Now that we do, it's time to realize that the bible teaches morals, science teaches facts.
It doesn't even do that. What it calls "morals", for the most part, are things which you'd be put in prison for life or executed for if you did in any halfway decent modern society. It's time to realize that the bible doesn't actually have anything worthwhile to offer since we have far surpassed the people who wrote it and their god morally, ethically, and technologically.
Can you prove it ALWAYS did travel at that speed for all time? No? Well then, maybe it travelled much faster through a smaller, denser Universe than we measure today?
Is there any rational reason to suspect that it did? Is there any evidence for such a thing?
Of course not.
You keep insisting on idiotic things because you are desperate to believe a very stupid old fairy tale.
That makes you both sad and pathetic. It does not mean that you've raised any valid points. You haven't.
Please don't take any more offense at this than you have to, but:
Wow, A Republican who can learn, think, and actually change his mind about things as those things themselves change, in order to be true to things he honestly and decently believes in as opposed to wallowing in the muck of rah rah politics screeching idiotic hatred of words they generally don't even understand?!?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
I'm also, quite honestly, more relieved than I have been in *years*. To see one of you sane up after this long is seriously making me feel almost giddy with the thought that maybe there is a tiny shred of hope left for this country. I mean, you even turned your back on Saint Reagan's Death Cult, and that's a huge triumph of common sense.
I'm going to take my wife out for a beer after work, and we're going to drink a toast to you, dude. It takes balls to do what you're doing.
If the rest of the voting population is willing to allow itself to be willingly constrained to these two crappy choices, that's their problem, not mine.
Well, it's their fault. It's everybody's problem;-)
What I mean here by a rational basis is a non-dogmatic basis. A basis that is not dependant on axioms, which are unexaplainable, eternal, non-negotiable truths.
You are showing a very deep fundamental misunderstanding of the subject.
Axioms are not "unexplainable", they are not "eternal" and they are not in any way "non-negotiable".
For example, Euclid's 5th postulate is an axiom of plane geometry. It says that 2 parallel lines will never meet. Seems pretty reasonable *if you're restricted to a plane*. If you decide to toss it out, you haven't done anything to the basis of mathematics or anything else really. You merely have a new and different system to study. That's where the geometry of General Relativity came from.
So, for that one case, all three of your assertions about axioms are obviously false, which proves them absolutely false as a general rule.
It's the same for the ZF/ZFC axioms of set theory. Those are 2 different sets of axioms. ZFC just adds the axiom of choice. Now, you also don't seem to have a good grasp on the actual implications of Gödel's theorems. What he said in this context is that there will be statements, say the axiom of choice, for example, which can be stated within a certain type of system, ZF set theory for example, which can not be proven from within the system.
That's fine, it doesn't make it inconsistent, it doesn't wreak any of the sort of havoc you're trying to pretend is implied. All it says is that Andrew Wiles might have been wasting his time with that whole Fermat's last theorem thing as it's possible that there was no possible proof. That turned out not to be the case. Maybe the Goldberg conjecture is undecidable though.
Once you find such a statement, you can choose to adopt it as a new axiom and it will not lead to contradictions provided the original system was as well.
It's "negotiated" all the time. Some people dislike the AoC because it leads to things like the Banach-Tarski paradox and unmeasurable sets, while others like it because it leads to (or is equivalent to ) totally awesome things like Tychonoff's theorem.
So if you like the AoC, you can even negotiate whether to include it as an axiom or to choose Tychonoff's theorem, since either one you pick, you can derive the other from it. You have a large number of alternative choices for new axioms which would give the same results. You're still left with an infinite chain of undecidable statements (continuum hypothesis etc), any of which can be brought on board as new axioms or rejected as new axioms based on non-eternal, well explained, and entirely negotiable reasoning.
So, there is nothing at all dogmatic about it. When you choose to fix some axioms, you get a certain system. If you want the system to work a different way, choose different axioms.
My favorite example, comes from the 1960s, the founders of the libertarian movement? Former communists who felt betrayed by communism so they went to the utter opposite extreme.
I think you're thinking of NeoCons. They went from American "liberalism" to fascism. While American "liberalism" isn't as extreme as communism, it is on the opposite side of fascism making your point fairly valid in that respect.
Communism and Libertarianism aren't opposite extremes, Communism and Fascism are. Libertarianism is the center between those two extremes. While there might have been some ex-communists involved in the early libertarian movement, they were largely Republicans who didn't "feel", but *were* betrayed by the Republican party. That's when the smart Republicans who actually believed in the stated Republican platform all left the Republican party setting the stage for its descent into fascism which went all out with the election of Reagan.
Mises, Rothbard and the rest weren't ever in any communist AFAIK.
But as soon as it's a minority party doing the same thing, then the Law is Gold and needs to be upheld no matter what.
You really do not understand anything about the situation. At all.
The Republican and Democrat parties have been conspiring for decades to keep 3rd parties out of elections, out of debates, off of ballots through a huge variety of very sleazy tricks. They had the former LP candidate, Badnarik arrested for showing up at the location of the debates to serve court papers related to their unauthorized restriction of our electoral process. That's one example among hundreds.
So, given that dirty tricks and sleaze are the standard technique that the 2 major parties use to maintain their power at the expense of the Republic, it is absolutely a great thing that Barr, douchebag that he is, is able to use election laws for the good of the country rather than at its expense. Plus it is completely hilarious to see both parties screwed by the same techniques that they've mastered the art of fucking 3rd parties with. That is justice.
It's really not a bad thing to expect a presidential candidate to follow the laws regarding the election that they're running in. I'm pretty scared that you think that just believing that makes a person a scumbag. You might consider looking into what it means to be a citizen as opposed to being a subject. You clearly do not understand the distinction.
