Yes, that's why I specified "gauge" change, not just tacking on some constants. I'll still believe Noether's Theorem until they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I can't believe you'd try and drag poor dear Emmy into something so.....applied.
As I understand it, a "theory" is quite analogous to a "theorem" in mathematics; it may be built up from very basic building blocks, which we suppose to be true, using small reasoning steps which we also suppose to be true.
The deep fundamental difference is that in mathematics, the basic fundamental building blocks are not "supposed" to be true. They are *defined* as the truth and the world you get follows absolutely from there.
Take geometry. Euclid's fifth postulate is fundamental to plane geometry. Einstein (well, Riemann) rejected it and got the geometry of space time and thus General Relativity (some details omitted;-)
Not to say the analogy isn't there, but it breaks down at that point.
the great majority of scientists continue to believe that large bodies of liquid water are sufficient if not necessary conditions for life.
So you're saying that the great majority of scientists believe that every large body of liquid water in the universe contains life, but there might be life in other places as well?
No, it is not. And this proves that you didn't even read what I said. What part of "the real ones, not the ones men have decided to create for some agenda" do you not understand?
I understand it perfectly. You have them reversed. I explained my position quite clearly. You keep pretending I didn't say what I quite clearly did.
The message that say you shouldn't kill, you should take things that dont belong to you, you should be kind to other. Those messages.
That's the "I love You" in the I Love You virus. That isn't at all the message. Reality backs me up entirely and proves you to be a deluded fool.
Your idiotic mewlings are not worth reading when you can't even understand a point that plain and simple, regardless of whether you're informed enough to actual recognize the simple basic truth of it.
And no, their isn't anything in the bible about genocide. Unless you have some fucked up interpretation of it. Show me one place where it advocates genocide. And yes, this is outside what I originally made a statement over.
Hot tip, moron, go read the fucking thing for once, particularly the part describing how the Hebrews actually got control of Israel in the first place. No fucked up interpretations necessary because it's god's will, hence the actual fucking message which you keep insisting isn't there. If you're going to lie so egregiously about such an important part of the book, you'll just keep looking like a fool.
So, I'm done even bothering trying to communicate with a person who can't even read.
Go lie to somebody dumb and ignorant enough to believe you.
Yes, cause as everyone knows, the US singlehandedly put Hitler & Mussolini in power & created Imperial Japan.
No, not singlehandedly, and not Japan, but US business interests had a *lot* to do with funding, supporting and propagandizing for them. Henry Ford, William Randolph Hearst, and Prescott Bush (grandfather of our current President) in particular were extremely helpful in their rise to power. Hell, Prescott didn't even stop arranging funding for them while we were at war with them, the treasonous scum.
Your average American wasn't involved, but the powers that be were actively involved. Hell, Hitler credits Henry Ford with helping firm up his approach to The international Jew The World's Foremost Problem"
So, while "America" didn't "singlehandedly" do anything of the sort, playing dumb like that serves no purpose except to hide how deeply entrenched American wealth and power was in that whole sordid affair. It also helps ignoren how we've since been driven so far along their footsteps economically since then and by whom.
Why is it illegal to kill a 1 year old because they're crying but not a viable baby still in the womb?
Because there isn't a damn thing in this world that gives you the right to hold a gun to person's head and demand that they bear a child for your fucking whims?
Forcing unwanted children into this world is entirely inconsistent with a free society. If you want a harem of brood mares, move to Saudi Arabia with the rest of the scum who want to live in that sort of society.
The real question is how to you view the rights as an individual. Just because the individual is still tethered to a mother, does that mean we shouldn't protect them?
If they're "tethered" to the mother, then they are not an individual they're a parasite plain and simple.
This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It ain't your land and it ain't your home, Sparky. Get walking. If you don't like that option, then consider why you're trying to bring us down to their level.
Nixon set the tone for today's GOP. "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Sort of. I'd argue that Ford's Folly was the actual catalyzing factor that sent the GOP down their path to hell so to speak.
Had Ford showed a scrap of integrity and allowed Nixon to be tried for his acts of treason against this nation, as opposed to his cowardly path of "political expedience", do you really think Reagan would have had the balls to deal crack on our streets to fund terrorists? To set up terrorist training camps in Central America? To reign over the single largest growth of the US government? To have armed trained and funded Osama Bin Laden making him *personally* responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
No. Ford's Folly paved the way for the President to *know* absolutely that he was above the law. Reagan used that to great advantage (of him and a few other people) but to greatly damage our country. Of course, few people even suggested impeaching, trying for treason, and executing that drooling vegetable as he had earned. It's all gone downhill from there.
