Civil disobedience isn't just ignoring a law, though. It's an attempt to force that law to change. Rather different from just not obeying the law cause you don't feel like it. Also, people involved in civil disobedience generally take the penalty for their actions without bitching, which you'll note is what I mentioned at the end of my post.
Chickens can no longer mate with wildfowl. Horses and donkeys can no longer produce fertile offspring. Corn doesn't successfully cross-polinate with seed grass (I think... not sure on the last one). Thus, by the definition of "species", new species have been formed. Merry Christmas.
Eh, I'd still argue that they're more biased just because they're more biased, not because they're part of some crazy evil propaganda machine of doom. It varies from person to person, and this company just happens to be particularly more hard-headed than most.
As to conservatives having better propaganda than liberals, it certainly wasn't through lack of trying. I think the problem with the Democrat groupthink machine was that it spent too much time preaching to the choir, and doing that results in a perception of elitism, while the republican machine did the sensible thing and attempted to appeal to people who weren't already party-affiliated. I can't swear by this theory, though, as I've not made any kind of in-depth research into the subject.
It has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal", it's how everyone behaves. I endlessly hear "social liberals" carping about how everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race or philosophy, despite the fact that the same "liberals" are the last remaining sponsors of government-enforced racism, and if they were serious about not judging personal philosophies, then they wouldn't be trying to change mine. Likewise, you hear Republican poiticians prattling about how they represent fiscal responsibility when in fact they're as bad as the Democrats.
I see news shows claiming to be impartial, when in fact they go as far as falsifying evidence (middle finger to Dan Rather, there) to prove a point, and are at best irrelevant.
Around here, we more often hear the free software people claiming superiority, despite the fact that, MS &cetra being closed-source, there's not really a grounds for comparison. In advertising... eh, I don't think I even need to write an example.
So, basically, in resonse to "it's not clear if other political groups are for the moment less able or less willing".... they are just as able, and just as willing. You're talking about a trait that humanity has been trying unsuccessfully to expunge for millenia. I'm afraid that as long as observations come through observers, though, that we're stuck with it.
So... the US will switch to an Imperial dictatorship based in silly Texas A&M style "traditions", doubling its lifespan and switching from a policy of treating conquests like human beings to a policy of treating everyone like dirt beneath their heels? And no one will dare oppose them until they move into areas of undefined geography and wilderness (the moon, maybe? mars)?
I dunno about you, but, hell, sign me up!
Re:Internal conflict is what I worry about...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, we've been through worse presidents without protesting just because they were only mostly completely unfit for the job, rather than entirely so. I mean, look at JFK.... oh, wait, never mind.
I dunno, I think the last time the country was in complete economic ruin, a Democrat was in the white house, and nothing he did accomplished much until a war came along and pulled us out of it. He did spend a hella lot of money, though.
If you don't like it, attempt to change it. If you disobey a law because you don't like it... well, you've knowingly violated the social contract, and earned the penalty. It's irrelevant at this point, though, as concrete laws on the subject are not entirely set as of yet.
Athens was a democracy. Some american townships in places with populations in the 100s are democracies. The United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy. And I daily praise my luck that this is so.
While I agree with you in general terms, I have 2 objections:
(1) Liberals smeared themselves. They called it the progressive movement, and it happened almost a century ago.
(2) I'm pretty sure that "terrorism" provoked a negative reaction pretty much from the time the word was created. Unless you're asserting that people normally find the emotion "Terror" to be pleasant, in which case I laugh.
Eh, intelligence is just the ability to cope with a variety of situations. Since the universe consists of a variety of situations, I'm personally not too suprised that selection pressures seem to be favoring intelligence at this point.
Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of living things in general. Evolution theories explain the differentation of organisms into various types, an ongoing process which continues today. You'll note that Darwin's book was called "the Origin of the Species", not "the Origin of Life".
While I find your method of "making things up, then claiming my opponent claims them" interesting, I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything.
