Sigh. You really are retarded, are you not? You just said that it was legitimate to use the world "religion" about socialism. Good. Now, what is the leader of a congregation in a religion called? He is called a priest. A priest, high-priest etc is a generic term for the leader of a religion. If socialism is a religion then Stalin, PER DEFINITION MORON, is a priest in that religion.
Now, go read a book on something before you open your mouth and prove for all and everyone that you are in fact as dumb as you seem now.
you used it to suggest Stalin was a priest. Dickwad
Dickwad, interesting comment from a brainless moron. I didn't "suggest" any such thing, I stated it plain and clear. If socialism was a religion, and you just agreed that that was a valid use of the word religion, then Stalin was a priest in that religion. I didn't try to insinuate that he was a priest in a Christian sect or other form of superstition of some kind. On the other hand, he did go to Seminary and was educated as a priest. "Sadly" for him he was kicked out of school just before his finals, not because he didn't like what he learned, but either because he was unable to pay tuition or because the school thought him a rebel. Both reasons are quoted in litterature.
It is typically considered that Stalin did learn a lot from going to Seminary in Tbilisi, and that his totalitarian bent was strongly influenced by his time at school. Orthodox Christian dogma and totalitarianism go together like Laurel and Hardy.
But I digress. A priest in his religion he was, and a moron you clearly are.
I always love it when I can say things like "The Oxford Dictionary is wrong". In this case it is. Well, actually, it is not. Here is what the short version of the Oxford says:
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Nope, that is not true since it puts a significant portion of Buddhism on the outside of religion. I don't know anyone who would claim that Buddhism is not a religion, even though, for example, Zen, has no concept of the supernatural.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
Ah, again, much of Buddhism is not covered, as is the case with other religions that are not systematic but rather more individual.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
OK, this seems broad enough to cover most religions, but again, not all, I would argue that some followers of Buddhism are not "devoted" in the true sense. On the other hand, number 3 here fully covers socialism.
they insinuated that socialists revered Marx as like a God and worshiped Lenin in some perverse personality cult
I would argue they did. Embalming him and putting him on display where thousands and thousands of people paraded past every year. Definitely a personality cult.
Socialism != Totalitarianism or Religion
In theory socialism can be implemented when, and only when, you alter the human brain significantly. Altruism is something the vast majority of humans can do only in very limited amounts to a very limited audience. Socialism is based on absolute altruism all the time. Since humans will not do this voluntarily, socialism has to resort to totalitarianism. No other options.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen, for example, doesn't deal at all with the supernatural. Are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?
The people who argued for socialism and communism appealed to logic
Not really, no. The tenets behind socialism is an ideal not observed in reality. You can not have socialism if you can not make most people sacrifice personal gain for the common good. This is a behavior that is so rare that basing an ideology on it is absurd.
What does the date have anything to do with it, or the fact that he was a philosopher?
Only the fact that you clearly didn't know who he was or anything at all about him. Also, a reminder to you to get out more. If you think that someone who argues against capital punishment would actually argue for killing kings and/or priests then you should have pointed out that there was an inconsistency in logic, not that it was bad to kill kings or priests. The fact that you would think that someone who argues against capital punishment as such would argue for killing anyone is odd, to put it mildly.
I know what it's about. Clothes so fine you can't see them
As I said, you really need to read more about the emperors new clothes, you see, other than on an utterly superficial level, the "story" has nothing at all to do with clothes. Do you, for example, think that the concept of "The Elephant in the Room" has anything to do with very large mammals with oddly shaped noses? As I said, you need to read up on this a lot more, come back and tell us why the story of the emperors new clothes is essentially covered by the elephant in the room.
You are quite right. Wonder why it is taking the US so long. Don't get me wrong. I love the US, I wish I was still living there, but circumstance doesn't allow for that at the moment. Doesn't mean she does everything right though. More than most European countries mind you, but not everything.
That's just changing the meaning of religion to suit your argument.
Actually, not really. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that either are not supported by observation or even some times that is contradicted by observed realities. As such, socialism fits the bill.
There's a very fine line between "poetic imagery" and incitement to violence
No, there isn't, and if quoting a philosopher who died in 1784 is incitement to violence in your world, you need to get out more.
it can amount to the emperor's new clothes.