They even went so far as to impeach Clinton over some idiotic nonsense just to make that option seem ridiculous right before they went full bore and even put the treason of the fucking Reagan administration to shame. Mostly the same fucking traitors as in the current administration at least in the first term.
So, there are plenty of things you can point to, and the slide started long before that, but it wasn't Nixon's willingness to commit treason, it was Ford's and the American public's cowardly unwillingness to do a god damned thing about it that set the stage for how far we've fallen.
To be clear, the US isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic.
To be accurate, the US isn't a Republic, it's a Constitutional Republic.
That means once the people are in office, they can do pretty much what they want regardless of what 'the people' want.
That means that once people are in office they are severely constrained in what they can do, regardless if 99.99% of the people want them to do it. If support is really that strong, then getting an amendment to the constitution passed should be easy and would actually be legal.
There is no ability for 'the people' to vote for an individual law or any such thing.
OK,. you got one right.
What I said above was the *intent*. The massive undermining of the Constitution since it was put in place is why it doesn't look much like it should, but nevertheless, you should at least get that much straight.
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system....
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
So he knowingly and with malice aforethought voted against the constitution, and against the good of the nation according to your own post?
I had thought he had a reasonable position on that issue, but you've clearly demonstrated that he doesn't. You've further demonstrated that he'll willingly betray the very principles that his standing up for has caused many people like myself to support him for.
Actually the free market is a natural economic force because it means there are no artificial barriers to entry (such as government regulation).
Not really. The free market is a theoretical construct which has never and can never possibly exist. A completely unrestricted market leads inevitably to one company owning everything with the few people on top owning almost everything and a bunch of people below them paid a bit to point guns at the rest who are working for room and board.
In order to have anything even approximating the theoretical ideal of a free market requires some form of regulation to keep it functioning.
That's the fundamental problem with the Libertarian Party. They have an entirely religious belief in a real actual free market which doesn't exist.
If they could get over that, then they could actually get involved in the real debate by taking the stance that whatever regulations are put in place are designed to be as minimal as possible while being aimed at the actual purpose of keeping the market functioning as close to the ideal as possible. We sure as shit *need* somebody to do that, and as far out as they are by making it all about an entirely religious belief, they're still orders of magnitude less batshit insane than either the Democrats or the Republicans.
Hate crime is not a thought crime. It has nothing against the freedom of speech. Even the US Supreme Court has decided.
No, it's far worse than that. It is against the freedom of *thought*.
You can argue that it's officially the law of the land by invoking the Supreme Court, but trying to use that to claim it's right is just silly. Well, unless you really believe that corporations should be accorded almost all the rights of a citizen with none of the responsibilities, and that the interstate commerce clause was really intended to cover an individual citizen growing a plant in their backyard.
Yes, it means you're free to believe that all Blue Martians are idiots or to claim that in your blog, as long as you don't go out and beat Blue Martians up out of such belief.
However, beating up Blue Martians for any reason whatsoever is already illegal, so all you're proposing is punishing them for the thought.
You're found guilty or not based on the evidence, but you're sentenced based on a lot of factors, and it does not seem like stretch to me to factor in whether or not you currently harbor blind, murderous hate for arbitrary groups of people.
Except that there is nothing in any way illegal with harboring blind murderous hate for arbitrary groups of people. Hate crime legislation is intended to criminalize exactly that, which is why it absolutely *is* thoughtcrime.
Burning a cross on a black family's lawn is a much nastier crime than burning some garbage behind an asian family's house.
If true, then the only proper course of action is the increase the penalty for burning crosses commensurate with the increase in the severity of the crime. So you punish the *action*.
"Hate crime" *is* thought crime and there is no other way it can be seen. Even your own argument doesn't agree with you, it agrees with me.
Can something be true if it's illogical -- or, simpler -- can something be true if it's not true?
No, if something is true it can not be simultaneously "not true". It's just nonsensical.
One of the things that Kurt Gödel showed with his incompleteness theorems is that there not only can be, but are *true* statements about the integers that can be made but are impossible to prove from within that system. Even worse is that say you somehow identify one of those things and add it to your list of axioms then you'll be right back to square one, meaning there are an infinite number of such "undecidable" statements.
Who's to say that the laws of logic, math, whatever, are absolute, and that they are absolutely correct?