I mean, we have most of the people who're actually trying to figure this kind of stuff out, if we didn't place half of the country in fairy land we might be in danger of forming an intelligent society, or discovering truth, and then the rest of the world would be forced to nuke us.
Actually, the example in the parent to your post resulted in a less-diverse population. Before there were bacteria resistant to penicillin and bacteria that weren't. The latter group no longer exists. Traits don't come into existence as a result of selection pressures; pre-existing traits come into prominence in a population because of selection pressures.
Assuming that there isn't a genetic average of a cat and dog still existent (and there could be, I surely wouldn't know), I imagine that a set of circumstances came along that made it preferable to be either a cat or a dog. For instance, primitive humans might have gone out of their way to kill large ground-dwelling predators that did not form packs. I know I would. (this being hypothetical, naturally, as neither cats nor dogs existed before man developed domestication)
For natural selection:
(1) All of agriculture (imposition of human seleciton criteria to produce new strains of crops of livestock is big business)
(2) Penicillin now does approximately jack to any bacteria on the planet.
For genetic mutation:
(1) cancer: mutated genes resulting inirregualr growth patterns.
(2) Frogs in polluted areas (third legs, etc.)
For the guidance of an unseen hand spontaneously making changes to entire populations:
OK, you got me on this one... Unless the unseen hand is that of an evil bastard that enjoys twisting organisms in a way to cause them pain and suffering, and occasionally does something nice to make up for it.... hey, I think I just invented a religion!
Anyhow, though, there's your evidence. What do I win?
Using technical definitions, god's existence is not a theory. It's a myth. You have to use a word that's technically correct, but sounds more judgemental than it actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
... United states?
I mean, we have Marvel, DK, etc.
Ha, ha. Very funny, guys.
How did parent get modded off-topic? It's a direct reference to something in the summary. What is /. smoking today?
Civil disobedience isn't just ignoring a law, though. It's an attempt to force that law to change. Rather different from just not obeying the law cause you don't feel like it. Also, people involved in civil disobedience generally take the penalty for their actions without bitching, which you'll note is what I mentioned at the end of my post.
Chickens can no longer mate with wildfowl. Horses and donkeys can no longer produce fertile offspring. Corn doesn't successfully cross-polinate with seed grass (I think... not sure on the last one). Thus, by the definition of "species", new species have been formed. Merry Christmas.
Eh, I'd still argue that they're more biased just because they're more biased, not because they're part of some crazy evil propaganda machine of doom. It varies from person to person, and this company just happens to be particularly more hard-headed than most.
As to conservatives having better propaganda than liberals, it certainly wasn't through lack of trying. I think the problem with the Democrat groupthink machine was that it spent too much time preaching to the choir, and doing that results in a perception of elitism, while the republican machine did the sensible thing and attempted to appeal to people who weren't already party-affiliated. I can't swear by this theory, though, as I've not made any kind of in-depth research into the subject.
It has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal", it's how everyone behaves. I endlessly hear "social liberals" carping about how everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race or philosophy, despite the fact that the same "liberals" are the last remaining sponsors of government-enforced racism, and if they were serious about not judging personal philosophies, then they wouldn't be trying to change mine. Likewise, you hear Republican poiticians prattling about how they represent fiscal responsibility when in fact they're as bad as the Democrats.
I see news shows claiming to be impartial, when in fact they go as far as falsifying evidence (middle finger to Dan Rather, there) to prove a point, and are at best irrelevant.
Around here, we more often hear the free software people claiming superiority, despite the fact that, MS &cetra being closed-source, there's not really a grounds for comparison. In advertising... eh, I don't think I even need to write an example.
So, basically, in resonse to "it's not clear if other political groups are for the moment less able or less willing".... they are just as able, and just as willing. You're talking about a trait that humanity has been trying unsuccessfully to expunge for millenia. I'm afraid that as long as observations come through observers, though, that we're stuck with it.
