I mean, look at the colonial period.... It was recognized at the time of the revolution that an educated populace was necessary for the government to work
The very idea of mandatory schooling only goes back to the 19th century. Before that, no matter how important education was thought to be, people were responsible for doing it on their own. The idea that you could pressure or force someone to be educated probably seemed quite odd.
It's compulsory education not compulsory attendance otherwise children wouldn't be homeschooled
So it's not "compulsory attendance" if other people have the option of giving you an alternative? Parents may have options, but if the parents go with public school the children don't - they are compelled to attend.
Using your logic, paying a speeding ticket isn't compulsory because the cop could let you off with a warning.
If you meant Hitler, you should hear his views on religion:
"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people.... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of the German people."
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
You could certainly argue that Hitler wasn't very religious himself, but it's silly to say that he "tried to abolish religion".
I took your first post to mean "persuing self-interest raises prices", and I just wanted to point out that that isn't always true. I really didn't want to get into the "economic assumptions vs reality" or "information assymetry is ok vs IA requires regulation" fights.
You sound like a Republican... can't tell the difference between his head and his ass.
Great. A "Republican = bad" nut.
I think it's funny how you start off your argument claiming the problem was not enough deregulation, and then you end it by blaming the regulators for not regulating enough.
I think it's funny that you can't tell the difference between "deregulation" and "deregulating part of an industry while tightening the regulation of other parts". Also, he isn't blaming the regulators for "not regulating enough", but for regulating in a obviously stupid way. I tend to favor deregulation, but you can't just pick laws to get rid of in a semi-random way.
California would have been much better of with its earlier regulations, or a well-planned deregulation scheme, or even under a well-planned set of tighter regulations. Instead they went with a set of changes that messed up the market for power and made it easier for criminals to hide their activity, and then called it "deregulation" so they could blame the resulting mess on "the market".
It's about charging the maximum price that the market will bare...
and paying the minimum price the market will bare. When both producers and consumers are looking for the best deal, we at least approximate "a fair price based on supply and demand".
Fairness never enters into the equation.
Fairness only enters into it when both people do their jobs finding the best deal. Businesses would charge you a $100 a gallon for gas if they thought you'd pay it, the same way you'd buy it at $0.10 if you could. Together, people who buy and sell gas (the market) work out a price that at least works somewhat well for both of them. And that's about as close to "fair" as you're going to get in the real world.
And the difference there is that Bin Laden has given people money in order to help them kill people, while Pat Robertson vents his impotent fury by offhandedly saying that should be killed, lying about whether he said they should be killed, and then apologising for it.
The odd statistics worldwide are from places like Switzerland, where gun crime is low, but ownership is high. This is an anomaly, Japan is a more easily understood example (no guns, no gun crime).
The conclusion to draw from these kinds of statistics is that whatever effect the legality of guns has on crime rates is completely overwhelmed by other factors.
In the US you don't need to be trained, you just go and buy a gun when you want one.
Which is one of the best points I've seen here today. I had to take a class in order to drive legally, why don't I need some sort of test in order to purchase a gun?
Some quick answers: You can't require a test to be passed before someone can practice a constitutional right. Cars are far more lethal than guns, so requring extra testing/training for drivers likely would save more lives, and if that's what you're after go do that first. Some people want to completely remove guns from society, so gun-rights supporters (like abortion-rights supporters) are pressured to oppose any restriction, just so that the other side doesn't gain ground that might let it attack something more vital (most NRA members might not mind required gun registration if it stopped at that, but if they let that happen it's easier for the government to enforce other restrictions that they do oppose).
Except for the fact the NRA didn't make up the satistics and Snopes doesn't list it as an urban legend. The article starts with:
Status: Multiple -- see below.
And ends with:
The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.
It's nice to know that even when companies seem so much more powerful than you (like when you're looking for a job), they still spend millions just to get on TV and beg me to buy their stuff.
Maybe I'm not getting this - the problem with capitalism is that it produces too much stuff? I'll take that over the too little of non-capitalistic economies.
"Made up" jobs that don't actually produce but just make some other non-producer's life even easier.
Isn't that the point - the well-off can get more than just the basics, and in doing so they create jobs for other people - and both are better off.
ID will never "prove" anything beyond a reasonable doubt. it can't and it won't.
