They say evil happens when good men do nothing. Well, the Democrats prove it also happens when mediocre people do nothing.
Poor congressional Democrats! Nobody really likes them, but the duty has now fallen upon them to protect us from the real scumbags. I hope this puts to rest the myth that both parties are identical.
In moronic response to this the pro-choice side declare against all evidence that the fetus is not, in fact, a human being, which makes one wonder what kind of a being it is?
Wrong rebuttal. Now you're forced to admit that sperm and ova are human beings. (What other kind of being would they be?) No one in their right mind would make such an assertion, so you've clearly got it wrong. The simple fact is that birth is a reasonable time to legally recognize humanity. (This is why we have birth certificates and not conception certificates.)
You clearly don't know what the word 'secular' means. Grab a dictionary. You'll find that this sort of Pythagorean mysticism is not at all secular. Indeed, the word you're looking for is "mystical".
The supposed difference between fundamentalist dogma and mystical superstition is not compelling to me, but you can observe it if you wish.
You don't seem to have understood my post, so I'll try to explain what I mean a little more carefully.
You claim hypocrisy on the part of atheists for not accepting religious beliefs but accepting Hawking's unsupported word. But Hawking coming up with some wild-sounding speculation is not the same as a religious figure preaching centuries-old articles of faith.
First, consider a hypothetical Church of Science (or whatever) where Hawking is a priest. How could Hawking come up with his far-out models of universal origins without deviating from the accepted doctrine of his church? I claim that he couldn't, and that he would become a heretic. Hawking is taking a position against the establishment, whereas the normal role of priests is to be in support of the establishment. When atheists criticize the church, they often refer to its authoritarian nature which, in the extreme, is manifested by theocracy. It just wouldn't make sense to weigh the same criticism against Hawking, who would be the first victim of such a system.
Second, compare Hawking's message to those that are most despised by atheists. He's just telling a crowd of people (his fans) about some of his latest thoughts. He's not trying to "preach" in any sense of the word. He has no political or social agenda. He's not even asking that anyone accept his words on faith alone. It's not as if people are going to insist that textbooks be rewritten as a result of this. There's really nothing to get upset about. Contrast that with the agenda-driven religious right.
I hope I've clarified my position. I didn't claim that the US is a theocracy. In fact, I intended to claim the opposite. I also didn't claim that religion has a monopoly on oppression and cruelty, just as (I presume) you're not claiming that Hawking supports religious intolerance.
I think the idea is that #2 subsumes #1, and goes further. Therefore, the probability of #1 is at least as high as the probability of #2. In my opinion, it's pretty silly to take "created from nothing" at face value, as it is not even close to a scientific description.
But for laughs, let's hear the evidence for #2, especially the part about the beard.
So it's a bunch of bullshit. Who cares? In a theocracy, Stephen Hawking would be hauled off to jail for suggesting such blasphemy. Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that he can openly speculate about origins? Hawking isn't telling you how to live your life, or what to think, or who to vote for, or what to teach your kids, or which supreme court justices deserve to die. He's just sharing his little vision.
"Why doesn't this damn CD fit in my 8-track player?"
What are you talking about? Manufacturers of 8-track players are not prevented from producing CD players. There's nothing even approaching lock-in in that scenario. It's obvious that you can't toast your bread with a corkscrew. But why wouldn't you be able to toast it with a toaster made by another company?
This isn't about preventing people from buying music from Apple's store. It's about Apple preventing competitors from developing better players for that music. Does Apple own a patent on music? Why should Apple be able to dictate how its customers use that music after they've purchased it? It's a classic example of a company using their dominance of one market to control another. Think about how you'd feel if Microsoft decided that the only browsers you're allowed to use in Windows are browsers developed by Microsoft. In this case, Apple decided that the only music players you're allowed to use for iTunes music are those developed by Apple.
Libby lied. Oh, but he has such a feeble mine that he can't remember or articulate even the most basic things. When it's convenient for him, he's just the biggest bumbler in history. Some people lapped it all up, and are probably holding teary candlelight vigils for the bastard. That's irrelevant. The fact is that the jury, when presented with the facts, didn't buy it. I'd like to see Rove and Cheney go down for this too (the evidence implicates them pretty heavily) but that case would be a much tougher sell without the cooperation of someone like Libby. He'd rather take the fall than rat on his get-out-of-jail-free card.
