US court halts government funding of stem cell research (Update)

If a Christian group can halt funding of scientific research due to conflict with religious beliefs, then what does that mean for the future of science in the USA?

...and what does that mean for the rule of the Executive?
Besides, ESC Research does NOT destroy viable embryos.
The Judge did NOT do his homework, and in my opinion needs to be severely reprimanded if not removed from the bench.
This smells of religious intolerance of secular science to me...

Ridiculous.

I honestly think some people envision scientists sticking a needle in some baby and sucking out stem cells until it dies.

If people would seriously look into embryonic stem cells for 10 minutes they would realize they are removed from a blastocyst. That is about 150 cells. By comparison, the brain of fruit flies contain somewhere near 200,000 cells.

It's such an absurd objection.

Not to mention the open hostility to concepts such as evolution and global warming. What annoys me most is that these people mobilize huge resources on the premise of saving lives but if a fraction of those resources were redirected to people who actually needed them, actual living human beings could be saved in impovrished regions all over the world.

Science can and will take care of it's own needs regardless of this minor slowdown. The consideration of ethics in science is of paramount concern to the whole scientific community and is not being waylaid by this judge or the people that feel a concern for this issue. The plaintiffs think a jury will find for their cause and the judge must feel there is cause otherwise the ruling will be overturned by an appellate court. If there were not an intense concern for defining and enforcing standards of ethics, then there would be any number unethical and immoral lapses within the scientific community.

As patient as I strive to be, shit like this (religion interfering with possible medical breakthroughs) really pisses me off!!!

For once we have a judge that believes in the rule of law.
If you don't like the law, have your congressman change it.
The president is not a dictator that can change the law on a whim.
"Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos."
" the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos."
"He found that the injunction would not seriously harm researchers who focus on human embryonic stem cells because it would preserve the status quo and not interfere with their ability to get private funding."
http://www.reuter...ticsNews
How horrible! Scientists will have to depend upon profit instead of taxes.

You sound so proud. Here's hoping you die of something painful that would be cured by ESC research ;)

At least asia will continue to do things that offend American Christian sensibilities. Medical tourism is going to become a greater part of many peoples' lives I suspect.

some judges act in treasonous selfish anti-public and anti-state sentiments, proof that representative democracy has huge flaws to progress

This is terrible news.

Religious conservatives - fighting to steer the US into the dark ages!

If a Christian group can halt funding of scientific research due to conflict with religious beliefs, then what does that mean for the future of science in the USA?

We should be more precise than that. Otherwise we'll get again a thread consisting of 99 percent OT comments.
First, it is not necessarily only Christians and other believers who object to the destruction of embryos. Non-believers might object for ethical reasons, too.

Second, it's not about scientific research in general. It concerns ESC only. Therefore no conclusion for the future of science (in the USA) in general is possible.

My stance: Embroys are property of the mother. It's up to her to decide.

Why dont researchers simply move to a country where these laws are lax?

It's a stretch to call a blastocyst an embryo; but oh well. Evidently, it is not the destruction of embryos that bothers the (so-called) Christians anyway. Rather, it is only the research that bothers them. Why? Why don't they care what happens to the embryos that are not used for research? Why don't they care what happens to babies born to die hideous deaths--needlessly?

I propose we call for a ban on the discarding of ALL embryos, and see how many "Christians" change their tunes when they figure out the implications of that.

"Why dont researchers simply move to a country where these laws are lax?"

Some already have, going back to when ESC research in the US was originally curtailed. The concern is whether this will lead to a brain drain among ESC researchers in the US who may choose to conduct their research elsewhere.

"Why don't they care what happens to the embryos that are not used for research?"

Some may object to the wholesale discarding of all unused embryos, but ESC research seems to get all the attention. Why is that?

some judges act in treasonous selfish anti-public and anti-state sentiments, proof that representative democracy has huge flaws to progress

Yes, let's return to the glory days of dictators who could conduct research on anyone they chose.

Here's hoping you die ...

How tolerant! (and typical!)

Stopped because it destroys fetuses? So do reproductive services that produce those embryos to begin with, are they stopping that too?

Suppose you are a fetus destined to die anyway, wouldn't you sign as an organ donor? Most of us would.

This whole argument against using them is totally hypocritical on many levels. The need to use FETAL stem cells WILL INEVITABLY GO AWAY. Slowing research now for a few fetuses will cost many lives in the future that could have been saved. We need to know how to use stem cells asap. We will find non-fetal sources of stem cells eventually, should we wait till then to learn how to use them?

You sound so proud. Here's hoping you die of something painful that would be cured by ESC research ;)

At least asia will continue to do things that offend American Christian sensibilities. Medical tourism is going to become a greater part of many peoples' lives I suspect.

I second that motion. I'm sick of being tolerant to idiots in our society. A wave of ignorance induced death through the population would only serve to speed its improvement. My tolerance has officially hit ZERO, and this will be reflected in any response to a bible thumping comment or reply. Here's to the slowing of western medical advancement, and the second rise of advanced eastern medicine.

"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
-Bertrand Russell

Stopped because it destroys fetuses? So do reproductive services that produce those embryos to begin with, are they stopping that too?

Can't speak for them directly, but I think they would if they could.

Suppose you are a fetus destined to die anyway, wouldn't you sign as an organ donor? Most of us would.

Ha, easy for you to say. Your head isn't on the proverbial chopping block, is it?

Here's hoping you die of something painful...

Wow, I don't care if you agree or not. That's just evil.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's wrong with using other types of stem cells? Certain things get harder to accomplish? Also, it is not the activity being banned, only taxpayer dollars. Groups of taxpayers have no say on how THEIR money should (or should not) be spent? Didn't Obama sign the bill into law in the first place this last go-round and then turn around and disregard it? Shouldn't laws mean something, or are they just more campaign promises to be broken?

Also, it is not the activity being banned, only taxpayer dollars. Groups of taxpayers have no say on how THEIR money should (or should not) be spent?

Actually that is a decent point, but no, taxpayers have very little say nowadays in how taxes are spent. Do the young get to say they don't want their taxes going to social security? Do the single say they don't want to support education? Do those opposed to war get to say they don't want to pay for war? The only choice you really have on taxes is who you vote for, but since everyone you vote for will abuse those taxes one way or another and want more of them anyways, you're pretty much screwed either way.

Sorry to say, but big governments will abuse taxes in every way possible, so it might be better to fight for reduced taxes in general than for where an individual's taxes go.

It is intriguing to me that those who protest this are all for the courts rulings when they meet their own worldview e.g. Roe V Wade. Let the courts decide against them and they go ballistic.
Scientific research needs legal and ethical restraint. Scientists tend to overlook ethics for discovery. That is their tendency, we need them. However, they should never be allowed to decide what is prudent. Those decisions are best left to the law, the ethicists and the philosophers as well as the politicians.
There is a law in place. passed because that is what the constituents of Congress wanted at the time. If you have a problem with that law then trying to circumvent it with an executive order is not the way. Elect officials who see things as you do.
You live in a democratic society. Use that or go somewhere where a dictator and his cronies decide everything.
BTW-just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.

Wow, I don't care if you agree or not. That's just evil.

No, it's perfectly logical. I hope stupid people die as a result of their ignorance (a broad statement that applies to many cases worldwide).

Actually that is a decent point, but no, taxpayers have very little say nowadays in how taxes are spent. Do the young get to say they don't want their taxes going to social security? Do the single say they don't want to support education?

Exactly

It is intriguing to me that those who protest this are all for the courts rulings when they meet their own worldview e.g. Roe V Wade. Let the courts decide against them and they go ballistic.