I don't know what rights you hold near and dear to your heart, but last time I looked, it was Democrats that were waging full scale war on gun rights, free speech rights, the right to religious expression, private property rights.
Well, you've obviously never actually looked then. You're repeating nonsense lies without giving them a second's thought.
There are some Democrats who believe in some level of gun control. There are a very few who believe in some sort of absolute control. Most aren't that concerned. Hardly a full scale war.
Free speech, huh? Republicans are the ones out to shut down flag burning, calling anybody who speaks the truth about the war on terrorism "traitors" and. "Free speech zones" are bi partisan, of course.
Democrats are big fans of free religious expression. Republicans are composed largely of religious extremists who seek to shove their religion (and only their religion) into everybody's faces in courthouses for fuck's sake and often at the public expense. All of those are extremist anti-American actions, illegal and frankly, treasonous. So the all out war is entirely by the Republicans on that issue as you'd know if you paid any attention at all.
Property rights? So that's why the country is being looted, my bank account robbed by diluting the money supply, my pocket being picked to pay off oil and weapons companies etc?!? Republican's have no respect for property rights either.
You really should pull your head out of your ignorant ass and look at actions and quit repeating idiotic lies as if they had any bearing on reality.
Last time I checked, there weren't any Republicans running around spouting "fascist" slogans and screeching their hatred of America.
Then you haven't checked in decades. Jingoism is fascist. It's pretty much the opposite of patriotism. It's what Republicans are doing when they're claiming patriotism. All that flag waving and calling decent honest people traitors for pointing out facts? That's fascism straight out of Hitler's book. You should pay attention. Repeating idiotic lies like "America is based on Christianity" That's fascist, and a screeching cry of blind hatred for America and everything it stands for. It goes on and on.
As for the invasion of other people's privacy, yours or mine, or any one else's, no, I don't want the government in that business. In fact, I want the government involved in as little as possible. So, you're wrong on that account too.
If there were any truth to that, then there is no possible way you could support the Republicans, so you've proven yourself a liar there. Actions speak louder than words is a message you really need to learn and take to heart. You might be able to have an actual conversation based on facts rather than merely repeating silly lies that 5 minute's research would clear up for you.
I'm not the one with cognitive dissonance that thinks it's ok to shred someone's life simply because I disagree with them politically like the folks on the left apparently believe.
Yet that's the entire Republican election playbook. That's all we've heard out of then in decades. From Reagan's screeching about welfare mother's while pumping up subsidies to the actual rural Republican welfare leeches, and making up the blatant lie that was the crack baby epidemic to Bush's victory over McCain by calling him a coward and father of a black baby, to swift boating, and the use of Bush's massive failure on 9/11 as an excuse to institute a fascist police state.
You might also want to consider that it isn't the "left", it's *everyone* except for the farthest out right wing extremists (otherwise known as "fascists", or "people so fucking stupid as to still be Republican supporters given their massive acts of treason") who despise the Republican policy of shredding people's lives due merely to political disagreement. Hell, you big government ninny state asshats defend Bush against treason when he outed a CIA agent to shred her life because her
Well based on the example you gave, but clearly don't even understand, it looks like he might consider the laws and the constitution to be important? He might consider the rule of law to be a good thing rather than something to lie cheat and steal in order to get around?
Yeah, you make a lot of sense. That really makes him a bad person. Fuck, dude, did your parents have any children that lived?
I know it's annoying to hear about some of the pork the rural minority gets, but in reality it is only a fair balance to the huge amount of pork the city interests get; a fair balance that wouldn't exist if we were a true democracy
Dude, seriously, put down the crack pipe. It's really doing you some damage. It's not at all balanced. The cities and large urban states pay the bills, the rural areas and states for the most part do not pay any taxes. They receive far more back then they put in. The difference comes from the cities and urban areas. So it's an extremely unfair imbalance created by the electoral college and other poorly implemented attempts at adjusting representation, not a balancing at all. It allows people with little relevance or understanding to exert a massively disproportionate pull on the public pursestrings. Now, I'd be a lot less pissed off about it if they had the integrity and basic decency t ojsut call themselves socialists and be done with it, but they;re the ones most likely to screech hatred of socialism and extoll the virtues of capitalism. People who are that controlled by self-loathing and delusion are a clear and present danger to this nation as reflected by their totally idiotic and disasterous presidential choices over the last 30 years.
I even dare to say that elimination of the electoral college is the kind of thing that would push less populated states to recede and possibly start a civil war (loss of federal representation like this, and not slavery, is exactly what caused the last one).
Let them leave. Who cares? They'll learn pretty quickly that they can't pay their bills without stealing my money to do it and hopefully they'll start to grow up and act like decent people and learn how to live in the modern world. That or they'll just deteriorate to third world status which is what they seem to want. At least they won't be able to drag the decent people down with them. Good riddance, I say.
You could make the same argument about the senate. Are you seriously suggesting that we just like NY and CA control the entire country?
It would obviously be far superior to the current situation where shitty little welfare states who can't even pull their own weight or deal with modern reality are given incredible amounts of power over the states which actually pay the bills and use that power in order to try and force antique bronze age delusion in place of our Liberal, secular government thus dragging us all down to their pathetic level.
I mean NY, CA and the rest of the provider states pay the bills, why shouldn't they have more say what's done with their money? I'll never understand you extremist Socialists, but your sort who thinks that letting those who produce the least should have the most say in how to rob those who actually are productive are utterly insane.
(And I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican... Can't imagine what non Libs think of this guy.)
They think he's a typical Republican: Big government loving religious extremist nutter. Can't imagine who the fuck voted for that piece of shit as a Libertarian Party candidate. I think I am going to have to actually write in Colbert since the LP totally fucked itself and its integrity on that one.
You really should re-read your last post. You come across as a stark-raving mad semi-incoherent lunatic.