What a laugh, to give Libby a free pass on a national security issue but hound Clinton on a sexual indiscretion. Just admit it: you've invested so much personal effort into defending Bush from any and all criticism that you're just going to take the pro-Bush stance on everything without a serious appraisal of the facts.
If you don't believe him, all you have to do is to look back at ANY Slashdot article on global warming in the last 5 years to see an incredible amount of vitriol and hate directed at those like myself who are highly skeptical of "Global Warming" as a man-made phenomena.
But any such Slashdot discussion is also loaded with hate toward those who think that the current scientific consensus should be considered. Some people are so taken with their blind hatred that they call us nasty things like "eco-religious fanatics". Can you imagine? But the worst of the worst stoop so far as to suggest that we would commit grisly murder in the name of our views. These obscene individuals say that it would be "NOT SURPRISING AT ALL" if we were to do the unspeakable against a fellow member of the human race. Disgusting, I tell you! I take hope in my firm belief that these terrible people are not representative of the population in general.
Does the political minority get to be shut out because they are the minority?
Count the number of television ads for Republicans versus the number of ads for Libertarians. Then tell me if both sides are being heard. You can say whatever you want but if you want to be taken seriously you'll need some backing. Such is life.
Scientific "truth" (such as it exists) is truth regardless of the numbers who agree or disagree, believe or not.
Sure, maybe the Earth really is flat. Maybe the sun is powered by hamsters. But let's not continue this sophistry. Clearly, the scientific consensus has *some* basis in truth, even if it is sometimes wrong. Can we agree to use the best science available, and not engage in endless debate about whether one article of faith or another ought to trump science?
The "day after tomorrow" movie you mention is a work of fiction. Maybe you got it confused with "An Inconvenient Truth", the documentary by Al Gore that paints a much less dim (and more realistic) picture of our situation.
So your assertion that Al Gore thinks that it's all doom and gloom forever is obviously incorrect. Your assertion that environmentalists are psychopaths (like those who murder doctors) is just silly, and makes you sound a bit loony. However, the most ridiculous part of your post is where you accuse science of replacing religion, as if there wasn't enough evidence of the opposite happening (ID, stem cell debacle, anti-GW fanaticism).
Death threats are very bad, but you can get death threats for just about anything these days. It does not prove the vast conspiracy postulated in TFA.
But the patent system is also intended to protect the rights of inventors and authors, by granting them property rights to inventions and creative works.
I don't see any reference to such rights in the constitution, except that congress has the power to grant them for a limited time. Note the language: congress secures the right for the inventor instead of defending the right.
But if you're opposed to the general notion of ownership rights, then your arguments are 220 years overdue.
Are you in favor of slavery? If not, then there are some "ownership rights" that you oppose. Interestingly, the arguments you've presented (possession, history, ownership rights) would have applied equally well to the slavery issue. The lesson here is that a sweeping application of ownership economics to all aspects of life is neither justifiable nor humane. Let's debate the notion of patents with regard to the potential benefits to science, not some illusory concept of rights and entitlement.
Heh, Sorry. Neoconservatism does not define the party, and you only have to look back to Reagan to see what conservatism is.
Then I guess conservatism is all about making illegal deals with hostile nations, supporting barbaric dictatorships, and ramping up huge debts to expand the government's military power. Don't forget that neoconservatism appeared as a direct result (and in emulation) of Reagan, and indeed some prominent members of Reagan's administration now work for Bush.
Brooks isn't much of a 'conservative', he's a straw man that the NYT pays for their opinion page.
I can't respond to character attacks against Brooks, but I can say that his opinion is representative of how many conservatives think. Only time will tell what kind of candidate the Republican party will choose. I sincerely hope that you're right and they step away from their more authoritarian elements, but I'm not confident that they will do that. According to the voting record for the past several years, neoconservatives positively dominate the Republican party on Capitol Hill.
Oh, so he's a "good guy" Republican. I wish it were as simple as that. A Republican president would face considerable pressure from their party to be another Bush. The party has been redefined so completely that it's not a simple matter to go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days.
The conservative commentator David Brooks himself warns against trying to turn back the clock, telling Republican candidates that they "need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams." After years of convincing the party base that they need a powerful paternalistic government to protect them, a complete reversal would be political suicide.
Who is saying that Iran is not a theocracy? Homosexuality is an official crime over there! They have laws in Iran that social conservatives in the US can only dream about.
