1) Large construction projects are bad for the local economy. 2) New jobs are a bad thing if they happen to be the result of a subsidized project. 3) Progress is bad.
Only lunatics and academics could reach those conclusions. Listen, your theorizing is all fine and good, and you're more than welcome to bullshit yourself all you like. Just don't expect your theories to hold any sway in the real world.
You can realize yourself right out of existence if you want, but it won't change the fact that our culture IS superior. Moral relaitivism is just your refusal to use your mind. Using the same logic we could also say that, for example, no car is superior since we only have our own standards to judge them by. It's ridiculous.
That's why we have these wonderful people called "speculative investors", and "venture capitalists", who will give you money if you can convince them that you have a good idea. If your product sucks, or you're a shitty salesman, well, sucks to be you.
I'm the guy who's going to rip your arm off if you hit me. Really, in the end it comes down to who can actually enforce his beleifs. But that doesn't mean that some systems aren't better than others. If we follow your line of logic, then it stands to reason that our own criminal justice system has no legitimacy. You are in effect advocating a state of perpetual anarchy - something that, even if it were desirable, is absolutely unsustainable. At some point we have to adopt a system of beleifs, laws, and governance, and we have to act accordingly.
Incentives for small-business aren't really socialist, unless they come in the form of actual "wealth redistribution". If the government provides large tax breaks for small businesses, that tends to encourage entrepreneurship, which increases economic growth. I deffinitely wouldn't call it socialist. And you're right about the rest too - having lots of natural resources certainly helped with the growth, as did not getting "blown to hell". On the other hand, Canada also didn't get blown to hell, and has even more natural resources. Russia got ravaged pretty bad, but they've got plenty of resources, and it didn't take them long to rebuild. China does fairly well in that department too, plus they have the advantage of a massive work-force as well. And just look at the middle east. Yeah, resources are important, but it means nothing without a free citizenry acting in their own interest.
The children may not have all the rights and responsibilities as adults, but they have some. For example, children have the right to not be abused by their parents.
Or do parents have the responsibility not to abuse their children?:)
Since when has giving people things ever worked to win "hearts and minds" in the long run? Todays breed of anti-government anarchists, hippies, and malcontents are amongst the richest and most privileged human beings in history. They have attained that status through the rights and opportunities afforded to them by their governments. Yet their "hearts and minds" seem to be planted firmly in the camp of those who would not only give them nothing, but take away everything.
"Free Shit" generally leads only to resentment and antipathy. It is by providing people with the freedom and opportunity to decide their own future that the US has become the great nation it is today, while communist nations which attempt to provide everything for everyone while asking nothing of anyone have blown away like dust on the winds of history.
Fine, scratch the word "actual". What I meant to say is that they're more likely to try and back their conclusions with numbers and science. They may fail miserably in the process, but they try.
Not long ago - in fact, until now - some white Americans were arguing that black Americans belonged to an inferior species. It's part of a most unpleasant mindset that has given us genocide and species extinctions, and in a world where growing populations cause more competition for food, air, water and energy, it is something we somehow have to combat if we don't want the last World War to look like an Episcopalian convention by comparison with the wars to come.
With those two sentences you have managed to convey both the idea that blacks are equivalent to chimpanzees, and that the "last World War" will involve combat against monkeys. I can't say I've ever seen anyone accomplish such a feat before.
Not really. The most accurate way of looking at it is to say that the children DO have rights and responsibilities, both of which have temporarily been absorbed by their parents. For this reason, parents can abridge their children's "rights" to freedom of speech, association, or religion. They can certainly take away their right to bear arms. And for the same reasons, the parents take responsibility for the actions of their children. I suppose you could argue that children DON'T have either right OR responsibilities, or you could argue that their rights and responsibilities are limited, but it is impossible to logically argue that they have the same rights as adults while having none of the responsibilities.
lol. dammit. I'm going to blame the Switzerland/Sweden mixup on my lack of sleep. And after a mistake like that I'm not going to push my luck by trying to debate you any more. My main point was that, in my experience, people in the EU in general tend to believe in things like homoeopathy, aura healing, and psychics, a lot more than people in North America. It's something I've noticed while living in the EU, and I've seen some statistics to back up that impression, but I don't remember where. So my main point was that people all over the world tend to believe in dumb things - they just differ on what exactly they believe in. Anyway, kudos, and thanks for correcting some of my misconceptions.
For starters it is not at all clear that "God guided the process of evolution" and "God created man in his present form" are mutually exclusive ideas - it would quite possible to believe both.
Right, I should have specified: Both answers were part of the same set, therefore any one responder could chose only one answer. Adding them together is perfectly valid if we're simply looking for belief in God.
Agnostics simply believe that the question of whether God exists or not cannot be answered. That doesn't preclude a belief in God.
Nonsense. While you may be technically correct about the actual definition of the term "agnostic", you're RTFO about the rest of it. I know many, MANY agnostics, yet not a single one of them would say that they believe in God. Most people who describe themselves as Agnostic will state that they neither believe nor disbelieve.