No, those are called facts. Were you at all in touch with reality you'd know that. Failing that, you'd at least be able to make an attempt at refuting the facts I stated, yet you completely failed to do that. I'm sorry you don't like how the world really works, but you should try dealing with it as it is rather than spouting a bunch of idiotic ad hominems in order to try and cover up your ignorance.
No, that would be the Republican party as a whole as amply evidenced by their actions over the last 30 years or so. I'd have thought that was quite obvious.
In other words, you are delusional, and from the remainder of your post, probably a little psychopathic as well. And obviously a fair arbiter of what is right and wrong and the perfect person for us to safeguard our rights.
Wow, you make one simple mistake and loop off into loony land based off of your error. That's pretty far out there.
I'm obviously not the perfect person to safeguard our rights, but I'm just as obviously better suited for that than any member of our government. I'm also quite obviously better suited for that than any Republican supporters over the last several decades given that their policies have been geared toward the destruction of those rights. The same holds for most Democrat supporters as well, obviously, but there are at least some who aren't running around spouting fascist slogans and screeching their hatred of America. That can't be said about Republicans, as their party doesn't offer anything else.
So, Commissar Darby, what did the Revolutionary Council find that was so incriminating and treasonous in Palin's emails....
Nothing.
I didn't say anything was found. Given that you're the one defending revolutionaries, your characterization is typical of the Orwellian dishonesty which has come to define Republican supporters.
Call me crazy, but when you start trampling people's rights to privacy to protect your right to privacy, you no longer are the good guy you think you are.
You're crazy because you think that it's ok for the government to do it to me, but you do not think it's ok for me to do anything about it. Please don't bother with inane idiocy like saying that you don't think it's ok for the government to do it. You do think that. If you didn't, then you'd be able to suggest a legal mechanism to address the treasonous action of the government rather than whining about how some people took the only option available.
I'd rather live in a world where nobody thought it was ok to invade other people's privacy, but we don't. Given that we don't, it is absolutely, positively and beyond any possibility of a doubt *better* that it be those who despise individual rights and liberty that bear the brunt of it rather than decent ethical people. The fact that you think it should be the good people fucked by the evil and that they should be berated for daring to stand up to their masters says a lot about you and all of it is bad.
This is what I don't get, after reading about half of the posts in this thread: About 95% of the posts don't mention the right to privacy, at all. But monitoring e-mail traffic by secret service in order to catch terrorists or prevent possible terrorist attacks, is frown upon by the great majority of Slashdotters.
That's because she does not believe in a right to privacy, and she stands for destroying what's left of it for us, the poor unwashed masses. When the government does it to the people it's *treason*. Not, oh that's not nice. It's fucking *treason*. A crime deserving of death by execution by the fellow citizens who you've betrayed.
Then you go on to claim that the *criminal* monitoring by the government is intended to catch terrorists. There is no evidence for such a far out idea and no reason a sane person could possibly believe that. It's a piece of propaganda which you've swallowed without spending even a second thinking it through.
So on the one hand you have actual *treason* by government officials. On the other hand you have a traitor being shown that they are not above the law. That is an absolutely wonderful thing. When somebody claims that they have a right to privacy but none of us do then it is absolutely essential to have some means of showing them the error of their ways. There is no legal method given that it is the government itself and those composing it who are responsible both for the crimes and for the investigation/prosecution of the same crimes. If you'd care to recommend some actual options rather than just repeating lies and demonstrating your failure to grasp the actual issues at stake I'd be happy to hear it, but it really doesn't seem like you have paid much attention to anything that's happened in this country in the last 30 years or so.
I tend to put myself in other people's shoes, and here I definitely feel I would feel miserable if my e-mails and family photos were exposed to the world.
The fundamental flaw with your approach is that you are trying to apply it to people who do not possess ethics, morals, or consciences. They're sociopaths and would have you killed without a second's hesitation or regret if they knew that it would benefit them and they could get away with it.
Slashdot readers and posters are very big on privacy - well, this is one grave (and I think extremely insensitive) breach of a person's privacy.
She's in the process of trying to get elected to a position of power which she plans on illegally using to do far far worse than that to each and every one of us.
It is not at all a symmetrical situation. If there existed a legal method of dealing with the crimes of the government, then you might have a point. Given that there exists no such method, I'm not self-loathing enough to take the side of the person who wants to fuck me and my country over the people whose actions can only help prevent said fucking by the only methods available *due to the actions of the government and specifically the people Palin has chosen to associate herself with.
I think the majority of folks on/. are fairly strongly in favor of a free Internet and the right to privacy.
That's true, and I certainly am. Palin, however, is violently opposed to such things. So are the rest of the scum in Washington, Obama included, but that is a critical fact you left out.
Hacking into a private email account is not only criminal, it's evil, no matter whose email account it is. And when it's a highly prominent person who may end up in a position to influence technology policy, it's not only criminal to hack into their email, it's really unhelpful (I was going to say stupid, but I want to be kind).
Not really. It's a person who fully intends to have a massively negative influence through whatever criminal means at her disposal. Letting them know that they aren't immune from the treasonous bullshit she wants to pull on us is necessarily positive.
Imagine if the hacked email account had belonged to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton. Would the response have been different?
A little, not much. Obama, Biden, and Hillary aren't as rabidly anti-liberty, anti-freedom and anti-America as McCain and Palin are. It's an obvious and very distinct difference between them. Not enough of a difference to excuse such things for one but not the other, but definitely enough of a difference so that it's possible for a decent person to support someone doing it to Palin more than to people who aren't as rabidly hostile to this country as she's already proven herself to be.
Time for a gut check. Liberty and justice for all, or for all except when we can get a little dirt on the folks we don't agree with?