However, the problem is that the crowd we speak of also subscribes to such ideas as placing more emphasis on self-esteem in education than actually making sure kids learn and can perform what they learn correctly.
Oh, so people are given too much creative freedom. They need to be told what to do and how to do it.
This crowd encourages individualism... so long as the individuals conform to what they have decided individuals should be.
Oh, so people aren't given enough creative freedom. They need to be allowed to discover their own path in life.
You need to make up your mind. Do you think we should be training Highly Effective People (as defined by you) or should we be taking a more hands-off approach by offering gentle encouragement and nudges in the right direction?
Slashdot Mirror
What species were they before conception? Some kind of ape? I'm interested in knowing what species gametes are before they merge.
Wrong rebuttal. Now you're forced to admit that sperm and ova are human beings. (What other kind of being would they be?) No one in their right mind would make such an assertion, so you've clearly got it wrong. The simple fact is that birth is a reasonable time to legally recognize humanity. (This is why we have birth certificates and not conception certificates.)
The entire lengthy submission doesn't mention "free speech" even once. Maybe you should at least read it before you critique.
Oh, wait. That would be real work.
You clearly don't know what the word 'secular' means. Grab a dictionary. You'll find that this sort of Pythagorean mysticism is not at all secular. Indeed, the word you're looking for is "mystical".
The supposed difference between fundamentalist dogma and mystical superstition is not compelling to me, but you can observe it if you wish.
Do you expect to be taken seriously when you can't even spell the name of the guy you tried to vote into the most powerful office on the planet?
What our soldiers really need are special goggles that tint everything to look a bit rosier than they really are.
Since when does LPFM represent the little guy? As far as I'm concerned, it was in its coffin and buried long before 2000.
You don't seem to have understood my post, so I'll try to explain what I mean a little more carefully.
You claim hypocrisy on the part of atheists for not accepting religious beliefs but accepting Hawking's unsupported word. But Hawking coming up with some wild-sounding speculation is not the same as a religious figure preaching centuries-old articles of faith.
First, consider a hypothetical Church of Science (or whatever) where Hawking is a priest. How could Hawking come up with his far-out models of universal origins without deviating from the accepted doctrine of his church? I claim that he couldn't, and that he would become a heretic. Hawking is taking a position against the establishment, whereas the normal role of priests is to be in support of the establishment. When atheists criticize the church, they often refer to its authoritarian nature which, in the extreme, is manifested by theocracy. It just wouldn't make sense to weigh the same criticism against Hawking, who would be the first victim of such a system.
Second, compare Hawking's message to those that are most despised by atheists. He's just telling a crowd of people (his fans) about some of his latest thoughts. He's not trying to "preach" in any sense of the word. He has no political or social agenda. He's not even asking that anyone accept his words on faith alone. It's not as if people are going to insist that textbooks be rewritten as a result of this. There's really nothing to get upset about. Contrast that with the agenda-driven religious right.
I hope I've clarified my position. I didn't claim that the US is a theocracy. In fact, I intended to claim the opposite. I also didn't claim that religion has a monopoly on oppression and cruelty, just as (I presume) you're not claiming that Hawking supports religious intolerance.
I think the idea is that #2 subsumes #1, and goes further. Therefore, the probability of #1 is at least as high as the probability of #2. In my opinion, it's pretty silly to take "created from nothing" at face value, as it is not even close to a scientific description.
But for laughs, let's hear the evidence for #2, especially the part about the beard.
So it's a bunch of bullshit. Who cares? In a theocracy, Stephen Hawking would be hauled off to jail for suggesting such blasphemy. Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that he can openly speculate about origins? Hawking isn't telling you how to live your life, or what to think, or who to vote for, or what to teach your kids, or which supreme court justices deserve to die. He's just sharing his little vision.
What are you talking about? Manufacturers of 8-track players are not prevented from producing CD players. There's nothing even approaching lock-in in that scenario. It's obvious that you can't toast your bread with a corkscrew. But why wouldn't you be able to toast it with a toaster made by another company?
This isn't about preventing people from buying music from Apple's store. It's about Apple preventing competitors from developing better players for that music. Does Apple own a patent on music? Why should Apple be able to dictate how its customers use that music after they've purchased it? It's a classic example of a company using their dominance of one market to control another. Think about how you'd feel if Microsoft decided that the only browsers you're allowed to use in Windows are browsers developed by Microsoft. In this case, Apple decided that the only music players you're allowed to use for iTunes music are those developed by Apple.