Gotcha. I agree to an extent, although you're overstating the point. Most people may be "mouth breathers", but they're certainly not convinced that science is evil. I'd say less than half a percent of the population would fall into that category, and half of those are probably the exact opposite of the stereotype you've provided. The ultra-environmentalists are just as opposed to science as the extreme-religious-fundies. However, even put together, their numbers are low enough to be immaterial.
It's not these extremists that we need to worry about, it's the much larger portion of the population which is quite happy with science, but thinks God is more important. These are people who don't understand the principles of science, and are convinced that science is just another system of belief. They have nothing against science in general - they just don't want it interfering with their faith.
My mistake, it was the Norwegian prime minister that I was thinking of, not Swedish.
Homoeopaths might carry no weight in Swedish medical circles, but neither do evolution-deniers hold any sway in American biology circles. I don't understand why you'd bring this up.
I know there ARE several homoeopathic "schools" in Sweden, but I assume these are privately funded? I did also find this:
Since July 1999, homeopathic doctors should be reimbursed fully (anamnesis and repertorization on time-based scale) by federal basic health insurance. Patients treated by NMQPës need an additional insurance for this. This is the decision of the national health authority. A clear statement of acknowledgment for Homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies prescribed by physicians are paid already by the official tariff.
Which seems to run contrary to your assertion that Sweden has used "reason" when dealing with government support of homoeopathy. My research has been somewhat limited due to the fact that I cannot read your language, so please feel free to correct me if the info I have is incorrect.
Also, I think you misunderstand the concept of a strawman attack, and you being on a high horse is not an ad-hom attack. I'm not creating an argument to debunk, nor am I dismissing your argument based on a character attack.
Nonsense, democrats do similar things all the time. Like claiming that 50,000 species go extinct every year. Or that 600,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq due to the war. Or, hell, take a look at how the Global Warming theory got it's start - it was based on a study of tree rings that suggested an increase in local temperatures, in an area where temperature recordings actually showed a decrease in temperatures. Democrats are just as guilty of fudging their numbers as the Republicans are. If anything, they do it MORE often, because republicans are more likely to base unscientific arguments on morality or religion, while dems try to back all of THEIR bad science with actual figures and data.
There's many aspects of his presentation that are absolutely ridiculous, such as suggesting that oceans would rise high enough to cover entire apartment buildings. I'm paraphrasing there, but I know he made a claim along those lines. Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late. Or his talk about mosquitoes and malaria being caused by global warming. Or any number of claims that he makes in his little power point presentation.
I'm not disputing the idea that humans have made some contribution to an increase in global temperatures, I just think Al Gore is an idiot. He did to Global Warming what Michael Moore did to 9/11 and the Afghan war. And a LOT of very liberal, very left-leaning individuals, are making their fortunes by spreading this type of nonsense, while others use it in order to pursue political goals.
It's not just a problem in the US either. Here in Canada, the right-wingers have thankfully lost pretty much all influence over science, so when it comes to making unscientific decisions, our left-wingers are the biggest culprits. In Toronto we've been trying to solve our garbage disposal problem for years, but people have been so conditioned to think of incineration technology as "evil" that no amount of scientific data will get the local politicians to consider it as a solution. That's not the same thing as denying evolution, no, but it IS unscientific, and it is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
So to sum up your argument:
1) Large construction projects are bad for the local economy.
2) New jobs are a bad thing if they happen to be the result of a subsidized project.
3) Progress is bad.
That about right?
Only lunatics and academics could reach those conclusions. Listen, your theorizing is all fine and good, and you're more than welcome to bullshit yourself all you like. Just don't expect your theories to hold any sway in the real world.
You can realize yourself right out of existence if you want, but it won't change the fact that our culture IS superior. Moral relaitivism is just your refusal to use your mind. Using the same logic we could also say that, for example, no car is superior since we only have our own standards to judge them by. It's ridiculous.
That's why we have these wonderful people called "speculative investors", and "venture capitalists", who will give you money if you can convince them that you have a good idea. If your product sucks, or you're a shitty salesman, well, sucks to be you.
I'm the guy who's going to rip your arm off if you hit me. Really, in the end it comes down to who can actually enforce his beleifs. But that doesn't mean that some systems aren't better than others. If we follow your line of logic, then it stands to reason that our own criminal justice system has no legitimacy. You are in effect advocating a state of perpetual anarchy - something that, even if it were desirable, is absolutely unsustainable. At some point we have to adopt a system of beleifs, laws, and governance, and we have to act accordingly.
That would be why I didn't mention socialized medicine and pensions. The government should stick to laws and taxes.
What? Where did anyone use the word "proper"? Want to rethink your question?
Or anyone elses nose for that matter.
Incentives for small-business aren't really socialist, unless they come in the form of actual "wealth redistribution". If the government provides large tax breaks for small businesses, that tends to encourage entrepreneurship, which increases economic growth. I deffinitely wouldn't call it socialist. And you're right about the rest too - having lots of natural resources certainly helped with the growth, as did not getting "blown to hell". On the other hand, Canada also didn't get blown to hell, and has even more natural resources. Russia got ravaged pretty bad, but they've got plenty of resources, and it didn't take them long to rebuild. China does fairly well in that department too, plus they have the advantage of a massive work-force as well. And just look at the middle east. Yeah, resources are important, but it means nothing without a free citizenry acting in their own interest.
