have personal property on things like your grandgrandpa picture on the 1917 revolution;)
It seems that you are confusing facts with agreement of what is true. Facts are comprobable werever you do or do not is your decission. The agreement on true isn't because it's just an agreement.
Let's deconvolute this a little bit more.
Not at all. I'm saying that if you would have walked down the streets of any European city in the early 1400's saying that the world was round, you would have been unanimously pronounced as factually wrong.
Wrong, you woul be incinerated by the inquisition (not just the Spanish one) for spreading an heresy (ask Galileo about this, if you can:P), but nobody can prove that you where factually wrong. They could tell that you where factually wrong, but in order to prove that the must take you to the end of the world.
I'm saying facts always have been, and always will be, subjective.
Confusing facts with agreement on what is true and what don't. But the diference between is the capabillity of free independent comprobation. Let's see your example
The only reason we consider the statement "chlorophyll is a photosynthetic checmical" to be a fact is that we consider it to be so, based on statements from scientsts, who also consider it to be so, but at the end of the day that's really just a lot of considering.
No there isn't even one, science is like free software (more likely free software is like science) you always have the source. So if you think that the chlorophyll isn't photosintetic, go prove it. You are confusing the argument of authority wich is present on (in? I hate english prepositions) the every day society but in science in general it isn't present. Take the Einstein example, he was an obscure patent office employee when he published the restricted relativistic theorie paper. He has no authority to say a thing about physics however the paper was published and the theorie results to be true, observing certain aproximations. The fact is that the universe on that circunstances bahaves like that. It doesn't say a thing about other circunstances.
I mean, I've never proven, on my own, that chlorophyll is photosynthetic. I've never proven that electrons have spin, that black holes bend light waves, or that cancer is caused by the unregulated growth of cells. Have you? For the most part, we are content to trust the scientists.
Yep me too, but i trust the scientis who say one thing, and the scientist who say the oposite to actually measure, check the facts and then agree on the explanation of the fact. But the fact (phenomena? I hate Latin-English adaptations:P) remains the same, is just the agreement on the truth that changes, not the fact.
A fact is only useful as a fact when it's accepted by the majority. For years, the fact was that American blacks were just as capable in every regard as American whites. But you couldn't tell that to many people south of the Mason-Dixon line, and that fact was therefore not useful to the abolition movement as a fact, because it was not accepted as such.
But to a lot of people under the ecuator line American blacks where as capable as American whites. The fact is the same, the lack of acceptance of a fact (in Spanish thats necedad) is just plain stupidity (and that isn't a fact is just my opinion). And a fact is still a fact even if we don't know or live in denial about it, that only changes how we see that, not how that works. For instance read the second part of my signature;)
Tell you what, you come up with a *better* Heisenberg joke, and I'll stop telling this one (note that I am the sole arbiter of which one is better.)
Ok, two versions on the same joke one in English one in Spanish:
Why heisenberg died vigin? Because when he can find the energy he can't find the time and viceversa
Por qué Heisenberg murió virgen?
Por que cuando encontraba la posición no encontraba el momento y viceversa.
Each joke deals with a diferent version of the UP, but the spanish version also has a word game (juego de palabras, for the spanish readers that can correct me)
I'm going to assume that you're not American since most Americans don't refer to themselves as 'Yanks'. So I'm you're saying, "You people in your country are ignorant of your own history." I'll take a guess that you'd have some venomous words if I were to say that about your nation.
But I'm american and I'm calling you yanks, on a lack of a better name.
Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.
I'm a very extrange person on the political enviroment. I'm quiting the communist party because of the lack of coherence betwen thought and action.
All that said, i prefer to disscus (that's the right word?, maybe flame is better;)) with an inteligent right-winger to smash my head against the wall of an idiot-type left-winger
By the way I'm in Argentina, so we have enough of the democrats and republicans. Please let the international courts cuestion Kissinger about the "Plan Condor"
Have you read Un Mundo Feliz (sorry i don't remember the original english title the translation would be something like "A Happy World" but i don't think it is the title) by Aldous Huxley? Would you be a drone of that kind? (a gamma i mean)
So instead of giving food to third world countries yo are proposing to make more missiles. Way to go let's make the world a safer place kill everybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a communist, and I think that Stalin was a fascis disguised as a communist. For instance,on several issues, like human rights, there isn't a clear difference between Stalin and Hitler. If you read a little about the communist ideology you will see that the individual freedom and democracy aren't opposed. The communism is just a way to distribute the work and the profits. Such as there is not private property of the production media (factories for instance). But you still have personal property on things like your grandgrandpa picture on the 1917 revolution ;)
We're trying to do it "The Right Way" and go through UN channels
That's a nice change considering that te US are founders of the UN.
The UN is a broken organization, too much distributed power
Thats an odd thing to say for a country that has veto power
No single country should be able to stop resolutions with a veto.