Libby lied. Oh, but he has such a feeble mine that he can't remember or articulate even the most basic things. When it's convenient for him, he's just the biggest bumbler in history. Some people lapped it all up, and are probably holding teary candlelight vigils for the bastard. That's irrelevant. The fact is that the jury, when presented with the facts, didn't buy it. I'd like to see Rove and Cheney go down for this too (the evidence implicates them pretty heavily) but that case would be a much tougher sell without the cooperation of someone like Libby. He'd rather take the fall than rat on his get-out-of-jail-free card.
What a laugh, to give Libby a free pass on a national security issue but hound Clinton on a sexual indiscretion. Just admit it: you've invested so much personal effort into defending Bush from any and all criticism that you're just going to take the pro-Bush stance on everything without a serious appraisal of the facts.
Count the number of television ads for Republicans versus the number of ads for Libertarians. Then tell me if both sides are being heard. You can say whatever you want but if you want to be taken seriously you'll need some backing. Such is life.
Sure, maybe the Earth really is flat. Maybe the sun is powered by hamsters. But let's not continue this sophistry. Clearly, the scientific consensus has *some* basis in truth, even if it is sometimes wrong. Can we agree to use the best science available, and not engage in endless debate about whether one article of faith or another ought to trump science?The "day after tomorrow" movie you mention is a work of fiction. Maybe you got it confused with "An Inconvenient Truth", the documentary by Al Gore that paints a much less dim (and more realistic) picture of our situation.
So your assertion that Al Gore thinks that it's all doom and gloom forever is obviously incorrect. Your assertion that environmentalists are psychopaths (like those who murder doctors) is just silly, and makes you sound a bit loony. However, the most ridiculous part of your post is where you accuse science of replacing religion, as if there wasn't enough evidence of the opposite happening (ID, stem cell debacle, anti-GW fanaticism).
Death threats are very bad, but you can get death threats for just about anything these days. It does not prove the vast conspiracy postulated in TFA.
I also found that statement funny, but for a different reason.
Imagine a musician announcing that they're not out to replace Britney Spears. Imagine slashdot announcing that it's not out to replace CNN.
I don't see any reference to such rights in the constitution, except that congress has the power to grant them for a limited time. Note the language: congress secures the right for the inventor instead of defending the right.
Are you in favor of slavery? If not, then there are some "ownership rights" that you oppose. Interestingly, the arguments you've presented (possession, history, ownership rights) would have applied equally well to the slavery issue. The lesson here is that a sweeping application of ownership economics to all aspects of life is neither justifiable nor humane. Let's debate the notion of patents with regard to the potential benefits to science, not some illusory concept of rights and entitlement.
Then I guess conservatism is all about making illegal deals with hostile nations, supporting barbaric dictatorships, and ramping up huge debts to expand the government's military power. Don't forget that neoconservatism appeared as a direct result (and in emulation) of Reagan, and indeed some prominent members of Reagan's administration now work for Bush.
I can't respond to character attacks against Brooks, but I can say that his opinion is representative of how many conservatives think. Only time will tell what kind of candidate the Republican party will choose. I sincerely hope that you're right and they step away from their more authoritarian elements, but I'm not confident that they will do that. According to the voting record for the past several years, neoconservatives positively dominate the Republican party on Capitol Hill.
Oh, so he's a "good guy" Republican. I wish it were as simple as that. A Republican president would face considerable pressure from their party to be another Bush. The party has been redefined so completely that it's not a simple matter to go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days.
The conservative commentator David Brooks himself warns against trying to turn back the clock, telling Republican candidates that they "need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams." After years of convincing the party base that they need a powerful paternalistic government to protect them, a complete reversal would be political suicide.
Who is saying that Iran is not a theocracy? Homosexuality is an official crime over there! They have laws in Iran that social conservatives in the US can only dream about.
Are you suggesting that porn is the only reason men ever get fired?
Oh, so people are given too much creative freedom. They need to be told what to do and how to do it.
Oh, so people aren't given enough creative freedom. They need to be allowed to discover their own path in life.
You need to make up your mind. Do you think we should be training Highly Effective People (as defined by you) or should we be taking a more hands-off approach by offering gentle encouragement and nudges in the right direction?