And that's the main point that academics have been making - evolution (right or wrong) is a testable scientific theory, ID (right or wrong) is not. There's a lot of static from more emotion-laden people on both sides, but that's the view of almost all scientists.
some fossils that could be intermediary. to my knowledge, not a single one has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though
some pro-evolutionists... claim it is silly to think this bird is intermediary and outline why
It's sort of like trying to tell if Julius Ceasar was a direct ancestor of yours through genetic testing. You may be able to show that you're related, but with this many generations, it's possible that his brother was your ancestor, not Julius. That's what they're discussing.
did you ever wonder why we can't point to a living creature TODAY that is transitionary?... a law that says all transitionary anmials have to go extinct?
We can't tell it something is transitionary until its gone - to be transitionary it has to turn into something else - meaning it's not here anymore.
the fossil record ISN'T what was predicted!
Whis is why evolutionary theory has been changed to correspond with new information. But you should know that the basics haven't changed (complex things have simpler ancestors, etc).
there are no land / water transitional ear fossils... according to macroevolutionary theory, such a change should lead to reduced adaptibility over the tens of thousands/millions of years required to make the change
For this, I don't have any examples off the top of my head. But here's an idea: increased adaptation to land was more important than reduced adaptation to the water. The idea of trade offs (like faster metabolism or needing to eat less, having many weak offspring or fewer stronger ones) is a basic part of evolutionary theory.
where are all the pre-dinosaur fossil transitions that led to the dinosaurs
And for the big paragraph, I'll have to give short answers:
for example, why would an asexual reproductive system turn to the more complex sexual method?
Because it provides many benefits. That's why most things that normally reproduce asexually still swap genes on occation.
how would a centimeter stub of a limb on one creature be beneficial so as to give it time to end up as an arm with fingers?
Because even a stub is better than nothing for pulling a fish through mud. And a stub with toes that dig in is even better. And and stub with toes and an extra joint is even better. And...
how did a life form spontaneously combust WITH REPRODUCTIVE ABILITIES
Most likely because the only thing the first life from did was reproduce. That was the defining point between being living and non-living.
how can an environement that can create life from death, if one even exists... be compatible with an environment that can sustain that life?
Why would the "creation environment" be any different from the "sustaining environment"?
how does life come from death?
You might as well ask "how can beauty come from uglyness" and expect a scientific answer. In everyday life there's a clear difference between animals and plants, or life and death, but in the larger world things are much greyer. Just like we have bacteria that both eat and photosynthesize, there are lots of things that aren't clearly living or non-living - prions, self-replicating RNA strands, viruses, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's not "compulsory attendance" if other people have the option of giving you an alternative? Parents may have options, but if the parents go with public school the children don't - they are compelled to attend.
Using your logic, paying a speeding ticket isn't compulsory because the cop could let you off with a warning.
You're saying I'm right, but you don't like the fact that I said it without the proper emotional spin. Right?
We should use surgery to cure people
Isn't sticking knives in people the modus operandi of murderers? :)
I took your first post to mean "persuing self-interest raises prices", and I just wanted to point out that that isn't always true. I really didn't want to get into the "economic assumptions vs reality" or "information assymetry is ok vs IA requires regulation" fights.
Great. A "Republican = bad" nut.
I think it's funny how you start off your argument claiming the problem was not enough deregulation, and then you end it by blaming the regulators for not regulating enough.
I think it's funny that you can't tell the difference between "deregulation" and "deregulating part of an industry while tightening the regulation of other parts". Also, he isn't blaming the regulators for "not regulating enough", but for regulating in a obviously stupid way. I tend to favor deregulation, but you can't just pick laws to get rid of in a semi-random way.
California would have been much better of with its earlier regulations, or a well-planned deregulation scheme, or even under a well-planned set of tighter regulations. Instead they went with a set of changes that messed up the market for power and made it easier for criminals to hide their activity, and then called it "deregulation" so they could blame the resulting mess on "the market".
"maximising shareholder value" is what businesses do, looking for bargains is what consumers do, the end result is "supply and demand"
Of course if you do that, you're ignoring the entire point of having a market.
I'm sure it's happened once or twice.
Just so you know, plenty of virgins have been sued for paternity.
God is a character in the oral history/moral stories of a group of Bronze Age nomads from the Middle East. Right?
and paying the minimum price the market will bare. When both producers and consumers are looking for the best deal, we at least approximate "a fair price based on supply and demand".
Fairness never enters into the equation.
Fairness only enters into it when both people do their jobs finding the best deal. Businesses would charge you a $100 a gallon for gas if they thought you'd pay it, the same way you'd buy it at $0.10 if you could. Together, people who buy and sell gas (the market) work out a price that at least works somewhat well for both of them. And that's about as close to "fair" as you're going to get in the real world.