There's a difference between accepting it by following laws and regulation and bitching about stupid decisions. I follow laws I don't like, but I can complain all I want.

I hope stupid people die as a result of their ignorance (a broad statement that applies to many cases worldwide).

Are mentally handicapped people "stupid" according to your private definition?

trekgeek1"There's a difference between accepting it by following laws and regulation and bitching about stupid decisions. I follow laws I don't like, but I can complain all I want."

Yes you may!

Certain examples of logic (as above) are very different things from wisdom. The former may be studied extensively in the secular classrooms where God is shunned.

Dr. Mengele was a research scientist who denied the humanity in human flesh. While an extreme case (not meant to be a direct comparison here), it is not unique of how far ethics can slide, even in a "civilized" culture.

Here's some logic: Is it fine to terminate a baby a day before her birth? 2 days? a week? a month? 4 months? Where shall we draw our line in the shifting sands of time? How about 30 years from now, same place? The only line you can logically and consistently draw is at conception.

Suppose you are a fetus destined to die anyway, wouldn't you sign as an organ donor?

Wouldn't YOU just want the chance to be born?
As a father, the concept of throw-away babies is disgusting.
Harvesting them for research and forcing me to help pay for it is worse.
You're smart people, find another way.

Here's some logic: Is it fine to terminate a baby a day before her birth? 2 days? a week? a month? 4 months? Where shall we draw our line in the shifting sands of time? How about 30 years from now, same place? The only line you can logically and consistently draw is at conception.

I agree. Or how about people who are brain dead? Why shouldn't their bodies be 'harvested'?
Or those who want to be put down by their doctor? Would they be considered selfish if they didn't 'donate' some body part?

Are mentally handicapped people "stupid" according to your private definition?

Let's not be ridiculous. You know that I mean people with full brain function. If you want to claim these people who stopped the research are mentally handicapped then we can go that route.

Or those who want to be put down by their doctor? Would they be considered selfish if they didn't 'donate' some body part?

I think they should donate their body if they choose. Why waste?

The former may be studied extensively in the secular classrooms where God is shunned.

I'm not even going down this road with you. like I said, my tolerance has hit ZERO. This isn't hyperbole, I am done and you have witnessed the moment. Anytime some bible freak opens their prayer hole and says something stupid, I'm telling them how dumb it is. No more smiling politely. On that note, your comment and your beliefs are stupid. Please don't corrupt data bits with them.

Certain examples of logic (as above) are very different things from wisdom.

A true statement, but very general.

Here's some logic: Is it fine to terminate a baby a day before her birth? 2 days? a week? a month? 4 months? Where shall we draw our line in the shifting sands of time? How about 30 years from now, same place? The only line you can logically and consistently draw is at conception.

No. There's another "line", the line between owner and user. The exclusive owner of the embryo is its mother. All others - society, father, scientist, priests, you-name-them - are "users" and ought not to have any say.

Suppose you are a fetus destined to die anyway, wouldn't you sign as an organ donor?

Wouldn't YOU just want the chance to be born?

Ask suicidal persons.

As a father, the concept of throw-away babies is disgusting.

Fathers just want to own the mother.

Are mentally handicapped people "stupid" according to your private definition?

Let's not be ridiculous. You know that I mean people with full brain function.

Thanks for answering.
How could I know whether you are a Nazi or not? And, even if I'd know - how could the youngster reading your comment know what you mean without asking you?
Are you assuming that all readers of your comment are happy and naive and don't expect anything evil in a comment?

Now, what do you mean by "full brain function"?
The brain function of a Harvard PhD? The brain function of a kid who has difficulties in elementary maths? The brain function of a person with cerebral palsy?

Or how about people who are brain dead? Why shouldn't their bodies be 'harvested'?
Or those who want to be put down by their doctor? Would they be considered selfish if they didn't 'donate' some body part?

These are valid ethical questions.
A brain dead human has no owner. Thus it's up to his relatives to decide.
A suicidal person is owner of her body. Thus it's up to her to decide whether her body parts might be donated. Selfish or not is no criterion.

IMHO, a mass of unspecialized cells has no individual rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The mother owns that mass of cells and can do with them as she pleases. (The father gave up his DNA, it's no longer his) However, we cannot infringe on the rights of others. A blastocyst is not a person, so no rights are violated during an abortion or extraction. I "could" create a clone from my skin cells? Does that mean since they could become a person, I commit murder when I cut myself?

Life, with rights, does NOT begin at conception. IMHO, experts in gestation should draw the line.

That's how I see this issue with my current understanding of biology. I am open to further knowledge that might change my mind.

individual rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

There are some here who don't believe that individual people have such inherent rights.
Just wondering if you do.

Before we veer entirely off topic, when it comes to ethics and the rule of law, Marjon is 100% correct. We may not like the rammifications, however, the laws of the nation must be adhered to.

That being said, mount a campaign to change the law.

individual rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

There are some here who don't believe that individual people have such inherent rights.
Just wondering if you do.

I'm a vet and I didn't go through that for nothing. I defended those rights. If I didn't, they wouldn't be respected. Therefore, they are not inherent, they are protected; by all of us, not just military, cops, etc. We the people created the Bill of Rights. The Decl. of Ind. is not the same as the Bill of Rights. Just because some guys in 1776 bitched to the king of England saying the rights are inherent, doesn't mean they are "absolutely" or "objectively" inherent. IMO, I think they meant that they are inherent simply because they wanted them to be and the declaration meant they would defend what they wanted. JMO.

.... So, if you want a lump of a few cells that are coded to become a human to have rights, then fight for it. Until you succeed, those rights don't exist. Law of the jungle or some such.

I am not saying inherent rights don't need to be defended.
Not acknowledging inherent rights leads to indifference of the rights of those humans who don't have the capability of defending their rights.
If Mexico won't defend the inherent rights of their citizens, why should you care?
The attitude that rights are not inherent leads to classes of humans and tyrannies which will make your job of defending your government given rights more difficult.
Bottom line is there is value in assuming all humans have the same inherent rights as you do.

We the people created the Bill of Rights. The Decl. of Ind. is not the same as the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights essentially codify the Declaration of Independence.
"to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The people give the power to the govt, not the other way around.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Power not delegated...
The Bill of Rights affirms the inherent rights in the Declaration.
"Locke expounded on the idea of natural rights that are inherent to all individuals, a concept Madison mentioned in his speech presenting the Bill of Rights to the 1st Congress.
"
http://www.paralu...ghts.htm

I'm a vet and I didn't go through that for nothing. I defended those rights

The government did a very poor job of teaching you about those rights.

Not acknowledging inherent rights leads to indifference of the rights of those humans who don't have the capability of defending their rights.

What's happened? Are you going socialist?

We the people created the Bill of Rights. The Decl. of Ind. is not the same as the Bill of Rights. Just because some guys in 1776 bitched to the king of England saying the rights are inherent, doesn't mean they are "absolutely" or "objectively" inherent.

"We the people" as in SPQR or in "we the people of the USA"? What about those humans that did not participate in creating the Bill of Rights?

So, if you want a lump of a few cells that are coded to become a human to have rights, then fight for it. Until you succeed, those rights don't exist. Law of the jungle or some such.

You covered the US citizen as well as the "lumps of a few cells that are coded to become human". You didn't cover the remaining majority of humans. Law of the jungle or so for them, too?

Not acknowledging inherent rights leads to indifference of the rights of those humans who don't have the capability of defending their rights.

What's happened? Are you going socialist?

The French "Rights of Man" was one path to Communism.
The key difference is lies in one letter. If it had been 'rights of men', as individuals, not as a collective, the revolution in France may have followed the US path.
If one believes in the inherent rights of all individual humans, then one be concerned for all those suffering under socialism and tyranny of all sorts.