I'm not sure what you mean by "laws" in this context, but the axioms of mathematics aren't "correct". They are defined as they are because they lead to interesting mathematics (more or less).
"Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory" is more or less synonymous with the "axioms of mathematics". That or ZFC which adds in the Axiom of Choice which (hands waving wildly) says that given any collection of sets you can select one member from each set. It's been proven to be equivalent to a whole bunch of interesting results such as the Banach-Tarski paradox, Tychonoff's theorem, and the existence of unmeasurable sets. I think the general rule is mathematicians like the AoC and physicists say screw that it leads to wildly pathological situations and we're dealing with the real world.
Anyhow, regardless of which rules you want to go by, you can't prove that your axioms lead to a consistent system....well, unless it actually is inconsistent in which case you *can* show that it's a consistent system. Confused yet;-)
So, in that sense, nobody is to say that they are "correct". The laws are absolute, in that they're few and fairly simply stated. The system they lead to, though, has some pretty bizarre things built right into it inevitably. Gödel really, really screwed things up;-)
What if logic is an observed phenomenon that only holds true in our limited part of the universe and we have incorrectly extrapolated it -- using our logic-based, logic-limited minds -- into a false "law" that governs everything?
That just doesn't make any sense. Logic is nothing like the laws of physics.
Or what if it was just an artifact of our languages or our mental processes... resulting in something that has proven very useful through the ages, and sufficiently correct most of the time, but perhaps not 100% so?
I'm not sure your statement means anything, but your conclusion seems to be more or less kind of what Gödel proved.
Perhaps the illogical-but-true is occurring on a regular basis and we simply lack the mental framework to comprehend it; indeed, such a thing would be impossible by our very definitions... so... I dunno?
I think you'll really have to try and tighten up what you mean by "illogical but true" before that can really be addressed. That's the thing about logic, mathematics, etc. The definitions are *everything*. It's why mathematicians sound so totally pedantic when discussing math. The tiniest shades of meaning can radically alter everything.
You have to somehow convince yourself that it was worth it to lock yourself in for 18 months to the most expensive mobile telephony contract ever.
I expected the battery life to be pretty crappy and I wasn't disappointed on that, but how do you know how much I was already paying on my existing TMobile contract? you got the length remaining (0) wrong though, so don't give up your day job to become a full time psychic. You're really not all that good at it.
For example... which book do you think would sell more copies, even if it was total bullshit: "5 Reasons Hitler Was The Devil" "5 Reasons Mother Teresa Was The Devil"
Meh.. I'll just wait for the final version, "Mother Theresa Was Hitler".
Ah, I wish I could give you +1 'Right' and -1 'Shameless Flamebait' at the same time.
Yeah;-)
I just get so sick of these people repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times and how hard it's slapped down. They can't be reasoned with on such topics, since you can't be reasoned out of a position reason couldn't have led you to, so at least it makes me feel a little better.
Did you even bother reading anything I posted or did you just skim enough of it so you could get your little rant on and compensate for your mother not loving you enough and perhaps your father loving you too much?
Yes, I read it, understood it perfectly, and addressed it. You, still, are apparently incapable of understanding it though. That's because the actual message was delivered to you and part of that message was to fuck up your abilities to deal rationally with the topic.
It's like the "I Love You" virus. "I Love You" was not the message. It was the "the ones men have decided to create for some agenda". The actual message was the virus...or "You're fucked" in words.
I mean seriously, I said the underlying messages, the real ones, not the ones men have decided to create for some agenda, and here you go off about the agenda driven interpretations and that actions resulting from those agendas as if I actually said something.
No, I went off on the real actual underlying messages. You keep insisting that they aren't what they quite clearly are.
And then to top it off, you have the nerve to call me stupid.
When you repeatedly make really stupid statements, it's the only logical conclusion.
I don't care that man has used religion to control people or brutally murder people. That is not what I commented on.
But it is. Brutal control and murder *is* the real underlying message. I mean you're claiming that reality is fantasy and fantasy is reality. The message of religion is murder the outsiders. That's why religion has always been about that. Ignoring the thousands of years of real actual religion and pretending that that isn't the point and that really it's all about happy fluffy bunnies is completely assinine. Since the fluffy bunny part never really shows up and the mass murder and torture is the constant result, it's quite clear what the purpose is. It wouldn't have been designed so well for that purpose if it weren't.