That is a horrible mixing of metaphors, and as such can only be accomplished in a humorist sense by someone like Monty Python. You are clearly not MP, so you are clearly not trying to be funny. That would mean that you are actually dense enough to think that your metaphor was hitting some kind of mark. Please read up on what the emperors new clothes is about, you have clearly misunderstood it.
I think it is interesting that you find that a government removing the liberty of a a blabbermouth for a limited amount of time is somehow worse than a government murdering (for example) a mentally handicapped person (Texas).
Stalin was a priest, his religion was socialism. Most "ism's" end up as religions sooner or later, capitalism typically being an exception since its basic tenets are not compatible with religious notions. Capitalism is pragmatic in its nature, religion, socialism and others are dogmatic.
And I have to say, murdering all the kings and priests
Look into the concept of poetic imagery. It should have been obvious that someone who speaks against capital punishment wasn't being literal. Remember, "irony" does not mean that you can stick a magnet to it.
Only an American (and people in "cultures" you really don't want to be compared to) can call murder "justice". Capital punishment is not about dispensing justice it is about revenge. Retribution if you wish. Abolishing capital punishment will make the US a civilized society, it will not do anything whatsoever to the balance of justice.
BTW, I frequently feel that capital punishment should be dispensed. I strongly feel that the perpetrators of 9/11 should be blown to pieces, I also feel that people who molest and/or murder children should be tortured to death slowly. Thankfully my actions are guided by logic and reason, not by emotions. Adults let logic and reason guide their actions, children and people with severe mental deficiencies are primarily driven by emotions. It is time the US grows up and looks into concepts like logic and reason.
Yeah, and one who should be careful opening his mouth given the fact that his own governments routinely murders people, reason is irrelevant.
As countries move out of the dark ages they first abolish capital punishment (or childish revenge as it really is) and then they give their citizenry free speech. Looking forward to seeing this development some time in the US...
Well, I am not so sure anyone in the US can criticize though (don't know if parent is or not). I mean, it is bad enough that a government jails you for your opinions, but it is worse when your government murders you, no matter what the reason.
Somehow, only a few of them grow up to be serial killers.
Pretty sure that if you study the matter, the time spent around partially nude people is inversely proportional to your propensity to shoot up a school-yard later in life.
I think the partially nude woman... not being a prude or anything but kids
"The Kids" - standard excuse for the prudes and the lovers of censorship. Sorry, doesn't compute. It is usually the ones that have issues about watching partially, or fully for that matter, nude people of either gender that eventually run into their work-place and shoot everybody. People with a healthy attitude towards nudity rarely do.
Fermi's Paradox doesn't take into account the Prime Directive.
The problem with the PD is that it assumes the possibility of some sort of "conspiracy", where a number of civilizations agree that one should leave the "underdeveloped" ones alone. Where a set of explanations would fit, conspiracy is never the correct one.
The Fermi Paradox has a rather simple solution, and I don't see how that is such a mystery given the information we have about our galaxy today. The problem is that the universe is amazingly hostile to life. It seems likely that there is microbial life everywhere, and that there is many places that develop advanced multi-celled life. The chances of maintaining a life-friendly environment for the millions of years it takes to produce moderately intelligent species and for them to develop technologies advanced enough for interstellar colonization is simply vanishingly small.
Our solar system may not be that common. We have three very important things that have helped life on earth. We have two gas giants protecting us. It seems likely most solar systems have some gas giants. We also have a huge moon, by any measurement, offering a significant amount of protection plus a very friendly environment (without the moon earth would be significantly less life-friendly). That is probably not that common.
Life is abundant. Advanced life is rare. Intelligent life is exceedingly rare, we might be the only ones or one of only a handful. All because the universe isn't a very friendly place.
My wife's friend is the sister of a NASA astronaut, and I was lucky enough to spend some time with him a couple of years back discussing NASA, compare it to NAFA and all that good stuff.