What about those humans that did not participate in creating the Bill of Rights?

If you are referring to women, slaves, Indians and non-landowners, the Bill of Rights has enabled their eventual liberty as well. How could those dead white men envision such a thing?

I'm a vet and I didn't go through that for nothing. I defended those rights

The government did a very poor job of teaching you about those rights.

Says you. "The government"??? WTF are you talking about? History classes, military officers, fellow veterans, books, etc, taught me.

Why do you consistently over-generalize? If some lady at the DMV takes too long with your renewal, do you blame "the govt?" "The govt" is just a bunch of people; the same types of people that work for private companies. "There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys." (Zero Effect)

"We the people" as in SPQR or in "we the people of the USA"? What about those humans that did not participate in creating the Bill of Rights?
You covered the US citizen as well as the "lumps of a few cells that are coded to become human". You didn't cover the remaining majority of humans. Law of the jungle or so for them, too?

I was just using Americans as an example. I do believe "the govt" represents us and works for us at the same time. I am also a humanist. Rights can be morally universal without being inherent. They are universal simply because we know they ought to be.

If a Christian group can halt funding of scientific research due to conflict with religious beliefs, then what does that mean for the future of science in the USA?

Just playing a little devils advocate here, and I know I'm comparing apples to oranges but I AM going to question the general principle you're espousing here by asking a simple question.

Do you have a problem with the experiments Dr. Mengele did?

To quote Val Kilmer (Chris Knight):

"All science and no philosophy? Wrong..."

We the people created the Bill of Rights. The Decl. of Ind. is not the same as the Bill of Rights. Just because some guys in 1776 bitched to the king of England saying the rights are inherent, doesn't mean they are "absolutely" or "objectively" inherent.

"We the people" as in SPQR or in "we the people of the USA"? What about those humans that did not participate in creating the Bill of Rights?

So, if you want a lump of a few cells that are coded to become a human to have rights, then fight for it. Until you succeed, those rights don't exist. Law of the jungle or some such.

You covered the US citizen as well as the "lumps of a few cells that are coded to become human". You didn't cover the remaining majority of humans. Law of the jungle or so for them, too?

Want us to go to war to make those rights apply to everyone else? 'Cause the last time we tried that we got called "imperialist swine" or some such...

I am also a humanist. Rights can be morally universal without being inherent. They are universal simply because we know they ought to be.

How can rights be universal and not inherent? Do you consider these to be individual human rights or collective 'rights of man'?

Want us to go to war to make those rights apply to everyone else? 'Cause the last time we tried that we got called "imperialist swine" or some such...

Faith cannot be forced and people do need to stand up for their inherent rights. If your Saudi neighbor is enslaving his Filipino housekeeper, do you ignore it? After all, that is part of the Arab culture.

Faith cannot be forced and people do need to stand up for their inherent rights. If your Saudi neighbor is enslaving his Filipino housekeeper, do you ignore it? After all, that is part of the Arab culture.

I'm sorry you did understand that I was agreeing with this stance and attempting to point out the hypocrisy of the person I was actually quoting right?

Look it basically boils down to this, when you beg for other people's money to conduct your research, and some of the people paying for this research view it as controversial for WHATEVER reason, you're going to have to deal with stuff like this.

It's life, deal with it or do something else with your time...but please quit crying about it.

How can rights be universal and not inherent? Do you consider these to be individual human rights or collective 'rights of man'?

They're universal because of the end it brings us all. Our society functions better if everyone has basic rights. We have learned this by trial and error and now we fight to protect that because it's in our collective and individual best interest.

I don't believe in spiritual karma, but I know from personal experience that doing what you think is wrong poisons the mind and begets further destructive thoughts and actions.

There doesn't have to be a source for us to realize that it's worth it to do what we decide is right.

I am also a humanist. Rights can be morally universal without being inherent. They are universal simply because we know they ought to be.

How can rights be universal and not inherent?

Because the rights are assigned to a subjective definition. For example, all "human rights" are universally applied to humans, but not other primates. They are not inherent to humans as humans are primates but they are universal as they apply to ALL humans.

Faith cannot be forced

Stockholm syndrome.

If your Saudi neighbor is enslaving his Filipino housekeeper, do you ignore it? After all, that is part of the Arab culture.

Am I in Saudi Arabia, the US, or the Phillipenes at the time? What year is it? What culture am I from? You're the moral relativist yet you question us on moral relativism? Interesting technique for sunsetting your argument.

"The govt" is just a bunch of people;

That have pure force behind their actions.
Private companies must persuade you to buy their stuff.
Govt employees can put you in jail.

"The govt" is just a bunch of people;

That have pure force behind their actions.
Private companies must persuade you to buy their stuff.
Govt employees can put you in jail.

But you would replace those employees' leaders with private ones, no? If yes, then you would just be transferring that power. That is replacing an accountable representative democracy with a chaotic, uncontrollable system. It would leave our future at the hands of a chaos even supercomputers cannot fathom. How is that better?

If yes, then you would just be transferring that power.

Right. The power is being transferred to the customer (the people).
Why do statists fear the people?

uncontrollable system

Do you find a shopping mall uncontrolled? Most property that people live and work int is NOT owned by the state, but somehow, those people seem to interact in quite unchaotic fashion.
Even in third world countries with weak, ineffective, corrupt governments, millions of people can somehow live and work together.

If yes, then you would just be transferring that power.

Right. The power is being transferred to the customer (the people).
Why do statists fear the people?

Customers have LESS power than voters. It's much less direct of a means to an end. It gives the rich more power than the poor. It would be like giving someone who makes 2x more salary two votes in our current system.

Don't you see how this shows why the powerfully rich feed you the information you willingly swallow? It took us poor working saps thousands of years to overcome what you suggest we go back to.

Do you find a shopping mall uncontrolled? Most property that people live and work int is NOT owned by the state, but somehow, those people seem to interact in quite unchaotic fashion.

Perspective, prediction, and recovery. It looks controlled from the consumer's and vendor's perspective, not from outside the system. How would we predict or prevent market collapses? Sure, they might self-correct, but I'm not willing to wait decades for that while opportunists take advantage of another depression and prolong the misery.

My tolerance has officially hit ZERO, and this will be reflected in any response to a bible thumping comment or reply.

To fight the good fight...

Wouldn't YOU just want the chance to be born?
As a father, the concept of throw-away babies is disgusting.
Harvesting them for research and forcing me to help pay for it is worse.
You're smart people, find another way.

Unborn people do not exist.

Are mentally handicapped people "stupid" according to your private definition?

Frajo, youre good with words... What is the formal logic term for taking something to its illogical extreme in order to try to make a point? Margoo does it all the time:

Yes, let's return to the glory days of dictators who could conduct research on anyone they chose.

-And thinks its a valid argument

Anybody? I know theres a word for this, and I'd like to be able to use it whenever its appropriate.

Right. The power is being transferred to the customer (the people).
Why do statists fear the people?

They don't.

If you fear the state, move out. You are a customer of your country, by birth not choice. Living in the country you do, you have the choice to move. Either make it, or be happy at the Walmart of countries, (the US).

Do you find a shopping mall uncontrolled? Most property that people live and work int is NOT owned by the state, but somehow, those people seem to interact in quite unchaotic fashion.

Because of laws erected by the State. When you go to the mall, the laws don't change. If the mall had their own laws, I'm sure it would look quite fucked up.

I second that motion. I'm sick of being tolerant to idiots in our society. A wave of ignorance induced death through the population would only serve to speed its improvement.