Yes, it can get worse - "President Ann Coulter".
And the difference there is that Bin Laden has given people money in order to help them kill people, while Pat Robertson vents his impotent fury by offhandedly saying that should be killed, lying about whether he said they should be killed, and then apologising for it.
The conclusion to draw from these kinds of statistics is that whatever effect the legality of guns has on crime rates is completely overwhelmed by other factors.
In the US you don't need to be trained, you just go and buy a gun when you want one.
Which is one of the best points I've seen here today. I had to take a class in order to drive legally, why don't I need some sort of test in order to purchase a gun?
Some quick answers: You can't require a test to be passed before someone can practice a constitutional right. Cars are far more lethal than guns, so requring extra testing/training for drivers likely would save more lives, and if that's what you're after go do that first. Some people want to completely remove guns from society, so gun-rights supporters (like abortion-rights supporters) are pressured to oppose any restriction, just so that the other side doesn't gain ground that might let it attack something more vital (most NRA members might not mind required gun registration if it stopped at that, but if they let that happen it's easier for the government to enforce other restrictions that they do oppose).
And ends with:
Which is quite different from what you're saying.
Interesting idea, but hasn't the labor theory of value been throughly discredited?
It's nice to know that even when companies seem so much more powerful than you (like when you're looking for a job), they still spend millions just to get on TV and beg me to buy their stuff.
"Made up" jobs that don't actually produce but just make some other non-producer's life even easier.
Isn't that the point - the well-off can get more than just the basics, and in doing so they create jobs for other people - and both are better off.
It does far more than that! It takes a subjective opinion and dresses it up as an objective fact. Rhetoric at it's finest.
Then replace "communism leads to bad things" with "attempts to forcably create a communist society lead to bad things".
This is exactly what I wish I'd written, but I ran out of time. Thanks. :)
FYI: "Bullshit" is Penn and Teller's program on Showtime where they often do mock experiments to make their point.
And that's the main point that academics have been making - evolution (right or wrong) is a testable scientific theory, ID (right or wrong) is not. There's a lot of static from more emotion-laden people on both sides, but that's the view of almost all scientists.
some fossils that could be intermediary. to my knowledge, not a single one has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though
The Horse Series is rather compelling.
some pro-evolutionists ... claim it is silly to think this bird is intermediary and outline why
It's sort of like trying to tell if Julius Ceasar was a direct ancestor of yours through genetic testing. You may be able to show that you're related, but with this many generations, it's possible that his brother was your ancestor, not Julius. That's what they're discussing.
did you ever wonder why we can't point to a living creature TODAY that is transitionary? ... a law that says all transitionary anmials have to go extinct?
We can't tell it something is transitionary until its gone - to be transitionary it has to turn into something else - meaning it's not here anymore.
the fossil record ISN'T what was predicted!
Whis is why evolutionary theory has been changed to correspond with new information. But you should know that the basics haven't changed (complex things have simpler ancestors, etc).
there are no land / water transitional ear fossils ... according to macroevolutionary theory, such a change should lead to reduced adaptibility over the tens of thousands/millions of years required to make the change
For this, I don't have any examples off the top of my head. But here's an idea: increased adaptation to land was more important than reduced adaptation to the water. The idea of trade offs (like faster metabolism or needing to eat less, having many weak offspring or fewer stronger ones) is a basic part of evolutionary theory.
where are all the pre-dinosaur fossil transitions that led to the dinosaurs
This should get you started.
And for the big paragraph, I'll have to give short answers:
for example, why would an asexual reproductive system turn to the more complex sexual method?
Because it provides many benefits. That's why most things that normally reproduce asexually still swap genes on occation.
how would a centimeter stub of a limb on one creature be beneficial so as to give it time to end up as an arm with fingers?
Because even a stub is better than nothing for pulling a fish through mud. And a stub with toes that dig in is even better. And and stub with toes and an extra joint is even better. And ...
how did a life form spontaneously combust WITH REPRODUCTIVE ABILITIES
Most likely because the only thing the first life from did was reproduce. That was the defining point between being living and non-living.
how can an environement that can create life from death, if one even exists ... be compatible with an environment that can sustain that life?
Why would the "creation environment" be any different from the "sustaining environment"?
how does life come from death?
You might as well ask "how can beauty come from uglyness" and expect a scientific answer. In everyday life there's a clear difference between animals and plants, or life and death, but in the larger world things are much greyer. Just like we have bacteria that both eat and photosynthesize, there are lots of things that aren't clearly living or non-living - prions, self-replicating RNA strands, viruses, etc.