At the time I was reading a bit about the issues with going to Mars and all of that. I asked him a simple question - how many from the current astronaut core he thought would be willing to go on a one-way trip to Mars. No return ticket. His answer was "a lot of them". Scientific? Absolutely not. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are guaranteed millions of people in the world today that would go on a one-way trip to Mars or further.
it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation
The sad part is not that they caved, they had no choice but to cave. British libel law is absurd in the extreme and tantamount to "accusation equals guilt". It is impossible for the publisher to defend itself.
Hopefully, some day, Britain and a number of other European countries will learn the meaning of free speech. As of now, most of them have no clue what that means.
When you allow people with appalling and disgusting opinions to hold them and express them, then, and only then do you have free speech. When someone can accuse you of libel, and it is your, as the accused, job to prove that you what you said was not libel, then you do not have free speech. Or a sane law for that matter - you can't prove a negative.
It's also, incidentally, the well known fascist way
The traditional division of political views on a scale from left to right has been absurd for at least 50 years, but even more so since 1990 and the collapse of totalitarian communism in USSR.
It is far more useful to look at the scale as having individualism on the one and and collectivism on the other. If you divide politics in that manner, socialism and fascism is only marginally different, while liberal democracy is the total opposite whether it is the relatively left-wing Scandinavian kind or the more traditionally right-leaning US kind.
scientists shouldn't be making claims about the character of other individuals
They didn't. If they did the header would be "Charlatans in Company X". It wasn't it was about how an entire industry, including Company X, is using fraudulent pseudo-science to peddle quackery to government agencies paid for by the tax payer.
How is that mudslinging. Charlatanry is charlatanry whether it is perpetrated by a company trying to make money or an individual con artist. If the company doesn't want to be labeled such they can just stop the charlatanry and they'll be fine.
Just for the record, there is no theory of creation. In science the concept of "theory" has a specific meaning, and currently there are no other theories than evolution. Creation is conjecture only and until it is developed into a theory it can safely be ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. You really are retarded, are you not? You just said that it was legitimate to use the world "religion" about socialism. Good. Now, what is the leader of a congregation in a religion called? He is called a priest. A priest, high-priest etc is a generic term for the leader of a religion. If socialism is a religion then Stalin, PER DEFINITION MORON, is a priest in that religion.
Now, go read a book on something before you open your mouth and prove for all and everyone that you are in fact as dumb as you seem now.
you used it to suggest Stalin was a priest. Dickwad
Dickwad, interesting comment from a brainless moron. I didn't "suggest" any such thing, I stated it plain and clear. If socialism was a religion, and you just agreed that that was a valid use of the word religion, then Stalin was a priest in that religion. I didn't try to insinuate that he was a priest in a Christian sect or other form of superstition of some kind. On the other hand, he did go to Seminary and was educated as a priest. "Sadly" for him he was kicked out of school just before his finals, not because he didn't like what he learned, but either because he was unable to pay tuition or because the school thought him a rebel. Both reasons are quoted in litterature.
It is typically considered that Stalin did learn a lot from going to Seminary in Tbilisi, and that his totalitarian bent was strongly influenced by his time at school. Orthodox Christian dogma and totalitarianism go together like Laurel and Hardy.
But I digress. A priest in his religion he was, and a moron you clearly are.
I always love it when I can say things like "The Oxford Dictionary is wrong". In this case it is. Well, actually, it is not. Here is what the short version of the Oxford says:
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Nope, that is not true since it puts a significant portion of Buddhism on the outside of religion. I don't know anyone who would claim that Buddhism is not a religion, even though, for example, Zen, has no concept of the supernatural.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
Ah, again, much of Buddhism is not covered, as is the case with other religions that are not systematic but rather more individual.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
OK, this seems broad enough to cover most religions, but again, not all, I would argue that some followers of Buddhism are not "devoted" in the true sense. On the other hand, number 3 here fully covers socialism.
they insinuated that socialists revered Marx as like a God and worshiped Lenin in some perverse personality cult
I would argue they did. Embalming him and putting him on display where thousands and thousands of people paraded past every year. Definitely a personality cult.
Socialism != Totalitarianism or Religion
In theory socialism can be implemented when, and only when, you alter the human brain significantly. Altruism is something the vast majority of humans can do only in very limited amounts to a very limited audience. Socialism is based on absolute altruism all the time. Since humans will not do this voluntarily, socialism has to resort to totalitarianism. No other options.