Trek, you sound like the Archbishop of Canterberry.

marjon, you're a moron if you think that private business serves the customer as its primary function. The whole fricken' point of Smith's Invisible Hand is that overall customer satisfaction is an UNINTENDED, and long range by-product of the profit-seeking behavior of private, competing businesses. But the individual businesses themselves will make money any way they can, lying about competition to gain an edge, even screwing over their customers in a blatant and cynical way, if it makes enough money in the short-term. After all, in the long run, we're all dead.

Just a thought here...

Why is it, generally, in those countries with less state interference in economics there is a higher standard of living than in those with more control?

Also why is economic freedom given such a lower priority than "political freedom". That is to say why is whether or not I'm allowed to by a beer, or a joint seen as non-political interference with my life and interference with which books I want to buy seen as something entirely different?

There also seems to be a lot of moral hypocrisy with respect to this issue going on in this country right now. I had a conversation with someone last week who thought tobacco, and trans-fats should be outlawed, but pot should be legalized. Am I alone in seeing the irony here?

marjon, you're a moron if you think that private business serves the customer as its primary function. The whole fricken' point of Smith's Invisible Hand is that overall customer satisfaction is an UNINTENDED, and long range by-product of the profit-seeking behavior of private, competing businesses. But the individual businesses themselves will make money any way they can, lying about competition to gain an edge, even screwing over their customers in a blatant and cynical way, if it makes enough money in the short-term. After all, in the long run, we're all dead.

Why would you do business with anyone who lies, cheats or steals? You have a choice how you spend your money.
People will vote in politicians that lie, cheat and steal though to run the government that gives you zero choices in how to spend your money.

If the mall had their own laws, I'm sure it would look quite fucked up.

They do have their own rules (laws) that are above and beyond local laws just as home owners associations have their own 'laws'.
Businesses have the right to refuse service why would any place of business want to promote disorder and make their customers uncomfortable?

Businesses have the right to refuse service why would any place of business want to promote disorder and make their customers uncomfortable?

So you would advocate a Mall being able to say that it is a "Whites Only" mall.

I replace my prior commentary. You're fucked up.

People will vote in politicians that lie, cheat and steal though to run the government that gives you zero choices in how to spend your money.

How about you turn off FOX news and start doing research into the candidates on your own. After all, Beck is just in it for the ratings. How would you know if he's lying to you if you don't go anywhere else for information?

By not listening or watching things that don't fit your preconceived notions you lose out on a lot of valuable information. I'm willing to bet you think the Ground Zero Mosque is funded by radical Jihadis. Those same people funding the Mosque are investors in FOX news.

So to save NY, you must stop watching FOX news.

I feel like I'm "butting in" here, so first of all let me apologize for that up front.

I think what's being said here on both sides has validity. Economics without state interference of any kind is not, would not, and in fact CAN NOT be totally chaotic. Conversely State "interference" in economic activity is not always detrimental, and in many cases promotes/enhances it.

These "arguments" are almost never about "ends", they are almost always about "means". I'm going out on a limb here and going to say that everyone on this thread would like to see everyone with a good paying job, good health care, a paid off house, access to high technology, etc. All we disagree on is how we get from where we are to where we'd all like to be.

I used to think the solutions were political...I'm not so sure anymore. Honestly looking at history I think the solutions are going to be technological. Mature nanotechnology is going to do more for humanity than than agriculture and industry combined.

So you would advocate a Mall being able to say that it is a "Whites Only" mall.

They could also say a blacks only mall.
But I suspect that if such a activity happened, they would not stay in business for long as everyone who was offended would refuse to shop there.
And all anyone would have to do is open stores next door that welcomes all paying customers.
However, there are effectively such businesses now. I was in a store in Dorchester and was not made to feel very welcome.

Those same people funding the Mosque are investors in FOX news.

Harper Collins published the book of the Imam as well as Niel Boortz's book.
Better stop buying Harper Collins products.
Better stop buying oil as the Saudi princes fund all sorts of terrorism and anti-Israel activities.

Why would you do business with anyone who lies, cheats or steals? You have a choice how you spend your money.
People will vote in politicians that lie, cheat and steal though to run the government that gives you zero choices in how to spend your money.

I still fail to see the difference... It is called marketing campaigns, remember cigarettes? The free market didn't fix that one, the government did. "There is no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause cancer." Granted both parties went extreme. Cigarettes didn't even want to acknowledge this, while the government wanted to slap a death sticker on it. In the end we came to a good middle road and my friends and I can enjoy a cigarette if we wanted, knowing full well the repercussions of our actions. If it where up to the cigarette companies no one BACK THEN would have know. Today they have the "TRUTH" commercials because even bad advertising is still advertising for cigarettes.

So you would advocate a Mall being able to say that it is a "Whites Only" mall.

They could also say a blacks only mall.
But I suspect that if such a activity happened, they would not stay in business for long as everyone who was offended would refuse to shop there.
And all anyone would have to do is open stores next door that welcomes all paying customers.
However, there are effectively such businesses now. I was in a store in Dorchester and was not made to feel very welcome.

Well that'd be because you're a racist.

Harper Collins published the book of the Imam as well as Niel Boortz's book.
Better stop buying Harper Collins products.
Better stop buying oil as the Saudi princes fund all sorts of terrorism and anti-Israel activities.

Or we could recognize that globalization doesn't preclude another organization from being able to build a house of worship on their duly owned private property in accordance with all state and federal law. Further more we don't support people either ideologically or monetarily that suggest the suspension of rights for another based on a ridiculous knee jerk reaction to what a talking head says on a puppet media show.

So you would advocate a Mall being able to say that it is a "Whites Only" mall.

They could also say a blacks only mall.
But I suspect that if such a activity happened, they would not stay in business for long as everyone who was offended would refuse to shop there.
And all anyone would have to do is open stores next door that welcomes all paying customers.
However, there are effectively such businesses now. I was in a store in Dorchester and was not made to feel very welcome.

Well that'd be because you're a racist.

Me? You brought up "whites only".
There are racists of all colors. Even in Dorchester.

Me? You brought up "whites only".
There are racists of all colors. Even in Dorchester.

Well of course, you just told us you were in Dorchester. Everyone can be racist, question is, who would support a whites only store; the racist, or unracist?

You know, I work in Dorchester, and I walk the streets, go to the stores not a care in the world.

I don't assume that in a store full of black people, that I'm being watched or singled out. You think you're giving examples of reverse racism and chances are that is wholly untrue and your own bigotry is comming out to defend you from what you perceive to be a hostile situation.

Most people in Dorchester are as friendly as can be. You need to stop watching the news and get outside more often.

To SH: YOU brought up race:

Me: Businesses have the right to refuse service why would any place of business want to promote disorder and make their customers uncomfortable?

SH: So you would advocate a Mall being able to say that it is a "Whites Only" mall.

Why did you feel the need to insert race?

You really are an idiot, marjon. Either that or you think conmen and shysters are like werewolves and vampires, made up monsters just meant to scare people. A liar isn't going to tell you he's a liar to your face, it takes time to figure it out. Time in which he can fleece you and who knows how many others out of a great deal of money. Unregulated markets only work well in the idealized, long-term future. In the real, short-term here and now, unregulated markets are the playgrounds of thieves.

You know, I work in Dorchester, and I walk the streets, go to the stores not a care in the world.

I don't assume that in a store full of black people, that I'm being watched or singled out. You think you're giving examples of reverse racism and chances are that is wholly untrue and your own bigotry is comming out to defend you from what you perceive to be a hostile situation.

Most people in Dorchester are as friendly as can be. You need to stop watching the news and get outside more often.

Why don't you live there? Think of all the commuting time you would save and you could enjoy all the government Boston and MA have to offer.