Since when has giving people things ever worked to win "hearts and minds" in the long run? Todays breed of anti-government anarchists, hippies, and malcontents are amongst the richest and most privileged human beings in history. They have attained that status through the rights and opportunities afforded to them by their governments. Yet their "hearts and minds" seem to be planted firmly in the camp of those who would not only give them nothing, but take away everything.
"Free Shit" generally leads only to resentment and antipathy. It is by providing people with the freedom and opportunity to decide their own future that the US has become the great nation it is today, while communist nations which attempt to provide everything for everyone while asking nothing of anyone have blown away like dust on the winds of history.
Fine, scratch the word "actual". What I meant to say is that they're more likely to try and back their conclusions with numbers and science. They may fail miserably in the process, but they try.
no, I just phrased it poorly. see here.
lol. dammit. I'm going to blame the Switzerland/Sweden mixup on my lack of sleep. And after a mistake like that I'm not going to push my luck by trying to debate you any more. My main point was that, in my experience, people in the EU in general tend to believe in things like homoeopathy, aura healing, and psychics, a lot more than people in North America. It's something I've noticed while living in the EU, and I've seen some statistics to back up that impression, but I don't remember where. So my main point was that people all over the world tend to believe in dumb things - they just differ on what exactly they believe in. Anyway, kudos, and thanks for correcting some of my misconceptions.
Nonsense. While you may be technically correct about the actual definition of the term "agnostic", you're RTFO about the rest of it. I know many, MANY agnostics, yet not a single one of them would say that they believe in God. Most people who describe themselves as Agnostic will state that they neither believe nor disbelieve.
Gotcha. I agree to an extent, although you're overstating the point. Most people may be "mouth breathers", but they're certainly not convinced that science is evil. I'd say less than half a percent of the population would fall into that category, and half of those are probably the exact opposite of the stereotype you've provided. The ultra-environmentalists are just as opposed to science as the extreme-religious-fundies. However, even put together, their numbers are low enough to be immaterial.
It's not these extremists that we need to worry about, it's the much larger portion of the population which is quite happy with science, but thinks God is more important. These are people who don't understand the principles of science, and are convinced that science is just another system of belief. They have nothing against science in general - they just don't want it interfering with their faith.
Homoeopaths might carry no weight in Swedish medical circles, but neither do evolution-deniers hold any sway in American biology circles. I don't understand why you'd bring this up.
I know there ARE several homoeopathic "schools" in Sweden, but I assume these are privately funded? I did also find this: Which seems to run contrary to your assertion that Sweden has used "reason" when dealing with government support of homoeopathy. My research has been somewhat limited due to the fact that I cannot read your language, so please feel free to correct me if the info I have is incorrect.
Also, I think you misunderstand the concept of a strawman attack, and you being on a high horse is not an ad-hom attack. I'm not creating an argument to debunk, nor am I dismissing your argument based on a character attack.
Give it some time :p
So you're saying sex with children is ok, killing civilians is ok, and science teachers are being treated the same as terrorists and paedophiles?
Buddy, I think someone's been spiking your pot with LSD.
Nonsense, democrats do similar things all the time. Like claiming that 50,000 species go extinct every year. Or that 600,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq due to the war. Or, hell, take a look at how the Global Warming theory got it's start - it was based on a study of tree rings that suggested an increase in local temperatures, in an area where temperature recordings actually showed a decrease in temperatures. Democrats are just as guilty of fudging their numbers as the Republicans are. If anything, they do it MORE often, because republicans are more likely to base unscientific arguments on morality or religion, while dems try to back all of THEIR bad science with actual figures and data.
There's many aspects of his presentation that are absolutely ridiculous, such as suggesting that oceans would rise high enough to cover entire apartment buildings. I'm paraphrasing there, but I know he made a claim along those lines. Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late. Or his talk about mosquitoes and malaria being caused by global warming. Or any number of claims that he makes in his little power point presentation.
I'm not disputing the idea that humans have made some contribution to an increase in global temperatures, I just think Al Gore is an idiot. He did to Global Warming what Michael Moore did to 9/11 and the Afghan war. And a LOT of very liberal, very left-leaning individuals, are making their fortunes by spreading this type of nonsense, while others use it in order to pursue political goals.
It's not just a problem in the US either. Here in Canada, the right-wingers have thankfully lost pretty much all influence over science, so when it comes to making unscientific decisions, our left-wingers are the biggest culprits. In Toronto we've been trying to solve our garbage disposal problem for years, but people have been so conditioned to think of incineration technology as "evil" that no amount of scientific data will get the local politicians to consider it as a solution. That's not the same thing as denying evolution, no, but it IS unscientific, and it is a problem.
It's not in TFA, but the poll also reported the following statistics:
27% of Agnostics and Atheists think God guided the process of evolution
13% of Agnostics and Atheists think God created man in his present form.
So a better title for the article might have been "40% of Atheists believe in God".
When you're getting that kind of result, it might be a clue that there's something wrong with your methodology.