And when you actually read the damn bible, any bible whether it is the old or new trestament or the islamic version, but when you read it without your ogreish hate you have built up to compensate for the lack of something, you end up seeing these messages which is actually so good, our entire law seems to be modeled after them. You know, don't steal, don't murder people, treat other with respect and so on. Those values can all be found in the bible, it is originally a tool/handbook to show what a working and thriving society should be like.
No when you actually read it with an open mind as I have rather than begging the question from the start you might have noticed that, while it does pay lip service to more laudable goals, there is much much more about committing genocide, murdering anyone who speaks up, and keeping women and outsiders down. When it contradicts itself completely, in so many places, then trying to claim that the message is positive when it isn't even consistent *is* dumb. I'm sorry if reality contradicts your delusions, but that's entirely your problem.
And hostory doesn't prove me anything because you were too stupid to read what I said. How absurd can you get, you actually pasted my words yet totally failed to read them and then attempted to act as if you were better or something. Get a fucking grip asshat.
Again, I did understand exactly what you said and responded to exactly that. Your delusional response is indicative of a real deep seated problem dealing with reality. Of course, that is the point of the message. I pity you that you had religious delusion drummed into your head as a child, leading to your current massive failure to understand it, but again, that's your problem.
We aren't talking about 100 years ago are we? Hmm? Well you are but somehow you had mistaken anyone else as doing it.
Talk about a massive failure of basic reading comprehension skills. Wow.
ot including proofs is the mathematical equivalent of not citing factual sources in articles (I guess you could cite a proof too).
I think that's really the whole issue in a nutshell.
I could say that the square root of 2 is irrational, and you could believe it or not believe it. With the proof you either *know* it's absolutely true or you just didn't understand the proof.
No, it's "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.".
No, it's not. I quoted the guy who invented the word describing what it meant. Your definition is meaningless.
If you think the Republican party is "extreme right", then you obviously aren't very good at thinking.
Wow, you're completely out of touch with reality.
You seem to have a real problem understanding the definitions of words. No wonder your posting AC. Anybody would be embarassed to be as ignorant as you prove yourself to be.
What do you think their constant screeching about anything with even a hint of leftism to it indicates?
So you are calling Wolfowitz, the Jew, a Nazi now? Is this your demonstration of your obviously superior (laugh) knowledge?
It's a matter of public record. You're welcome to look up who he studied with and what he studied. It's really sad how you retarded kids these days forget that the holocaust had nothing to do with us going to war against the nazis and that there were plenty of other groups in the camps as well as jews.
The simple fact about Wolfowitz is that he's a sociopath. He doesn't care who's methods he uses.
I love how you claim that since he's a jew he's magically immune from being a fascist scum. It doesn't work like that.
Fascist? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Hyperbole much?
Actually, I know exactly what that word means, and there is no hyperbole whatsoever.
It's the merger of state and corporate power according to, you know, the guy who invented the freaking word.
So you might not think that it means what it means, but that's only your ignorance showing.
So, when we have a system where corporations write our laws and then bribe our representatives to pass them, then it's pretty hard, no impossible, to argue that this isn't fascism.
Heck, just spend a little bit of time researching the history and you'll see that we're the direct ideological descendants of the Nazis.
You know, don't you, that a huge chunk of American industrialists absofuckinglutely adored Hitler, right? You know Henry Ford received a medal from Hitler due to his militantly anti-Jew hate screeds, right? In fact Hitler credits him with helping him conceive the holocaust, right?
I mean damn, our current sitting President's grandfather was an avid supporter of Hitler *while we were at war with him* and barely avoided execution for treason over it. Add in the Republican party's 60 year all out war on anything remotely leftist leaving us with nothing but the extreme right, you know, fascism as their platform. You do know that extremist anti communism was the genesis of Nazism, right?
Then look at Bush's original cabinet. You do know who Wolfowitz got his PhD with, right? The primary proponent of Nazi philosophy, especially "the big lie".
Seriously, dude, when you know shit fuck all about a topic, you might consider just shutting the fuck up instead of demonstrating yourself to be an ignorant fool.
Many of the incumbants that lost were voted in during the 94 republican revolution when they all said they wanted smaller government, less pork,more accountability and term limits. In 2006 these idiots record was one of bridges to nowhere, huge deficits, major ethical lapses, and never left office when they said they would.
All that says it that those people were idiots. The Republicans have been savagely opposed to all of those things since at least the election of that fascist, terrorist supporting, crack dealing, death squad funding, mass murdering, largest growth of the US government in history pushing, traitor Ronald Reagan.