It doesn't have anything to do with "agreeing" or "disagreeing". It's a simple matter of self defense. My Grandfather fought the nazis in WW2. I sure as shit am not going to support them here and now. That's why there are no patriots at all or even any decent people left supporting the Republican party. It has to do with their chosen course of criminal treason and nothing at all to do with disagreement.
I also think if it's wrong for the government, it's wrong for every day people to be running their own intelligence operations also.
Well, given that it's a choice between everyday people running their own intelligence operations against the worst threat facing America, or giving up and being a slave of these treasonous fascist fucks, do you have any actual good choices? No? Well, there is no legal recourse, so those who take illegal actions in such situations are patriots and heroes. That's how the world works.
The government wants to be secretive? Fuck them right in the ear. They don't have that right, and we the people have the right to crawl as far up their asses as we need to to maintain control over them. It's called being a citizen. You seem to be suggesting that we should all just be good little subjects.
If He is God as i believe that He is, then He does have not only the right, but the imperative to judge His creation. If He knows (being all knowing as He is) what is in their hearts, then it's His call and their blood isn't on my hands.
Their blood obviously isn't on your hands. You weren't alive at the time. Were you alive at the time (and place), then you most likely would have been a non-Hebrew and hence deserving of brutal extermination by your own argument. By worshiping the evil monster who ordered such atrocities out of pure jealousy over other gods (which your god believed in as much as he believed in himself, remember), you remove yourself from the collection of decent, moral people.
Secondly, you call me a monster. That is from a french word that means to show. To show something in yourself that you don't like?
I don't speak French. I was using the term to mean what it actually means in common English usage. You consider the source of all that is moral to be an obviously evil monster. That makes you one since you don't even have the most basic understanding of moral principles. That's a very serious problem with your brain. It makes you a sociopath.
Secondly, I have not proven to be a liar and if so, then on what point. I have said nothing that I didn't readily point out wasn't religious.
You said it's a fact that god exists and that he is a "he". That either of those are facts is a bald faced lie. It's something your weak will and cowardice forces you to insist is true. Hence by repeating blatantly obvious lies, you're a liar.
As I had wished to do before, I am leaving. Not in a defeat, because you can't loose to someone who cannot fight back.
Yes, in defeat. You have been entirely unable to defend your position since you're wrong. I've proven that you are wrong, but you're too dishonest and deluded to honestly deal with that fact.
Dogs are chained to trees in much the same way that you are trapped by your own flesh and cannot see past your own point of view. There are truths in this world and yours are not those.
That's right, reality *must* magically conform to some insane delusions you were force fed when your brain wasn't developed enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality just because you really really want it to. I pity you your brain damage.
I also explained that the reason I was voting Libertarian was because I smoke pot, and to vote for a man who would have me imprisoned is lunacy.
You might want to actually investigate Barr a bit. He is extremely happy to toss your ass in prison for smoking a joint, which by your argument would make you a lunatic.
If all the millions of reeferheads in America voted Barr this election he'd still lose, but it might change the policies of one of the two dominant parties.
No, it would demonstrate that the Libertarians can be gotten by *rejecting* their anti drug law stance and it's hence a meaningless issue which can safely be ignored. This is only the second election I'm not voting Libertarian due to that scumbag being nominated.
I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding?
No, that would be you. I'm a thinker, not a believer, so the very idea of a god is silly nonsense to me. You're the one claiming absolute morality and lying in an attempt to put forward your delusional view. I called you on your blatant dishonesty.
Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do).
So you think genocide is good. That makes you a monster. You have lost any sort of moral argument that you could ever hope to make, especially that there is anything absolute about your *evil* "morals".
As I said before, I'm done.
Yes, you've been proven a liar and so you run away since you can't defend your position as it's completely wrapped up in delusion.
Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!
Again, that would be you. Your demand that your delusions are true is the reason that you're inable to think rationally or even avoid bald faced lies.
First, that is not a fact. It is merely something you have a desperate need to believe because you are weak and cowardly. There is no rational basis for that statement, and not one single scrap of evidence to back it up. You can't really expect people to listen to you if you disrespect them so outrageously as to lie through your teeth about simple basic facts.
And it wasn't until I listened to what He had to say that everything started to make sense.
Listening to voices in your head is a sign of mental flaws.
You live in a world where there is moral grey. I live in a world where there is a genuine black and white.
No, your "morals" are all over the place. If you follow the bible, then you are a leaf in the wind being blown all over because god's morals are all over the map. "Don't kill" *and* "Go commit genocide and steal all that great land from the people living there". "Murder heretics with rocks". and on and on and on.
It's bad enough that you are so far outside the bounds of sanity that you can't even understand that those are contradictory, but you willingly choose to *worship* such a blatantly evil creation of man's ignorance. You don't get to play the moral card as long as you postulate such an inconsistent and evil creature as the source of all morality. That's how reality works.
Besides, if I'm right you are screwed. If I'm wrong, your god won't care! Have a good one.
Well, more people believe in gods that will happily send you to hell than there are that believe in your particular magical fairy, so your argument fails. Again, this in entirely attributable to your lack of basic critical reasoning skills.
Hitler was a militant athiest (disliked ALL religion)
Hitler was a militant *Christian*. Don't spread idiotic lies about decent people to try and hide reality. It makes you a scumbag. Go look up some of his speeches. Go read "God mit Uns" on the buttons of the German soldiers which he had put there. Go read Martin Luther's (father of Protestantism) "On the Jews and their Lies" which laid out the holocaust in explicit detail.
You can blather along about how he's not a "real" Christian, but if you take an honest look at that religion's history, you'll have a real hard time making that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Marxist societies like China and Cuba control the population quite well without religion.
No they didn't. Just because they used "the State" instead of "God" doesn't make it any less of a religion. Same thing.
Now that we do, it's time to realize that the bible teaches morals, science teaches facts.