Religion has to do with the supernatural.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen, for example, doesn't deal at all with the supernatural. Are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?
The people who argued for socialism and communism appealed to logic
Not really, no. The tenets behind socialism is an ideal not observed in reality. You can not have socialism if you can not make most people sacrifice personal gain for the common good. This is a behavior that is so rare that basing an ideology on it is absurd.
What does the date have anything to do with it, or the fact that he was a philosopher?
Only the fact that you clearly didn't know who he was or anything at all about him. Also, a reminder to you to get out more. If you think that someone who argues against capital punishment would actually argue for killing kings and/or priests then you should have pointed out that there was an inconsistency in logic, not that it was bad to kill kings or priests. The fact that you would think that someone who argues against capital punishment as such would argue for killing anyone is odd, to put it mildly.
I know what it's about. Clothes so fine you can't see them
As I said, you really need to read more about the emperors new clothes, you see, other than on an utterly superficial level, the "story" has nothing at all to do with clothes. Do you, for example, think that the concept of "The Elephant in the Room" has anything to do with very large mammals with oddly shaped noses? As I said, you need to read up on this a lot more, come back and tell us why the story of the emperors new clothes is essentially covered by the elephant in the room.
Historically it has been the other way round in most countries - see http://en.wikipedia.org/
You are quite right. Wonder why it is taking the US so long. Don't get me wrong. I love the US, I wish I was still living there, but circumstance doesn't allow for that at the moment. Doesn't mean she does everything right though. More than most European countries mind you, but not everything.
That's just changing the meaning of religion to suit your argument.
Actually, not really. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that either are not supported by observation or even some times that is contradicted by observed realities. As such, socialism fits the bill.
There's a very fine line between "poetic imagery" and incitement to violence
No, there isn't, and if quoting a philosopher who died in 1784 is incitement to violence in your world, you need to get out more.
it can amount to the emperor's new clothes.
That is a horrible mixing of metaphors, and as such can only be accomplished in a humorist sense by someone like Monty Python. You are clearly not MP, so you are clearly not trying to be funny. That would mean that you are actually dense enough to think that your metaphor was hitting some kind of mark. Please read up on what the emperors new clothes is about, you have clearly misunderstood it.
I think it is interesting that you find that a government removing the liberty of a a blabbermouth for a limited amount of time is somehow worse than a government murdering (for example) a mentally handicapped person (Texas).
Stalin was a priest, his religion was socialism. Most "ism's" end up as religions sooner or later, capitalism typically being an exception since its basic tenets are not compatible with religious notions. Capitalism is pragmatic in its nature, religion, socialism and others are dogmatic.
And I have to say, murdering all the kings and priests
Look into the concept of poetic imagery. It should have been obvious that someone who speaks against capital punishment wasn't being literal. Remember, "irony" does not mean that you can stick a magnet to it.
Only an American (and people in "cultures" you really don't want to be compared to) can call murder "justice". Capital punishment is not about dispensing justice it is about revenge. Retribution if you wish. Abolishing capital punishment will make the US a civilized society, it will not do anything whatsoever to the balance of justice.
BTW, I frequently feel that capital punishment should be dispensed. I strongly feel that the perpetrators of 9/11 should be blown to pieces, I also feel that people who molest and/or murder children should be tortured to death slowly. Thankfully my actions are guided by logic and reason, not by emotions. Adults let logic and reason guide their actions, children and people with severe mental deficiencies are primarily driven by emotions. It is time the US grows up and looks into concepts like logic and reason.
Yeah, and one who should be careful opening his mouth given the fact that his own governments routinely murders people, reason is irrelevant.
As countries move out of the dark ages they first abolish capital punishment (or childish revenge as it really is) and then they give their citizenry free speech. Looking forward to seeing this development some time in the US...
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
- Denis Diderot
Well, I am not so sure anyone in the US can criticize though (don't know if parent is or not). I mean, it is bad enough that a government jails you for your opinions, but it is worse when your government murders you, no matter what the reason.
Somehow, only a few of them grow up to be serial killers.