If any of those people actually believed any of that crap (crap coming out of their mouths, pretty sound reasoning if actually applied), then Goldwater would have won by a landslide and the Republican party would be more than the fascist traitors which is all that they are now.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite characters of course were Frito and Dildo Buggers.
;-)
Oh come now, what about Legolamb and his constant molestation of woodland creatures
Yes, that's why I specified "gauge" change, not just tacking on some constants. I'll still believe Noether's Theorem until they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I can't believe you'd try and drag poor dear Emmy into something so.....applied.
Gentlemen, this is *not* a bathhouse.
As I understand it, a "theory" is quite analogous to a "theorem" in mathematics; it may be built up from very basic building blocks, which we suppose to be true, using small reasoning steps which we also suppose to be true.
;-)
The deep fundamental difference is that in mathematics, the basic fundamental building blocks are not "supposed" to be true. They are *defined* as the truth and the world you get follows absolutely from there.
Take geometry. Euclid's fifth postulate is fundamental to plane geometry. Einstein (well, Riemann) rejected it and got the geometry of space time and thus General Relativity (some details omitted
Not to say the analogy isn't there, but it breaks down at that point.
the great majority of scientists continue to believe that large bodies of liquid water are sufficient if not necessary conditions for life.
So you're saying that the great majority of scientists believe that every large body of liquid water in the universe contains life, but there might be life in other places as well?
I think you meant "necessary but not sufficient".
I understand it perfectly. You have them reversed. I explained my position quite clearly. You keep pretending I didn't say what I quite clearly did.
The message that say you shouldn't kill, you should take things that dont belong to you, you should be kind to other. Those messages.
That's the "I love You" in the I Love You virus. That isn't at all the message. Reality backs me up entirely and proves you to be a deluded fool.
Your idiotic mewlings are not worth reading when you can't even understand a point that plain and simple, regardless of whether you're informed enough to actual recognize the simple basic truth of it.
And no, their isn't anything in the bible about genocide. Unless you have some fucked up interpretation of it. Show me one place where it advocates genocide. And yes, this is outside what I originally made a statement over.
Hot tip, moron, go read the fucking thing for once, particularly the part describing how the Hebrews actually got control of Israel in the first place. No fucked up interpretations necessary because it's god's will, hence the actual fucking message which you keep insisting isn't there.
If you're going to lie so egregiously about such an important part of the book, you'll just keep looking like a fool.
So, I'm done even bothering trying to communicate with a person who can't even read.
Go lie to somebody dumb and ignorant enough to believe you.
Yes, cause as everyone knows, the US singlehandedly put Hitler & Mussolini in power & created Imperial Japan.
No, not singlehandedly, and not Japan, but US business interests had a *lot* to do with funding, supporting and propagandizing for them. Henry Ford, William Randolph Hearst, and Prescott Bush (grandfather of our current President) in particular were extremely helpful in their rise to power. Hell, Prescott didn't even stop arranging funding for them while we were at war with them, the treasonous scum.
Your average American wasn't involved, but the powers that be were actively involved. Hell, Hitler credits Henry Ford with helping firm up his approach to The international Jew The World's Foremost Problem"
So, while "America" didn't "singlehandedly" do anything of the sort, playing dumb like that serves no purpose except to hide how deeply entrenched American wealth and power was in that whole sordid affair. It also helps ignoren how we've since been driven so far along their footsteps economically since then and by whom.
Why is it illegal to kill a 1 year old because they're crying but not a viable baby still in the womb?
Because there isn't a damn thing in this world that gives you the right to hold a gun to person's head and demand that they bear a child for your fucking whims?
Forcing unwanted children into this world is entirely inconsistent with a free society. If you want a harem of brood mares, move to Saudi Arabia with the rest of the scum who want to live in that sort of society.
The real question is how to you view the rights as an individual. Just because the individual is still tethered to a mother, does that mean we shouldn't protect them?
If they're "tethered" to the mother, then they are not an individual they're a parasite plain and simple.
This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It ain't your land and it ain't your home, Sparky. Get walking.
If you don't like that option, then consider why you're trying to bring us down to their level.
Nixon set the tone for today's GOP. "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Sort of.
I'd argue that Ford's Folly was the actual catalyzing factor that sent the GOP down their path to hell so to speak.