It doesn't even do that. What it calls "morals", for the most part, are things which you'd be put in prison for life or executed for if you did in any halfway decent modern society. It's time to realize that the bible doesn't actually have anything worthwhile to offer since we have far surpassed the people who wrote it and their god morally, ethically, and technologically.
Can you prove it ALWAYS did travel at that speed for all time? No? Well then, maybe it travelled much faster through a smaller, denser Universe than we measure today?
Is there any rational reason to suspect that it did? Is there any evidence for such a thing?
Of course not.
You keep insisting on idiotic things because you are desperate to believe a very stupid old fairy tale.
That makes you both sad and pathetic. It does not mean that you've raised any valid points. You haven't.
Holy shit, dude.
Please don't take any more offense at this than you have to, but:
Wow, A Republican who can learn, think, and actually change his mind about things as those things themselves change, in order to be true to things he honestly and decently believes in as opposed to wallowing in the muck of rah rah politics screeching idiotic hatred of words they generally don't even understand?!?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
I'm also, quite honestly, more relieved than I have been in *years*. To see one of you sane up after this long is seriously making me feel almost giddy with the thought that maybe there is a tiny shred of hope left for this country. I mean, you even turned your back on Saint Reagan's Death Cult, and that's a huge triumph of common sense.
I'm going to take my wife out for a beer after work, and we're going to drink a toast to you, dude. It takes balls to do what you're doing.
If the rest of the voting population is willing to allow itself to be willingly constrained to these two crappy choices, that's their problem, not mine.
Well, it's their fault. It's everybody's problem ;-)
What I mean here by a rational basis is a non-dogmatic basis. A basis that is not dependant on axioms, which are unexaplainable, eternal, non-negotiable truths.
You are showing a very deep fundamental misunderstanding of the subject.
Axioms are not "unexplainable", they are not "eternal" and they are not in any way "non-negotiable".
For example, Euclid's 5th postulate is an axiom of plane geometry. It says that 2 parallel lines will never meet. Seems pretty reasonable *if you're restricted to a plane*. If you decide to toss it out, you haven't done anything to the basis of mathematics or anything else really. You merely have a new and different system to study. That's where the geometry of General Relativity came from.
So, for that one case, all three of your assertions about axioms are obviously false, which proves them absolutely false as a general rule.
It's the same for the ZF/ZFC axioms of set theory. Those are 2 different sets of axioms. ZFC just adds the axiom of choice. Now, you also don't seem to have a good grasp on the actual implications of Gödel's theorems. What he said in this context is that there will be statements, say the axiom of choice, for example, which can be stated within a certain type of system, ZF set theory for example, which can not be proven from within the system.
That's fine, it doesn't make it inconsistent, it doesn't wreak any of the sort of havoc you're trying to pretend is implied. All it says is that Andrew Wiles might have been wasting his time with that whole Fermat's last theorem thing as it's possible that there was no possible proof. That turned out not to be the case. Maybe the Goldberg conjecture is undecidable though.
Once you find such a statement, you can choose to adopt it as a new axiom and it will not lead to contradictions provided the original system was as well.
It's "negotiated" all the time. Some people dislike the AoC because it leads to things like the Banach-Tarski paradox and unmeasurable sets, while others like it because it leads to (or is equivalent to ) totally awesome things like Tychonoff's theorem.
So if you like the AoC, you can even negotiate whether to include it as an axiom or to choose Tychonoff's theorem, since either one you pick, you can derive the other from it. You have a large number of alternative choices for new axioms which would give the same results.
You're still left with an infinite chain of undecidable statements (continuum hypothesis etc), any of which can be brought on board as new axioms or rejected as new axioms based on non-eternal, well explained, and entirely negotiable reasoning.
So, there is nothing at all dogmatic about it. When you choose to fix some axioms, you get a certain system. If you want the system to work a different way, choose different axioms.
It's not at all how you describe it.
My favorite example, comes from the 1960s, the founders of the libertarian movement? Former communists who felt betrayed by communism so they went to the utter opposite extreme.
I think you're thinking of NeoCons. They went from American "liberalism" to fascism. While American "liberalism" isn't as extreme as communism, it is on the opposite side of fascism making your point fairly valid in that respect.
Communism and Libertarianism aren't opposite extremes, Communism and Fascism are. Libertarianism is the center between those two extremes.
While there might have been some ex-communists involved in the early libertarian movement, they were largely Republicans who didn't "feel", but *were* betrayed by the Republican party. That's when the smart Republicans who actually believed in the stated Republican platform all left the Republican party setting the stage for its descent into fascism which went all out with the election of Reagan.
Mises, Rothbard and the rest weren't ever in any communist AFAIK.
All he's doing is just bringing himself down to their sleazy level.
How does that help?
Wow. If you feel that making our leaders follow the laws too is sleazy, then I doubt I'll be able to get anything across to you.
But as soon as it's a minority party doing the same thing, then the Law is Gold and needs to be upheld no matter what.
You really do not understand anything about the situation. At all.
The Republican and Democrat parties have been conspiring for decades to keep 3rd parties out of elections, out of debates, off of ballots through a huge variety of very sleazy tricks.
They had the former LP candidate, Badnarik arrested for showing up at the location of the debates to serve court papers related to their unauthorized restriction of our electoral process. That's one example among hundreds.
So, given that dirty tricks and sleaze are the standard technique that the 2 major parties use to maintain their power at the expense of the Republic, it is absolutely a great thing that Barr, douchebag that he is, is able to use election laws for the good of the country rather than at its expense.
Plus it is completely hilarious to see both parties screwed by the same techniques that they've mastered the art of fucking 3rd parties with. That is justice.
It's really not a bad thing to expect a presidential candidate to follow the laws regarding the election that they're running in. I'm pretty scared that you think that just believing that makes a person a scumbag. You might consider looking into what it means to be a citizen as opposed to being a subject. You clearly do not understand the distinction.