A liar isn't going to tell you he's a liar to your face, it takes time to figure it out.

It has taken many Obama supporters a while to figure out he was lying.
Ever wander around the souk in Jeddah? They have been in operating for centuries. Liars and cheats don't last long in such places as word spreads fast.
Madoff was able to con for so long because he had the implied protection of the government. He operated in a highly regulated market. Many reputable people trusted him and, when a competitor tried to get the SEC to investigate, he was ignored.
Liars and cheats don't last long doing business in a community unless they have the protection of other liars and cheats in government.

You mean the freaking flea markets? Yeah, that's a great place to not get ripped off. [/sarcasm] Even if your salesman managed to follow his ethical compass and not sell crap to ignorant customers, you've still got to deal with the freaking pickpockets in those places. And when there are disputes, you need a forum to work them out. Policing swindlers, liars and thieves and having an independent, authoritative adjudication process are necessary prerequisites for the free market to work well.

Madoff operated so long because your King George II told his regulators to not bother checking up on the practices of the people they were supposed to be policing. In fact, they encouraged buddying up and cashing in. If the regulators had played by the rules, Madoff would have been caught sooner. If there were no regulators, Madoff would still be out there playing with other people's money.

Ever wander around the souk in Jeddah? They have been in operating for centuries. Liars and cheats don't last long in such places as word spreads fast.
M

*I* have. The merchants of Jeddah have a long, documented, and infamous history -- including among Muslims -- of fleecing Hajj pilgrims, year after year after year, for centuries. Thus, the basis of your argument is provably false, Marjon, and therefore your argument itself has zero credibility.

Why did you feel the need to insert race?

Because your statements look like a play directly out of Hitler's Mein Kampf

Why don't you live there? Think of all the commuting time you would save and you could enjoy all the government Boston and MA have to offer.

Because I don't work there every day. I travel quite a bit in my work.

It has taken many Obama supporters a while to figure out he was lying.

You know, I really haven't caught a single lie outside of "the healthcare debate being televised" statement, which was made out of arrogance and naivette assuming he could control that psycho Pelosi and her cronies.

I really haven't caught a single lie outside

I guess it was no lie he was really going to change things.
His supporters thought it would be for the better. A lie of omission.
But that's what one gets when the voters don't pay attention.

Of course the government should fund stem cell research. I honestly don't see how there can even be an argument made against it. There are millions of people who are affected by diseases and trauma that could one day reap the benefits of such research...By the way I found a website that give you prizes for your opinions and 4 play games here is the topic about this: http://opinion.ez...research

Of course the government should fund stem cell research. I honestly don't see how there can even be an argument made against it. There are millions of people who are affected by diseases and trauma that could one day reap the benefits of such research...By the way I found a website that give you prizes for your opinions and 4 play games here is the topic about this: http://opinion.ez...research

Then the government should start paying for embryos so the unemployed can make some money.

Then the government should start paying for embryos so the unemployed can make some money.

Majority of elective abortions are performed on Christian teenagers from the Bible belt.

I guess it was no lie he was really going to change things.
His supporters thought it would be for the better. A lie of omission.
But that's what one gets when the voters don't pay attention.

Comming from you this is utter hilarity.

Why would you do business with anyone who lies, cheats or steals?

If a business is good at it and you're ignorant enough you'll never know if you're being lied to, cheated, or stolen from.

Why would you do business with anyone who lies, cheats or steals?

If a business is good at it and you're ignorant enough you'll never know if you're being lied to, cheated, or stolen from.

Then why would having authorities to deal with them matter either way?

The French "Rights of Man" was one path to Communism.

No, moron, that was Thomas Payne. You really are a know-nothing, ignorant shill. The "Rights of Man", later rebilled as the "inalienable" rights of man, are based upon the (correct) premise, that, absent IMPOSED AUTHORITY to the contrary, we are all born equal, and therefore "possess" the same rights, equally, and that those rights can only be contravened of suborned through force, and that, therfore the natural state of humanity is EQUALITY, not an artificially imposed heirarchy.

Why would you do business with anyone who lies, cheats or steals? You have a choice how you spend your money.

You do it every day. "Fox News" comes immediately to mind. Or are they Broadcast in your area?

My tolerance has officially hit ZERO, and this will be reflected in any response to a bible thumping comment or reply.

(.....)

Anybody? I know theres a word for this, and I'd like to be able to use it whenever its appropriate.

Otto,
In case you were serious, I believe the term that you are looking for is "Reductio ad Absurdum"
Cheers!

Of course the government should fund stem cell research. I honestly don't see how there can even be an argument made against it.

I don't see how anyone can make an argument against funding stem cell research either.

I do understand how some people have angst over money being taken from them and being used for research they find morally objectionable. Moreover I believe in their right to express such angst, and even attempt to stop said research being continued with the benefit of resources obtained from them.

Knowledge is neutral, however we all know (or should know) the means by which knowledge is obtained is not necessarily neutral. We can all think of cases in which we would object to scientific research being done.

It cuts both ways, you can't have your cake and eat it too...

Let's give otto a lesson on Reductio ad Absurdum shall we?

Unborn people do not exist.

You don't exist otto.

Weeeeee! What fun :-)

You really are a know-nothing, ignorant shill. The "Rights of Man"

"The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen seemed to borrow strikingly from the states' bill of rights. Even more direct influence took place when American Thomas Jefferson, resident in France at this time, passed along specific ideas to the legislators through the Marquis de Lafayette. Although the French Revolution took a far different path than the North American variety, this interaction was close, so it is not surprising that the initial U.S. reaction to the French Revolution was positive. "
"The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was adopted in France in August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly. "
http://www.pbs.or...nce.html

"There is no denying the fact that the French revolutionaries read Rousseau and walked away with a theory and justification for a democratic-authoritarian form of government. This is most readily identified by the figure of Robespierre, who made something of an idol of Rousseau."
"The French communist philosophers of the late eighteenth century went beyond Rousseau in many important respects."
"They began with a criticism of private property that sounded similar to Rousseau, but they took the step of actually calling for its abolition and the establishment of a society based on the egalitarian and communal ownership of property."
"Babeuf knew, like Rousseau, that people needed to be forced to be free. The common people were able, he thought, to find their own liberation, but too many could be deceived when it came to identifying their own true interests. "
{Sounds like many here}
http://www.histor...19a.html

You really are a know-nothing, ignorant shill. The "Rights of Man"

"The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen seemed to borrow strikingly from the states' bill of rights. Even more direct influence took place when American Thomas Jefferson, resident in France at this time, passed along (.....)North American variety, this interaction was close, so it is not surprising that the initial U.S. reaction to the French Revolution was positive. "
"The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was adopted in France in August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly. "
http://www.pbs.or...nce.html

Only part, and the lesser part, of the story, mongo. But it is fully expected that you would at best cherry-pick, if you bother to back up your claims at all, in an effort at revisionism aimed at supporting your distorted worldview.
Mangy would know this by reading, rather than simply quote-mining.

Only part, and the lesser part, of the story,

Of course a socialist supporter would think this was a lesser part of the story.

Only part, and the lesser part, of the story,

Of course a socialist supporter would think this was a lesser part of the story.

Of course a moron would confuse the engine with the caboose. I recommend that you put down "Thomas the Tank Engine" and pick up a history book.

Only part, and the lesser part, of the story,

Of course a socialist supporter would think this was a lesser part of the story.

Of course a moron would confuse the engine with the caboose. I recommend that you put down "Thomas the Tank Engine" and pick up a history book.

So you think the French Revolution was a resounding success? Are you a fan of Napoleon?