Pretty sure that if you study the matter, the time spent around partially nude people is inversely proportional to your propensity to shoot up a school-yard later in life.
I think the partially nude woman ... not being a prude or anything but kids
"The Kids" - standard excuse for the prudes and the lovers of censorship. Sorry, doesn't compute. It is usually the ones that have issues about watching partially, or fully for that matter, nude people of either gender that eventually run into their work-place and shoot everybody. People with a healthy attitude towards nudity rarely do.
Fermi's Paradox doesn't take into account the Prime Directive.
The problem with the PD is that it assumes the possibility of some sort of "conspiracy", where a number of civilizations agree that one should leave the "underdeveloped" ones alone. Where a set of explanations would fit, conspiracy is never the correct one.
The Fermi Paradox has a rather simple solution, and I don't see how that is such a mystery given the information we have about our galaxy today. The problem is that the universe is amazingly hostile to life. It seems likely that there is microbial life everywhere, and that there is many places that develop advanced multi-celled life. The chances of maintaining a life-friendly environment for the millions of years it takes to produce moderately intelligent species and for them to develop technologies advanced enough for interstellar colonization is simply vanishingly small.
Our solar system may not be that common. We have three very important things that have helped life on earth. We have two gas giants protecting us. It seems likely most solar systems have some gas giants. We also have a huge moon, by any measurement, offering a significant amount of protection plus a very friendly environment (without the moon earth would be significantly less life-friendly). That is probably not that common.
Life is abundant. Advanced life is rare. Intelligent life is exceedingly rare, we might be the only ones or one of only a handful. All because the universe isn't a very friendly place.
My wife's friend is the sister of a NASA astronaut, and I was lucky enough to spend some time with him a couple of years back discussing NASA, compare it to NAFA and all that good stuff.
At the time I was reading a bit about the issues with going to Mars and all of that. I asked him a simple question - how many from the current astronaut core he thought would be willing to go on a one-way trip to Mars. No return ticket. His answer was "a lot of them". Scientific? Absolutely not. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are guaranteed millions of people in the world today that would go on a one-way trip to Mars or further.
Well, these Swedish researchers didn't bomb Israel with an average of two rockets every day for eight years either.
it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation
The sad part is not that they caved, they had no choice but to cave. British libel law is absurd in the extreme and tantamount to "accusation equals guilt". It is impossible for the publisher to defend itself.
Hopefully, some day, Britain and a number of other European countries will learn the meaning of free speech. As of now, most of them have no clue what that means.
When you allow people with appalling and disgusting opinions to hold them and express them, then, and only then do you have free speech. When someone can accuse you of libel, and it is your, as the accused, job to prove that you what you said was not libel, then you do not have free speech. Or a sane law for that matter - you can't prove a negative.
As someone once cleverly defined
Politician: An individual with such a thick skin that (s)he can stand upright without a spine.
It's also, incidentally, the well known fascist way
The traditional division of political views on a scale from left to right has been absurd for at least 50 years, but even more so since 1990 and the collapse of totalitarian communism in USSR.
It is far more useful to look at the scale as having individualism on the one and and collectivism on the other. If you divide politics in that manner, socialism and fascism is only marginally different, while liberal democracy is the total opposite whether it is the relatively left-wing Scandinavian kind or the more traditionally right-leaning US kind.
scientists shouldn't be making claims about the character of other individuals
They didn't. If they did the header would be "Charlatans in Company X". It wasn't it was about how an entire industry, including Company X, is using fraudulent pseudo-science to peddle quackery to government agencies paid for by the tax payer.
How is that mudslinging. Charlatanry is charlatanry whether it is perpetrated by a company trying to make money or an individual con artist. If the company doesn't want to be labeled such they can just stop the charlatanry and they'll be fine.
Just for the record, there is no theory of creation. In science the concept of "theory" has a specific meaning, and currently there are no other theories than evolution. Creation is conjecture only and until it is developed into a theory it can safely be ignored.
As clearly demonstrated currently in Israel
Well, given the fact that Israel has been hit with 7 000 rockets the past few years, I'd say they are defending themselves. Self defense is allowed.
So who is in your state government related to this chick anyway?
In South Carolina? Everybody?