I don't know what rights you hold near and dear to your heart, but last time I looked, it was Democrats that were waging full scale war on gun rights, free speech rights, the right to religious expression, private property rights.
Well, you've obviously never actually looked then. You're repeating nonsense lies without giving them a second's thought.
There are some Democrats who believe in some level of gun control. There are a very few who believe in some sort of absolute control. Most aren't that concerned. Hardly a full scale war.
Free speech, huh? Republicans are the ones out to shut down flag burning, calling anybody who speaks the truth about the war on terrorism "traitors" and. "Free speech zones" are bi partisan, of course.
Democrats are big fans of free religious expression. Republicans are composed largely of religious extremists who seek to shove their religion (and only their religion) into everybody's faces in courthouses for fuck's sake and often at the public expense. All of those are extremist anti-American actions, illegal and frankly, treasonous. So the all out war is entirely by the Republicans on that issue as you'd know if you paid any attention at all.
Property rights? So that's why the country is being looted, my bank account robbed by diluting the money supply, my pocket being picked to pay off oil and weapons companies etc?!? Republican's have no respect for property rights either.
You really should pull your head out of your ignorant ass and look at actions and quit repeating idiotic lies as if they had any bearing on reality.
Last time I checked, there weren't any Republicans running around spouting "fascist" slogans and screeching their hatred of America.
Then you haven't checked in decades. Jingoism is fascist. It's pretty much the opposite of patriotism. It's what Republicans are doing when they're claiming patriotism. All that flag waving and calling decent honest people traitors for pointing out facts? That's fascism straight out of Hitler's book. You should pay attention. Repeating idiotic lies like "America is based on Christianity" That's fascist, and a screeching cry of blind hatred for America and everything it stands for. It goes on and on.
As for the invasion of other people's privacy, yours or mine, or any one else's, no, I don't want the government in that business. In fact, I want the government involved in as little as possible. So, you're wrong on that account too.
If there were any truth to that, then there is no possible way you could support the Republicans, so you've proven yourself a liar there.
Actions speak louder than words is a message you really need to learn and take to heart. You might be able to have an actual conversation based on facts rather than merely repeating silly lies that 5 minute's research would clear up for you.
I'm not the one with cognitive dissonance that thinks it's ok to shred someone's life simply because I disagree with them politically like the folks on the left apparently believe.
Yet that's the entire Republican election playbook. That's all we've heard out of then in decades. From Reagan's screeching about welfare mother's while pumping up subsidies to the actual rural Republican welfare leeches, and making up the blatant lie that was the crack baby epidemic to Bush's victory over McCain by calling him a coward and father of a black baby, to swift boating, and the use of Bush's massive failure on 9/11 as an excuse to institute a fascist police state.
You might also want to consider that it isn't the "left", it's *everyone* except for the farthest out right wing extremists (otherwise known as "fascists", or "people so fucking stupid as to still be Republican supporters given their massive acts of treason") who despise the Republican policy of shredding people's lives due merely to political disagreement. Hell, you big government ninny state asshats defend Bush against treason when he outed a CIA agent to shred her life because her
What's he gonna do if elected president?
Well based on the example you gave, but clearly don't even understand, it looks like he might consider the laws and the constitution to be important? He might consider the rule of law to be a good thing rather than something to lie cheat and steal in order to get around?
Yeah, you make a lot of sense. That really makes him a bad person. Fuck, dude, did your parents have any children that lived?
I know it's annoying to hear about some of the pork the rural minority gets, but in reality it is only a fair balance to the huge amount of pork the city interests get; a fair balance that wouldn't exist if we were a true democracy
Dude, seriously, put down the crack pipe. It's really doing you some damage. It's not at all balanced. The cities and large urban states pay the bills, the rural areas and states for the most part do not pay any taxes. They receive far more back then they put in. The difference comes from the cities and urban areas. So it's an extremely unfair imbalance created by the electoral college and other poorly implemented attempts at adjusting representation, not a balancing at all.
It allows people with little relevance or understanding to exert a massively disproportionate pull on the public pursestrings.
Now, I'd be a lot less pissed off about it if they had the integrity and basic decency t ojsut call themselves socialists and be done with it, but they;re the ones most likely to screech hatred of socialism and extoll the virtues of capitalism. People who are that controlled by self-loathing and delusion are a clear and present danger to this nation as reflected by their totally idiotic and disasterous presidential choices over the last 30 years.
I even dare to say that elimination of the electoral college is the kind of thing that would push less populated states to recede and possibly start a civil war (loss of federal representation like this, and not slavery, is exactly what caused the last one).
Let them leave. Who cares? They'll learn pretty quickly that they can't pay their bills without stealing my money to do it and hopefully they'll start to grow up and act like decent people and learn how to live in the modern world. That or they'll just deteriorate to third world status which is what they seem to want. At least they won't be able to drag the decent people down with them. Good riddance, I say.
You could make the same argument about the senate. Are you seriously suggesting that we just like NY and CA control the entire country?
It would obviously be far superior to the current situation where shitty little welfare states who can't even pull their own weight or deal with modern reality are given incredible amounts of power over the states which actually pay the bills and use that power in order to try and force antique bronze age delusion in place of our Liberal, secular government thus dragging us all down to their pathetic level.
I mean NY, CA and the rest of the provider states pay the bills, why shouldn't they have more say what's done with their money? I'll never understand you extremist Socialists, but your sort who thinks that letting those who produce the least should have the most say in how to rob those who actually are productive are utterly insane.
(And I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican... Can't imagine what non Libs think of this guy.)
They think he's a typical Republican: Big government loving religious extremist nutter. Can't imagine who the fuck voted for that piece of shit as a Libertarian Party candidate. I think I am going to have to actually write in Colbert since the LP totally fucked itself and its integrity on that one.