"Rousseau’s Social Contract. It is the text-book of the French Revolution. Every ordinance, every law, every draft of constitution bears the mark of its influence. Although unquestionably right in his repudiation of Locke’s crude theory, it is needless to say that Rousseau’s own views are singularly barren and unhistorical as every theory must be that deals only with the political side of things. One may admire his loathing at the artificiality of the world around him; at the “organised hypocrisy” called religion and morality; "http://www.marxis...prologue
The Americans preferred Locke's 'crude theory'.
"Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism."
http://plato.stan...s/locke/

Anyone find it funny or ironic that if Mongo had his way there would be even more private research on embryonic stem cells? Heck, in his fairy-tale land, eventually, a bunch of "truly" free people might want to get together and pool their money to fund road building, common protection, and even.... embryonic stem cell research. :O They might then have to enforce payment on those that take advantage of those common assets..wait a minute......

Free Americans freely decided to form a constitution for the free. That constitution formed a representative democracy. Mongo would dissolve that system. Mongo is a traitor.

And, apparently, mangy doesn' know that the American Revolution could have resulted in a fiasco similar to what happened to the French...I don't reckon he's ever heard of Aaron Burr, or any of the other insurrections that attempted to usurp democracy in our Nation. No Surprise, that.

And, apparently, mangy doesn' know that the American Revolution could have resulted in a fiasco similar to what happened to the French...I don't reckon he's ever heard of Aaron Burr, or any of the other insurrections that attempted to usurp democracy in our Nation. No Surprise, that.

The fundamental foundation of the US revolution was quite different as pointed out by the Marxists.
The USA was founded by Puritans and were guided by Locke.

Free Americans freely decided to form a constitution for the free. That constitution formed a representative democracy. Mongo would dissolve that system. Mongo is a traitor.

That Constitution limited the power of the government, they were called enumerated powers, and it was supposed to protect the people's inherent rights from the state.
I would gladly support a return to that system of government.

a bunch of "truly" free people might want to get together and pool their money to fund road building,

That has been done, for profit, and it works quite well. They were called turnpikes. Most turnpikes are well maintained and traffic flows quite well.

Free Americans freely decided to form a constitution for the free. That constitution formed a representative democracy. Mongo would dissolve that system. Mongo is a traitor.

That Constitution limited the power of the government, they were called enumerated powers, and it was supposed to protect the people's inherent rights from the state.
I would gladly support a return to that system of government.

Yes, but what you propose would lead to civil war. You are a traitor. We had a war over states rights already. Your ilk lost. Later we became the most prosperous nation of all time. Deal with it. Just because you are in the minority on an issue, the solution is not always the undoing of a hundred years of our laws.

Yes, but what you propose would lead to civil war.

So let's completely toss out the Constitution?
Picking and choosing what parts to follow and what parts not to follow is the same. This week we will ignore the 10th amendment next week the first?
The 14th amendment did not repeal the 10th.

The USA was founded by Puritans and were guided by Locke.

By Puritans I hope you mean Freemasons.

Personally, I am not aware of the process of collecting stem cells, and quite frankly I would rather not know. With that said, I absolutely do not want humanity to know the inner workings of the human body. Somebody said here "we should kill ignorant people," and it is my belief that the people who actually run this country (the mega billionaires) believe the exact same thing. The question then becomes who do we consider the ignorant? The next phase of human "evolution" is here and it will be the evolution of the mind. If you still have the belief of the "old" ways, silly things like religion that have prevented us from evolving sooner, you will become the obstruction to ultimate knowledge and will be dealt with accordingly.

The 14th amendment did not repeal the 10th.

Assuming that you think the 14th amendment has anything to do with the 10th, then yes it would. That's the nature of Constitutional Amendments. The later ones override/overwrite the prior ones. That's why black people are citizens and count for more than 3/5 of a person now. That's why alcohol was prohibited, and then allowed again.

There are some dry counties in the US who need beat over the head with the 21st amendment BTW.

There are some dry counties in the US who need beat over the head with the 21st amendment BTW.

And the city of Chicago and other govts that are afraid of their citizens need to be reminded of the 2nd.
A key provision of the 14th: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

There are some dry counties in the US who need beat over the head with the 21st amendment BTW.

And the city of Chicago and other govts that are afraid of their citizens need to be reminded of the 2nd.
A key provision of the 14th: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Oh I have no doubt that some of these piss ant tin plated little wannabe dictator Mayors with a social agenda will be brought in line presently. The current court leaves little doubt where they fall on this issue...

The current court leaves little doubt where they fall on this issue...

Cities, states and the US govt itself refuses to enforce its own immigration laws and prosecutes those who do.
Court decisions have little weight if their authority is selectively acknowledged and enforced.

"What is the formal logic term for taking something to its illogical extreme in order to try to make a point?"

"Otto,
In case you were serious, I believe the term that you are looking for is "Reductio ad Absurdum""

Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a fallacy, it is a valid argument. If someone claims something to be always true, then showing an example of when it is not (disproof by contradiction) is often the best way to go - and finding an extreme example which everyone can see is false is a good way to do so.

"If a Christian group can halt funding of scientific research due to conflict with religious beliefs, then what does that mean for the future of science in the USA?"
It means that morality will rule science, as it should. This thread is full of moral statements, e.g. that the mother 'owns' her fetus, that a person is not a person until birth and so on. Science does not lead to these positions, they are moral statements, drawn from the person's worldview and nowhere else.

It means that morality will rule science, as it should.

Who's morality? That's the problem. Science is objective, morality is subjective.

The fundamental foundation of the US revolution was quite different as pointed out by the Marxists.
The USA was founded by Puritans and were guided by Locke.

The Virginian tobacconeers weren't Puritan, and most of them didn't read Locke. This country wasn't founded by Puritans, it was founded by their mixed religious and non-religious great, great, great grandchildren. The pilgrims didn't fire shots at the civil war, only at their neighbors and the natives.

Excuse me, where I say civil war, I meant revolutionary war.

The Virginian tobacconeers weren't Puritan, and most of them didn't read Locke. This country wasn't founded by Puritans, it was founded by their mixed religious and non-religious great, great, great grandchildren. The pilgrims didn't fire shots at the civil war, only at their neighbors and the natives.

So you say.
I suggest reading "Creating the Commonwealth" as he does compare MA and VA.
And it WAS the hard work and morality of the Puritans that played a significant role in the Constitution.
Atheists just can't acknowledge the positive religious contributions. You remind of the PC revisionists who insist upon equating the significance of African kingdoms and the Roman Empire.

So you say.
I suggest reading "Creating the Commonwealth" as he does compare MA and VA.
And it WAS the hard work and morality of the Puritans that played a significant role in the Constitution.
Atheists just can't acknowledge the positive religious contributions. You remind of the PC revisionists who insist upon equating the significance of African kingdoms and the Roman Empire.

When you only read things through the rose-colored glasses of faith, you'll see faith in all things. Creating the Commonwealth is an economic perspective of pre-colonial New England. I would strongly recommend you read Becomming America: The Revolution before 1776. Religious pluralism, including deism and atheism were founding tenets of the country. There was most certainly puritan influence, but it was of a socialist bent. Seeing as you're an anti-statist, it is suprising that you would lean so heavily on Innes' work especially as the book in question promotes puritanical socialism and statism.

Atheists just can't acknowledge the positive religious contributions.

I've done so many times, both here and elsewhere, wake up marjon.

You remind of the PC revisionists who insist upon equating the significance of African kingdoms and the Roman Empire.

African kingdoms like Egypt, Carthage, and Numidia? I'd say those "revisionists" are correct depending on what aspects they're referring to.