I agree
It seems that you are confusing facts with agreement of what is true. Facts are comprobable werever you do or do not is your decission. The agreement on true isn't because it's just an agreement.
:P), but nobody can prove that you where factually wrong. They could tell that you where factually wrong, but in order to prove that the must take you to the end of the world.
:P) remains the same, is just the agreement on the truth that changes, not the fact.
;)
Let's deconvolute this a little bit more.
Not at all. I'm saying that if you would have walked down the streets of any European city in the early 1400's saying that the world was round, you would have been unanimously pronounced as factually wrong.
Wrong, you woul be incinerated by the inquisition (not just the Spanish one) for spreading an heresy (ask Galileo about this, if you can
I'm saying facts always have been, and always will be, subjective.
Confusing facts with agreement on what is true and what don't. But the diference between is the capabillity of free independent comprobation. Let's see your example
The only reason we consider the statement "chlorophyll is a photosynthetic checmical" to be a fact is that we consider it to be so, based on statements from scientsts, who also consider it to be so, but at the end of the day that's really just a lot of considering.
No there isn't even one, science is like free software (more likely free software is like science) you always have the source. So if you think that the chlorophyll isn't photosintetic, go prove it. You are confusing the argument of authority wich is present on (in? I hate english prepositions) the every day society but in science in general it isn't present. Take the Einstein example, he was an obscure patent office employee when he published the restricted relativistic theorie paper. He has no authority to say a thing about physics however the paper was published and the theorie results to be true, observing certain aproximations. The fact is that the universe on that circunstances bahaves like that. It doesn't say a thing about other circunstances.
I mean, I've never proven, on my own, that chlorophyll is photosynthetic. I've never proven that electrons have spin, that black holes bend light waves, or that cancer is caused by the unregulated growth of cells. Have you? For the most part, we are content to trust the scientists.
Yep me too, but i trust the scientis who say one thing, and the scientist who say the oposite to actually measure, check the facts and then agree on the explanation of the fact. But the fact (phenomena? I hate Latin-English adaptations
A fact is only useful as a fact when it's accepted by the majority. For years, the fact was that American blacks were just as capable in every regard as American whites. But you couldn't tell that to many people south of the Mason-Dixon line, and that fact was therefore not useful to the abolition movement as a fact, because it was not accepted as such.
But to a lot of people under the ecuator line American blacks where as capable as American whites. The fact is the same, the lack of acceptance of a fact (in Spanish thats necedad) is just plain stupidity (and that isn't a fact is just my opinion). And a fact is still a fact even if we don't know or live in denial about it, that only changes how we see that, not how that works. For instance read the second part of my signature
Tell you what, you come up with a *better* Heisenberg joke, and I'll stop telling this one (note that I am the sole arbiter of which one is better.)
Ok, two versions on the same joke one in English one in Spanish:
Why heisenberg died vigin?
Because when he can find the energy he can't find the time and viceversa
Por qué Heisenberg murió virgen?
Por que cuando encontraba la posición no encontraba el momento y viceversa.
Each joke deals with a diferent version of the UP, but the spanish version also has a word game (juego de palabras, for the spanish readers that can correct me)
I'm going to assume that you're not American since most Americans don't refer to themselves as 'Yanks'. So I'm you're saying, "You people in your country are ignorant of your own history." I'll take a guess that you'd have some venomous words if I were to say that about your nation.
But I'm american and I'm calling you yanks, on a lack of a better name.
BTW America goes FROM Alaska to TIERRA DEL FUEGO.
Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.
;)) with an inteligent right-winger to smash my head against the wall of an idiot-type left-winger
I'm a very extrange person on the political enviroment. I'm quiting the communist party because of the lack of coherence betwen thought and action.
All that said, i prefer to disscus (that's the right word?, maybe flame is better
By the way I'm in Argentina, so we have enough of the democrats and republicans. Please let the international courts cuestion Kissinger about the "Plan Condor"
(btw, would someone please enlighten me as to the subtle distinction between "troll" and "flame-bait"?)
;)
flame-bait is what you did, troll is what im doing
Have you read Un Mundo Feliz (sorry i don't remember the original english title the translation would be something like "A Happy World" but i don't think it is the title) by Aldous Huxley? Would you be a drone of that kind? (a gamma i mean)
yes and theycan say that I have been in my underwear for the past week ;)
Dictators like who? Videla, in my country, and Pinochet, right the other side of the Andes, had the fully support from the USA specially the CIA.
Hussein on his day too, so the question is, dictators that the USA like, don't like, or doesn't like anymore?
So instead of giving food to third world countries yo are proposing to make more missiles. Way to go let's make the world a safer place kill everybody else.
Very few people use MSN
So, this is like Linux doesn't exists or you are just refering to your house?
Here (Argentina) i see a lot of people using it