You really should re-read your last post. You come across as a stark-raving mad semi-incoherent lunatic.
No, those are called facts. Were you at all in touch with reality you'd know that. Failing that, you'd at least be able to make an attempt at refuting the facts I stated, yet you completely failed to do that.
I'm sorry you don't like how the world really works, but you should try dealing with it as it is rather than spouting a bunch of idiotic ad hominems in order to try and cover up your ignorance.
And, what, pray tell, would that be?
Let me guess, you think it's McCain and Palin.
No, that would be the Republican party as a whole as amply evidenced by their actions over the last 30 years or so. I'd have thought that was quite obvious.
In other words, you are delusional, and from the remainder of your post, probably a little psychopathic as well. And obviously a fair arbiter of what is right and wrong and the perfect person for us to safeguard our rights.
Wow, you make one simple mistake and loop off into loony land based off of your error. That's pretty far out there.
I'm obviously not the perfect person to safeguard our rights, but I'm just as obviously better suited for that than any member of our government.
I'm also quite obviously better suited for that than any Republican supporters over the last several decades given that their policies have been geared toward the destruction of those rights. The same holds for most Democrat supporters as well, obviously, but there are at least some who aren't running around spouting fascist slogans and screeching their hatred of America. That can't be said about Republicans, as their party doesn't offer anything else.
So, Commissar Darby, what did the Revolutionary Council find that was so incriminating and treasonous in Palin's emails. ...
Nothing.
I didn't say anything was found. Given that you're the one defending revolutionaries, your characterization is typical of the Orwellian dishonesty which has come to define Republican supporters.
Call me crazy, but when you start trampling people's rights to privacy to protect your right to privacy, you no longer are the good guy you think you are.
You're crazy because you think that it's ok for the government to do it to me, but you do not think it's ok for me to do anything about it.
Please don't bother with inane idiocy like saying that you don't think it's ok for the government to do it. You do think that. If you didn't, then you'd be able to suggest a legal mechanism to address the treasonous action of the government rather than whining about how some people took the only option available.
I'd rather live in a world where nobody thought it was ok to invade other people's privacy, but we don't. Given that we don't, it is absolutely, positively and beyond any possibility of a doubt *better* that it be those who despise individual rights and liberty that bear the brunt of it rather than decent ethical people. The fact that you think it should be the good people fucked by the evil and that they should be berated for daring to stand up to their masters says a lot about you and all of it is bad.
This is what I don't get, after reading about half of the posts in this thread: About 95% of the posts don't mention the right to privacy, at all. But monitoring e-mail traffic by secret service in order to catch terrorists or prevent possible terrorist attacks, is frown upon by the great majority of Slashdotters.
That's because she does not believe in a right to privacy, and she stands for destroying what's left of it for us, the poor unwashed masses. When the government does it to the people it's *treason*. Not, oh that's not nice. It's fucking *treason*. A crime deserving of death by execution by the fellow citizens who you've betrayed.
Then you go on to claim that the *criminal* monitoring by the government is intended to catch terrorists. There is no evidence for such a far out idea and no reason a sane person could possibly believe that. It's a piece of propaganda which you've swallowed without spending even a second thinking it through.
So on the one hand you have actual *treason* by government officials. On the other hand you have a traitor being shown that they are not above the law. That is an absolutely wonderful thing. When somebody claims that they have a right to privacy but none of us do then it is absolutely essential to have some means of showing them the error of their ways. There is no legal method given that it is the government itself and those composing it who are responsible both for the crimes and for the investigation/prosecution of the same crimes. If you'd care to recommend some actual options rather than just repeating lies and demonstrating your failure to grasp the actual issues at stake I'd be happy to hear it, but it really doesn't seem like you have paid much attention to anything that's happened in this country in the last 30 years or so.
I tend to put myself in other people's shoes, and here I definitely feel I would feel miserable if my e-mails and family photos were exposed to the world.
The fundamental flaw with your approach is that you are trying to apply it to people who do not possess ethics, morals, or consciences. They're sociopaths and would have you killed without a second's hesitation or regret if they knew that it would benefit them and they could get away with it.
Slashdot readers and posters are very big on privacy - well, this is one grave (and I think extremely insensitive) breach of a person's privacy.
She's in the process of trying to get elected to a position of power which she plans on illegally using to do far far worse than that to each and every one of us.
It is not at all a symmetrical situation. If there existed a legal method of dealing with the crimes of the government, then you might have a point. Given that there exists no such method, I'm not self-loathing enough to take the side of the person who wants to fuck me and my country over the people whose actions can only help prevent said fucking by the only methods available *due to the actions of the government and specifically the people Palin has chosen to associate herself with.
I think the majority of folks on /. are fairly strongly in favor of a free Internet and the right to privacy.
That's true, and I certainly am. Palin, however, is violently opposed to such things. So are the rest of the scum in Washington, Obama included, but that is a critical fact you left out.
Hacking into a private email account is not only criminal, it's evil, no matter whose email account it is. And when it's a highly prominent person who may end up in a position to influence technology policy, it's not only criminal to hack into their email, it's really unhelpful (I was going to say stupid, but I want to be kind).
Not really. It's a person who fully intends to have a massively negative influence through whatever criminal means at her disposal. Letting them know that they aren't immune from the treasonous bullshit she wants to pull on us is necessarily positive.
Imagine if the hacked email account had belonged to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton. Would the response have been different?
A little, not much. Obama, Biden, and Hillary aren't as rabidly anti-liberty, anti-freedom and anti-America as McCain and Palin are. It's an obvious and very distinct difference between them. Not enough of a difference to excuse such things for one but not the other, but definitely enough of a difference so that it's possible for a decent person to support someone doing it to Palin more than to people who aren't as rabidly hostile to this country as she's already proven herself to be.