I can certainly see how the MA democrat/socialist evolved from the Puritans.
Decouple the hard work, property rights and morality from the Purtitans and what is left is the nanny state telling people how to live.

I can certainly see how the MA democrat/socialist evolved from the Puritans.
Decouple the hard work, property rights and morality from the Purtitans and what is left is the nanny state telling people how to live.

Just to really blow the mangymind, suck on Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America". If mongo has the mental capacity, this enlighten as to the fact that was, is, and always will be the case that the Interests of Wealth and Power employ Religious, Nationalistic, and Cultural feeling(among others) to create, promote, and retain Control of both the State and its Citizens.

I can certainly see how the MA democrat/socialist evolved from the Puritans.
Decouple the hard work, property rights and morality from the Purtitans and what is left is the nanny state telling people how to live.

Just to really blow the mangymind, suck on Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America". If mongo has the mental capacity, this enlighten as to the fact that was, is, and always will be the case that the Interests of Wealth and Power employ Religious, Nationalistic, and Cultural feeling(among others) to create, promote, and retain Control of both the State and its Citizens.

Is that why Lenin required communist party members to be atheist?
"Let's share things. Let's have an economic system that produces things not because they're profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need." Zinn
Who decides what people need? How will they be motivated to provide them?
Zinn is not biased?

Is that why Lenin required communist party members to be atheist?

The religion of communist party members was religious allegiance to the communist party.

The Russians had lived under dictators that owned not only the total production of the country, but also the people, their property, their labor, their money, their faith, and everything else within the borders of Russia. The soviets simply used the theistic doctrine exploited by the Czars. If you want to attack communism you need to attack credulity that was established by monarchy and religion. The religion in question... christianity.

I dont get it, if we can induce a cell into being pluripotent do we realy even need to bother w ESC research? Lets skip the drama and just use ASCs or induce pluripotentcy in other cells. Am I missing something here? I am by no means an expert but being that ESC is so "hot" why not leave it alone and utilize the avenues we already have that do work?

The religion of communist party members was religious allegiance to the communist party.

Excuses, excuses.
Now you agree with the first commandment?

The religion of communist party members was religious allegiance to the communist party.

Excuses, excuses.
Now you agree with the first commandment?

What the hell are you talking about? Why would I agree that there's a god or gods because I understand that credulity is the cause of all ill behavior within groups of faith?

The atheist groups you cite as being evil have more in common with religion than they do with people like myself. They all share unyielding faith that what they're doing is right, even if the action taken is wholly evil.

Religion, and people like Stalin, have a vested interest in keeping their subjects childlike and ignorant. There's a reason why Christians are "born-again". You don't need to be born again, you need to grow up.

The atheist groups you cite as being evil have more in common with religion than they do with people like myself.

Is communism a religion or not? Lenin stated atheism is a required to be a member of the communist party so you attempt to minimize this fact by claiming communism is like religion giving you the 'reason' to claim they are not real atheists like you.
Christians who are born again are not ignorant?
Take care in how you define religion as your flavor of religion is beginning to show.

Let's put your argument into the form of a syllogism:

Lenin was an atheist.
Lenin killed lots of people.
Therefore all atheists support killing lots of people.

Obviously atheists tend disagree with this "logic". Let's change it around a bit:

Hitler was a Christian.
Hitler killed lots of people.
Therefore all Christians support killing lots of people.

Obviously Christians tend to disagree with this "logic" as well.

Now let's take specific terms out and look at it like this:
A is B
A did C
Therefore all B support C

That's known as a syllogistic fallacy (ie. it is not logical).

This is similar to the fallacy of the undistributed middle:

http://en.wikiped...d_middle

Is communism a religion or not?

Depends on the credulity of the communist and his alignment with the ideology of communism. You can elevate any ideology to a level of blind faith, in many, if not all cases, this is fallacy and detrimental.

Lenin stated atheism is a required to be a member of the communist party so you attempt to minimize this fact by claiming communism is like religion giving you the 'reason' to claim they are not real atheists like you.

I did nothing of the sort. I stated that the people living in Soviet Russia followed their leaders blindly as there was a ready made template for serfdom left in place by the Czars.

Christians who are born again are not ignorant?

No, they're often quite ignorant.

Take care in how you define religion as your flavor of religion is beginning to show.

This is a nonsense statement, clarify your intended meaning. As I said, the fault at play in all instances of corrupted hierarchy is credulity.

SH: How certain are you of your blind faiths?

Let's put your argument into the form of a syllogism:

Lenin was an atheist.
Lenin killed lots of people.

Therefore all atheists support killing lots of people.

Obviously atheists tend disagree with this "logic". Let's change it around a bit:

Hitler was a Christian.
Hitler killed lots of people.
Therefore all Christians support killing lots of people.

Obviously Christians tend to disagree with this "logic" as well.

Now let's take specific terms out and look at it like this:
A is B
A did C
Therefore all B support C

That's known as a syllogistic fallacy (ie. it is not logical).

This is similar to the fallacy of the undistributed middle:

http://en.wikiped...d_middle

I am just repeating the argument I get from atheists regarding religion.
{It was Stalin that murdered millions.}

SH: How certain are you of your blind faiths?

I don't hold any.

I am just repeating the argument I get from atheists regarding religion.
{It was Stalin that murdered millions.}

You didn't get that argument until you began trying to assert that atheists killed millions with atheism. Grow up.

So then ANY belief system can really be defined as a religion. What's the point of using the word if I may ask?

SH: How certain are you of your blind faiths?

I don't hold any.

Why do you call yourself a skeptic? That is a irrational faith.

You didn't get that argument until you began trying to assert that atheists killed millions with atheism. Grow up.

I always get the argument of how many wars religion has started and how many died in religious conflicts. That is standard fare from atheists.

Regardless, both arguments are fallacy. You're admitting to using fallacious logic.

And whoops about Stalin and Lenin mix up... my bad, but the point is still valid.

So then ANY belief system can really be defined as a religion. What's the point of using the word if I may ask?

That isn't what I said. What I said was any ideology can fall prey to faith based reasoning. Religion is one example of faith based reasoning. Faith in leadership is another. The problem is unquestioning faith.

Why do you call yourself a skeptic? That is a irrational faith.

Address please, I have that dictionary to send you. The one with accepted english definitions.

I always get the argument of how many wars religion has started and how many died in religious conflicts. That is standard fare from atheists.

As Jav said, that argument is fallacy. However, if you're going to attempt to state, as you often do, that religion does all sorts of good things, and ignore the bad, then the bad will be brought up and stuck in your face. That is the only time I've engaged in such generalization.

"The hallmark of the skeptikoi was caution; they refused to be caught in assertions that could be proven false. In fact, the entire system of skeptic philosophy was to present all knowledge as opinion only, that is, to assert nothing as true. "
"for all scientific truths can be doubted sometime in the future. In other words, although scientists speak about certainty and truth all the time, the foundational epistemology is skeptical: doubt anything and everything."
If you are a true skeptic, you can never know anything.

religion does all sorts of good things, and ignore the bad, then the bad will be brought up and stuck in your face. That is the only time I've engaged in such generalization.

And I will remind all statists if the failures of government.

Regardless, both arguments are fallacy. You're admitting to using fallacious logic.

And whoops about Stalin and Lenin mix up... my bad, but the point is still valid.

What ever works to make the point.
There has been a trend in recent years to completely discount the contributions made to civilization by religious faith. To completely reject that out of hand ignores history and suggests a motivation for statist socialism.

That isn't what I said. What I said was any ideology can fall prey to faith based reasoning. Religion is one example of faith based reasoning. Faith in leadership is another. The problem is unquestioning faith.