Had Ford showed a scrap of integrity and allowed Nixon to be tried for his acts of treason against this nation, as opposed to his cowardly path of "political expedience", do you really think Reagan would have had the balls to deal crack on our streets to fund terrorists? To set up terrorist training camps in Central America? To reign over the single largest growth of the US government? To have armed trained and funded Osama Bin Laden making him *personally* responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
No. Ford's Folly paved the way for the President to *know* absolutely that he was above the law. Reagan used that to great advantage (of him and a few other people) but to greatly damage our country. Of course, few people even suggested impeaching, trying for treason, and executing that drooling vegetable as he had earned. It's all gone downhill from there.
They even went so far as to impeach Clinton over some idiotic nonsense just to make that option seem ridiculous right before they went full bore and even put the treason of the fucking Reagan administration to shame. Mostly the same fucking traitors as in the current administration at least in the first term.
So, there are plenty of things you can point to, and the slide started long before that, but it wasn't Nixon's willingness to commit treason, it was Ford's and the American public's cowardly unwillingness to do a god damned thing about it that set the stage for how far we've fallen.
To be clear, the US isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic.
To be accurate, the US isn't a Republic, it's a Constitutional Republic.
That means once the people are in office, they can do pretty much what they want regardless of what 'the people' want.
That means that once people are in office they are severely constrained in what they can do, regardless if 99.99% of the people want them to do it. If support is really that strong, then getting an amendment to the constitution passed should be easy and would actually be legal.
There is no ability for 'the people' to vote for an individual law or any such thing.
OK,. you got one right.
What I said above was the *intent*. The massive undermining of the Constitution since it was put in place is why it doesn't look much like it should, but nevertheless, you should at least get that much straight.
I'm thinking of spending my entertainment money on Alan Keyes. Even more bang for the buck.
;-)
Yeesh, you have one sick sense of humor
So he knowingly and with malice aforethought voted against the constitution, and against the good of the nation according to your own post?
I had thought he had a reasonable position on that issue, but you've clearly demonstrated that he doesn't. You've further demonstrated that he'll willingly betray the very principles that his standing up for has caused many people like myself to support him for.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Not really. The free market is a theoretical construct which has never and can never possibly exist.
A completely unrestricted market leads inevitably to one company owning everything with the few people on top owning almost everything and a bunch of people below them paid a bit to point guns at the rest who are working for room and board.
In order to have anything even approximating the theoretical ideal of a free market requires some form of regulation to keep it functioning.
That's the fundamental problem with the Libertarian Party. They have an entirely religious belief in a real actual free market which doesn't exist.
If they could get over that, then they could actually get involved in the real debate by taking the stance that whatever regulations are put in place are designed to be as minimal as possible while being aimed at the actual purpose of keeping the market functioning as close to the ideal as possible.
We sure as shit *need* somebody to do that, and as far out as they are by making it all about an entirely religious belief, they're still orders of magnitude less batshit insane than either the Democrats or the Republicans.
No, it's far worse than that. It is against the freedom of *thought*.
You can argue that it's officially the law of the land by invoking the Supreme Court, but trying to use that to claim it's right is just silly. Well, unless you really believe that corporations should be accorded almost all the rights of a citizen with none of the responsibilities, and that the interstate commerce clause was really intended to cover an individual citizen growing a plant in their backyard.
Yes, it means you're free to believe that all Blue Martians are idiots or to claim that in your blog, as long as you don't go out and beat Blue Martians up out of such belief.
However, beating up Blue Martians for any reason whatsoever is already illegal, so all you're proposing is punishing them for the thought.
Except that there is nothing in any way illegal with harboring blind murderous hate for arbitrary groups of people.
Hate crime legislation is intended to criminalize exactly that, which is why it absolutely *is* thoughtcrime.
If true, then the only proper course of action is the increase the penalty for burning crosses commensurate with the increase in the severity of the crime. So you punish the *action*.
"Hate crime" *is* thought crime and there is no other way it can be seen.
Even your own argument doesn't agree with you, it agrees with me.
Can something be true if it's illogical -- or, simpler -- can something be true if it's not true?
;-)
;-)
No, if something is true it can not be simultaneously "not true". It's just nonsensical.
One of the things that Kurt Gödel showed with his incompleteness theorems is that there not only can be, but are *true* statements about the integers that can be made but are impossible to prove from within that system. Even worse is that say you somehow identify one of those things and add it to your list of axioms then you'll be right back to square one, meaning there are an infinite number of such "undecidable" statements.
Who's to say that the laws of logic, math, whatever, are absolute, and that they are absolutely correct?
I'm not sure what you mean by "laws" in this context, but the axioms of mathematics aren't "correct". They are defined as they are because they lead to interesting mathematics (more or less).
"Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory" is more or less synonymous with the "axioms of mathematics". That or ZFC which adds in the Axiom of Choice which (hands waving wildly) says that given any collection of sets you can select one member from each set. It's been proven to be equivalent to a whole bunch of interesting results such as the Banach-Tarski paradox, Tychonoff's theorem, and the existence of unmeasurable sets. I think the general rule is mathematicians like the AoC and physicists say screw that it leads to wildly pathological situations and we're dealing with the real world.
Anyhow, regardless of which rules you want to go by, you can't prove that your axioms lead to a consistent system....well, unless it actually is inconsistent in which case you *can* show that it's a consistent system. Confused yet
So, in that sense, nobody is to say that they are "correct". The laws are absolute, in that they're few and fairly simply stated. The system they lead to, though, has some pretty bizarre things built right into it inevitably. Gödel really, really screwed things up
What if logic is an observed phenomenon that only holds true in our limited part of the universe and we have incorrectly extrapolated it -- using our logic-based, logic-limited minds -- into a false "law" that governs everything?
That just doesn't make any sense. Logic is nothing like the laws of physics.
Or what if it was just an artifact of our languages or our mental processes... resulting in something that has proven very useful through the ages, and sufficiently correct most of the time, but perhaps not 100% so?
I'm not sure your statement means anything, but your conclusion seems to be more or less kind of what Gödel proved.
Perhaps the illogical-but-true is occurring on a regular basis and we simply lack the mental framework to comprehend it; indeed, such a thing would be impossible by our very definitions... so... I dunno?
I think you'll really have to try and tighten up what you mean by "illogical but true" before that can really be addressed. That's the thing about logic, mathematics, etc. The definitions are *everything*. It's why mathematicians sound so totally pedantic when discussing math. The tiniest shades of meaning can radically alter everything.
You have to somehow convince yourself that it was worth it to lock yourself in for 18 months to the most expensive mobile telephony contract ever.
I expected the battery life to be pretty crappy and I wasn't disappointed on that, but how do you know how much I was already paying on my existing TMobile contract? you got the length remaining (0) wrong though, so don't give up your day job to become a full time psychic.
You're really not all that good at it.
For example... which book do you think would sell more copies, even if it was total bullshit:
"5 Reasons Hitler Was The Devil"
"5 Reasons Mother Teresa Was The Devil"
Meh..
I'll just wait for the final version, "Mother Theresa Was Hitler".
You could say the same about AMD64 linux.
LOL
That's why our entire infrastructure has been 100% 64 Bit Linux for *years*.
Hell my home computer has been 100% 64 bit for 2 years, and XP 64 couldn't run 3/4 of the hardware.
That's just truly laughable.
Ah, I wish I could give you +1 'Right' and -1 'Shameless Flamebait' at the same time.
;-)
Yeah
I just get so sick of these people repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times and how hard it's slapped down. They can't be reasoned with on such topics, since you can't be reasoned out of a position reason couldn't have led you to, so at least it makes me feel a little better.
Nice rant though.
Thanks!
Did you even bother reading anything I posted or did you just skim enough of it so you could get your little rant on and compensate for your mother not loving you enough and perhaps your father loving you too much?
Yes, I read it, understood it perfectly, and addressed it. You, still, are apparently incapable of understanding it though. That's because the actual message was delivered to you and part of that message was to fuck up your abilities to deal rationally with the topic.
It's like the "I Love You" virus. "I Love You" was not the message. It was the "the ones men have decided to create for some agenda". The actual message was the virus...or "You're fucked" in words.
I mean seriously, I said the underlying messages, the real ones, not the ones men have decided to create for some agenda, and here you go off about the agenda driven interpretations and that actions resulting from those agendas as if I actually said something.
No, I went off on the real actual underlying messages. You keep insisting that they aren't what they quite clearly are.
And then to top it off, you have the nerve to call me stupid.
When you repeatedly make really stupid statements, it's the only logical conclusion.
I don't care that man has used religion to control people or brutally murder people. That is not what I commented on.
But it is. Brutal control and murder *is* the real underlying message. I mean you're claiming that reality is fantasy and fantasy is reality. The message of religion is murder the outsiders. That's why religion has always been about that. Ignoring the thousands of years of real actual religion and pretending that that isn't the point and that really it's all about happy fluffy bunnies is completely assinine. Since the fluffy bunny part never really shows up and the mass murder and torture is the constant result, it's quite clear what the purpose is. It wouldn't have been designed so well for that purpose if it weren't.