Time for a gut check. Liberty and justice for all, or for all except when we can get a little dirt on the folks we don't agree with?
It doesn't have anything to do with "agreeing" or "disagreeing". It's a simple matter of self defense. My Grandfather fought the nazis in WW2. I sure as shit am not going to support them here and now. That's why there are no patriots at all or even any decent people left supporting the Republican party. It has to do with their chosen course of criminal treason and nothing at all to do with disagreement.
I also think if it's wrong for the government, it's wrong for every day people to be running their own intelligence operations also.
Well, given that it's a choice between everyday people running their own intelligence operations against the worst threat facing America, or giving up and being a slave of these treasonous fascist fucks, do you have any actual good choices? No? Well, there is no legal recourse, so those who take illegal actions in such situations are patriots and heroes. That's how the world works.
The government wants to be secretive? Fuck them right in the ear. They don't have that right, and we the people have the right to crawl as far up their asses as we need to to maintain control over them. It's called being a citizen. You seem to be suggesting that we should all just be good little subjects.
If He is God as i believe that He is, then He does have not only the right, but the imperative to judge His creation. If He knows (being all knowing as He is) what is in their hearts, then it's His call and their blood isn't on my hands.
Their blood obviously isn't on your hands. You weren't alive at the time. Were you alive at the time (and place), then you most likely would have been a non-Hebrew and hence deserving of brutal extermination by your own argument. By worshiping the evil monster who ordered such atrocities out of pure jealousy over other gods (which your god believed in as much as he believed in himself, remember), you remove yourself from the collection of decent, moral people.
Secondly, you call me a monster. That is from a french word that means to show. To show something in yourself that you don't like?
I don't speak French. I was using the term to mean what it actually means in common English usage. You consider the source of all that is moral to be an obviously evil monster. That makes you one since you don't even have the most basic understanding of moral principles. That's a very serious problem with your brain. It makes you a sociopath.
Secondly, I have not proven to be a liar and if so, then on what point. I have said nothing that I didn't readily point out wasn't religious.
You said it's a fact that god exists and that he is a "he". That either of those are facts is a bald faced lie. It's something your weak will and cowardice forces you to insist is true. Hence by repeating blatantly obvious lies, you're a liar.
As I had wished to do before, I am leaving. Not in a defeat, because you can't loose to someone who cannot fight back.
Yes, in defeat. You have been entirely unable to defend your position since you're wrong. I've proven that you are wrong, but you're too dishonest and deluded to honestly deal with that fact.
Dogs are chained to trees in much the same way that you are trapped by your own flesh and cannot see past your own point of view. There are truths in this world and yours are not those.
That's right, reality *must* magically conform to some insane delusions you were force fed when your brain wasn't developed enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality just because you really really want it to. I pity you your brain damage.
I also explained that the reason I was voting Libertarian was because I smoke pot, and to vote for a man who would have me imprisoned is lunacy.
You might want to actually investigate Barr a bit. He is extremely happy to toss your ass in prison for smoking a joint, which by your argument would make you a lunatic.
If all the millions of reeferheads in America voted Barr this election he'd still lose, but it might change the policies of one of the two dominant parties.
No, it would demonstrate that the Libertarians can be gotten by *rejecting* their anti drug law stance and it's hence a meaningless issue which can safely be ignored. This is only the second election I'm not voting Libertarian due to that scumbag being nominated.
I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding?
No, that would be you. I'm a thinker, not a believer, so the very idea of a god is silly nonsense to me. You're the one claiming absolute morality and lying in an attempt to put forward your delusional view. I called you on your blatant dishonesty.
Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do).
So you think genocide is good. That makes you a monster. You have lost any sort of moral argument that you could ever hope to make, especially that there is anything absolute about your *evil* "morals".
As I said before, I'm done.
Yes, you've been proven a liar and so you run away since you can't defend your position as it's completely wrapped up in delusion.
Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!
Again, that would be you. Your demand that your delusions are true is the reason that you're inable to think rationally or even avoid bald faced lies.
Firstly, HE and yes he is a He, does exist.
First, that is not a fact. It is merely something you have a desperate need to believe because you are weak and cowardly. There is no rational basis for that statement, and not one single scrap of evidence to back it up. You can't really expect people to listen to you if you disrespect them so outrageously as to lie through your teeth about simple basic facts.
And it wasn't until I listened to what He had to say that everything started to make sense.
Listening to voices in your head is a sign of mental flaws.
You live in a world where there is moral grey. I live in a world where there is a genuine black and white.
No, your "morals" are all over the place. If you follow the bible, then you are a leaf in the wind being blown all over because god's morals are all over the map. "Don't kill" *and* "Go commit genocide and steal all that great land from the people living there". "Murder heretics with rocks". and on and on and on.
It's bad enough that you are so far outside the bounds of sanity that you can't even understand that those are contradictory, but you willingly choose to *worship* such a blatantly evil creation of man's ignorance. You don't get to play the moral card as long as you postulate such an inconsistent and evil creature as the source of all morality. That's how reality works.
Besides, if I'm right you are screwed. If I'm wrong, your god won't care! Have a good one.
Well, more people believe in gods that will happily send you to hell than there are that believe in your particular magical fairy, so your argument fails. Again, this in entirely attributable to your lack of basic critical reasoning skills.
Hitler was a militant athiest (disliked ALL religion)
Hitler was a militant *Christian*. Don't spread idiotic lies about decent people to try and hide reality. It makes you a scumbag.
Go look up some of his speeches. Go read "God mit Uns" on the buttons of the German soldiers which he had put there. Go read Martin Luther's (father of Protestantism) "On the Jews and their Lies" which laid out the holocaust in explicit detail.
You can blather along about how he's not a "real" Christian, but if you take an honest look at that religion's history, you'll have a real hard time making that argument.