Man, Dean really screwed up on THAT judgement call.
(good laugh on this one, heh)
The weakness of psychohistory lies in truly exceptional actions by individuals or small groups.
So... the US will switch to an Imperial dictatorship based in silly Texas A&M style "traditions", doubling its lifespan and switching from a policy of treating conquests like human beings to a policy of treating everyone like dirt beneath their heels? And no one will dare oppose them until they move into areas of undefined geography and wilderness (the moon, maybe? mars)?
I dunno about you, but, hell, sign me up!
Yeah, we've been through worse presidents without protesting just because they were only mostly completely unfit for the job, rather than entirely so. I mean, look at JFK.... oh, wait, never mind.
I dunno, I think the last time the country was in complete economic ruin, a Democrat was in the white house, and nothing he did accomplished much until a war came along and pulled us out of it. He did spend a hella lot of money, though.
If you don't like it, attempt to change it. If you disobey a law because you don't like it... well, you've knowingly violated the social contract, and earned the penalty. It's irrelevant at this point, though, as concrete laws on the subject are not entirely set as of yet.
Athens was a democracy. Some american townships in places with populations in the 100s are democracies. The United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy. And I daily praise my luck that this is so.
While I agree with you in general terms, I have 2 objections:
(1) Liberals smeared themselves. They called it the progressive movement, and it happened almost a century ago.
(2) I'm pretty sure that "terrorism" provoked a negative reaction pretty much from the time the word was created. Unless you're asserting that people normally find the emotion "Terror" to be pleasant, in which case I laugh.
because communist states, in practice, yield totalitarianism.
is human greed. Why wouldn't we be allowed to be greedy in groups?
Eh, intelligence is just the ability to cope with a variety of situations. Since the universe consists of a variety of situations, I'm personally not too suprised that selection pressures seem to be favoring intelligence at this point.
Except we're still a bunch of homicidal apes. All we've fixed is the "retarded", and that's only because the term is completely relative.
Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of living things in general. Evolution theories explain the differentation of organisms into various types, an ongoing process which continues today. You'll note that Darwin's book was called "the Origin of the Species", not "the Origin of Life".
While I find your method of "making things up, then claiming my opponent claims them" interesting, I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything.
I mean, we have most of the people who're actually trying to figure this kind of stuff out, if we didn't place half of the country in fairy land we might be in danger of forming an intelligent society, or discovering truth, and then the rest of the world would be forced to nuke us.
Actually, the example in the parent to your post resulted in a less-diverse population. Before there were bacteria resistant to penicillin and bacteria that weren't. The latter group no longer exists. Traits don't come into existence as a result of selection pressures; pre-existing traits come into prominence in a population because of selection pressures.
Assuming that there isn't a genetic average of a cat and dog still existent (and there could be, I surely wouldn't know), I imagine that a set of circumstances came along that made it preferable to be either a cat or a dog. For instance, primitive humans might have gone out of their way to kill large ground-dwelling predators that did not form packs. I know I would. (this being hypothetical, naturally, as neither cats nor dogs existed before man developed domestication)
For natural selection:
(1) All of agriculture (imposition of human seleciton criteria to produce new strains of crops of livestock is big business)
(2) Penicillin now does approximately jack to any bacteria on the planet.
For genetic mutation:
(1) cancer: mutated genes resulting inirregualr growth patterns.
(2) Frogs in polluted areas (third legs, etc.)
For the guidance of an unseen hand spontaneously making changes to entire populations:
OK, you got me on this one... Unless the unseen hand is that of an evil bastard that enjoys twisting organisms in a way to cause them pain and suffering, and occasionally does something nice to make up for it.... hey, I think I just invented a religion!
Anyhow, though, there's your evidence. What do I win?
Using technical definitions, god's existence is not a theory. It's a myth. You have to use a word that's technically correct, but sounds more judgemental than it actually is.
no, you see, god is just transporting you instantaneously to another edge.... and he does it with the light too.
I win!