And when you actually read the damn bible, any bible whether it is the old or new trestament or the islamic version, but when you read it without your ogreish hate you have built up to compensate for the lack of something, you end up seeing these messages which is actually so good, our entire law seems to be modeled after them. You know, don't steal, don't murder people, treat other with respect and so on. Those values can all be found in the bible, it is originally a tool/handbook to show what a working and thriving society should be like.
No when you actually read it with an open mind as I have rather than begging the question from the start you might have noticed that, while it does pay lip service to more laudable goals, there is much much more about committing genocide, murdering anyone who speaks up, and keeping women and outsiders down.
When it contradicts itself completely, in so many places, then trying to claim that the message is positive when it isn't even consistent *is* dumb.
I'm sorry if reality contradicts your delusions, but that's entirely your problem.
And hostory doesn't prove me anything because you were too stupid to read what I said. How absurd can you get, you actually pasted my words yet totally failed to read them and then attempted to act as if you were better or something. Get a fucking grip asshat.
Again, I did understand exactly what you said and responded to exactly that. Your delusional response is indicative of a real deep seated problem dealing with reality. Of course, that is the point of the message. I pity you that you had religious delusion drummed into your head as a child, leading to your current massive failure to understand it, but again, that's your problem.
We aren't talking about 100 years ago are we? Hmm? Well you are but somehow you had mistaken anyone else as doing it.
Talk about a massive failure of basic reading comprehension skills. Wow.
The politicians don't fuck people eith
ot including proofs is the mathematical equivalent of not citing factual sources in articles (I guess you could cite a proof too).
I think that's really the whole issue in a nutshell.
I could say that the square root of 2 is irrational, and you could believe it or not believe it.
With the proof you either *know* it's absolutely true or you just didn't understand the proof.
No, it's not. I quoted the guy who invented the word describing what it meant. Your definition is meaningless.
Wow, you're completely out of touch with reality.
You seem to have a real problem understanding the definitions of words. No wonder your posting AC. Anybody would be embarassed to be as ignorant as you prove yourself to be.
What do you think their constant screeching about anything with even a hint of leftism to it indicates?
So you are calling Wolfowitz, the Jew, a Nazi now? Is this your demonstration of your obviously superior (laugh) knowledge?
It's a matter of public record. You're welcome to look up who he studied with and what he studied. It's really sad how you retarded kids these days forget that the holocaust had nothing to do with us going to war against the nazis and that there were plenty of other groups in the camps as well as jews.
The simple fact about Wolfowitz is that he's a sociopath. He doesn't care who's methods he uses.
I love how you claim that since he's a jew he's magically immune from being a fascist scum. It doesn't work like that.
Actually, I know exactly what that word means, and there is no hyperbole whatsoever.
It's the merger of state and corporate power according to, you know, the guy who invented the freaking word.
So you might not think that it means what it means, but that's only your ignorance showing.
So, when we have a system where corporations write our laws and then bribe our representatives to pass them, then it's pretty hard, no impossible, to argue that this isn't fascism.
Heck, just spend a little bit of time researching the history and you'll see that we're the direct ideological descendants of the Nazis.
You know, don't you, that a huge chunk of American industrialists absofuckinglutely adored Hitler, right? You know Henry Ford received a medal from Hitler due to his militantly anti-Jew hate screeds, right? In fact Hitler credits him with helping him conceive the holocaust, right?
I mean damn, our current sitting President's grandfather was an avid supporter of Hitler *while we were at war with him* and barely avoided execution for treason over it. Add in the Republican party's 60 year all out war on anything remotely leftist leaving us with nothing but the extreme right, you know, fascism as their platform. You do know that extremist anti communism was the genesis of Nazism, right?
Then look at Bush's original cabinet. You do know who Wolfowitz got his PhD with, right? The primary proponent of Nazi philosophy, especially "the big lie".
Seriously, dude, when you know shit fuck all about a topic, you might consider just shutting the fuck up instead of demonstrating yourself to be an ignorant fool.
All that says it that those people were idiots. The Republicans have been savagely opposed to all of those things since at least the election of that fascist, terrorist supporting, crack dealing, death squad funding, mass murdering, largest growth of the US government in history pushing, traitor Ronald Reagan.
If any of those people actually believed any of that crap (crap coming out of their mouths, pretty sound reasoning if actually applied), then Goldwater would have won by a landslide and the Republican party would be more than the fascist traitors which is all that they are now.