I don't think that's what I said you said...but I believe that was what you implied. Faith based reasoning is certainly a component of religion, but it's not the whole concept. Part of the concept for nearly every religion out there (I'd say EVERY religion, but that is an arguable point) is a supernatural component. I believe it's more honest, accurate, and clear when you include both widely accepted concepts in the word instead of cherry picking to smear the concept.

There has been a trend in recent years to completely discount the contributions made to civilization by religious faith.

Not by anyone I'd consider to be intelligent. You cannot dismiss the effects of Christiaity on culture. You can dismiss the ignorant ramblings that the US is based on Christian doctrine.

To completely reject that out of hand ignores history and suggests a motivation for statist socialism.

No, and that's a silly assertion.

Faith based reasoning is certainly a component of religion, but it's not the whole concept. Part of the concept for nearly every religion out there (I'd say EVERY religion, but that is an arguable point) is a supernatural component.

Unless you've proved the supernatural the entire construct is faith based. I stated very clearly that the problem best exemplified by religion is the credulity involved in faith based ideologies. When you believe you're doing something bad in order to do good, you're wrong.

"The hallmark of the skeptikoi was caution; they refused to be caught in assertions that could be proven false. In fact, the entire system of skeptic philosophy was to present all knowledge as opinion only, that is, to assert nothing as true. "
"for all scientific truths can be doubted sometime in the future. In other words, although scientists speak about certainty and truth all the time, the foundational epistemology is skeptical: doubt anything and everything."
If you are a true skeptic, you can never know anything.

Never said I subscribed to the tenets of the skeptikoi, which I don't. You've now also shown that you're entirely out of material. You've gone beyond ad hominem attacks and resorted to argumentum ad nominem. The hallmark of a poor debator is the inability to understand his opponent. The hallmark of an ignoramus who ended up in the debate is an inability to accurately use definitions of common vernacular.

Unless you've proved the supernatural the entire construct is faith based. I stated very clearly that the problem best exemplified by religion is the credulity involved in faith based ideologies. When you believe you're doing something bad in order to do good, you're wrong.

I'm not asserting that belief in the supernatural isn't faith based. I'm asserting that believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as denying the supernatural...

What ever works to make the point.

And that's my point... fallacious logic is a bad way to convince anyone of your point of view. If anything it makes people doubt everything you say even more.

I'm not asserting that belief in the supernatural isn't faith based. I'm asserting that believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as denying the supernatural...

Then what is the other component MM? (preferably within the context of the currently discussed religion, Christianity).

What ever works to make the point.

And that's my point... fallacious logic is a bad way to convince anyone of your point of view. If anything it makes people doubt everything you say even more.

What was the line from Star Trek: "It easier for a civilized man to act as a barbarian than for an barbarian to act civilized."
The point of communication is communicating the message in a fashion that it can be heard. If making logical argument won't convince, then make illogical ones.
Rush does that all the time to point out absurdities in the 'progressive' movement.

The point of communication is communicating the message in a fashion that it can be heard. If making logical argument won't convince, then make illogical ones.

That's pretty backwards. You're saying that if you can't use logic to convince someone of your point of view that you should attempt to use some other means than logic to convince them?

Wow... think of what you actually just said.

You're fully supporting NOT being logical to convince people of your stance, however illogical it may be. Understand that this kind of thinking supports the use of force, fear, and lies to sway peolpes' thinking and decisions.

Rush does that all the time

He sure does.

The point of communication is communicating the message in a fashion that it can be heard. If making logical argument won't convince, then make illogical ones.

So you're saying that lying to people is the correct way of gaining their support if you can't logically exemplify your stance.

You must be an evangelical preacher.

Rush does that all the time

Which is why only ignorant people listen to Rush. You've basically explained the majority of "conservative libertarian" talking points.

You wonder why American media and politics are so fucked up, the answer is above.

Understand that this kind of thinking supports the use of force, fear, and lies to sway peolpes' thinking and decisions.

It does not justify the use of force.
Why do you believe a logical argument will succeed with those who do not understand the concept?
It is apparently perfectly rational for feminists, who claim to support women's rights, to condemn women who have succeeded just as blacks condemned Clarence Thomas for becoming a SC judge.

You wonder why American media and politics are so fucked up, the answer is above.

Yes, because they believe in flawed ideology called socialism.

I'm not asserting that belief in the supernatural isn't faith based. I'm asserting that believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as denying the supernatural...

Then what is the other component MM? (preferably within the context of the currently discussed religion, Christianity).

That believing in the supernatural has a whole different set of connotations along with it. Some of them positive, some can be quite negative. Appealing to a higher authority like a system of politics is NOT the same thing as appealing to a God.

This is a rough analogy, but bear with me. You're saying you need a common quality to believe in apples and oranges, and then attempting to equate them on that basis.

This is a rough analogy, but bear with me. You're saying you need a common quality to believe in apples and oranges, and then attempting to equate them on that basis.

No, that'd be Marjon's stance. My stance is that we do all have a common quality. We're all human, and as humans we know that other people can be wrong. This means that we ourselves can also be wrong.

Faith removes that barrier. It draws a dividing line between the faithful and non-believers so that those with faith view the infidel as another species, typically one of no importance.

Look at Marjon, on this thread he insists that lying to people is a good way to get them to change their opinion, while on another thread he advocates the death of everyone who doesn't agree with is ideology. He's the most detestable person I've ever spoken with, and I've traded words with Jerry Falwell.

Appealing to a self proclaimed man made system of belief most certainly is not the same thing as appealing to an omnipotent, omnipresent, being with the ultimate authority over where you spend eternity. Because you need a measure of faith to do either doesn't mean they are the SAME, or indeed function the same on the human psyche.

I'm sorry SK, they just aren't the same things...not even close...

Why do you believe a logical argument will succeed with those who do not understand the concept?

It's not so much that I think it will succeed...

Making an argument that is illogical (if done intentionally) is dishonest. I don't "argue" with people to "win", I do it to either honestly show and possibly teach someone my way of thinking on a topic OR to learn from the person I'm arguing with OR both.

Being illogical doesn't teach anyone anything. Since you've come in here and admitted to having no problems being dishonest to convince people of your point of view on a subject how can you expect anyone to take anything you say as truth?

You're like the boy who cries wolf.

Appealing to a self proclaimed man made system of belief most certainly is not the same thing as appealing to an omnipotent, omnipresent, being with the ultimate authority over where you spend eternity.

Unless you have evidence of a god or gods, they ARE one in the same. With no evidence all religions are self proclaimed, man made systems of belief. To the Russian people, Stalin was their God. He determined their existence, the level of comfort they would survive in, what property they could hold, whether they went to war and died or not. Stalin was a God manifest on Earth to them as he had total power over their llives, just as the Christian God allegedly has total power over the lives of Christians.

Appealing to a self proclaimed man made system of belief most certainly is not the same thing as appealing to an omnipotent, omnipresent, being with the ultimate authority over where you spend eternity.

Unless you have evidence of a god or gods, they ARE one in the same. With no evidence all religions are self proclaimed, man made systems of belief.

Uh what are you talking about? The faithful don't NEED evidence they're ALREADY convinced. YOU may need evidence, but don't confuse your state of mind with theirs.

You're STILL confusing the fact that you need faith to believe in either example as evidence that they're equivalent systems of thought. You're confusing epistemology with theory/ethics/methods.

With a self proclaimed man made system of belief there is not as strong as an appeal or an effect. Stalin never said he could send you to hell...

I don't see how faith in the political authority and faith in some nebulous, ill-defined deity are all that different. After all, most of the very earliest political leaders in human societies had themselves proclaimed gods. Faith in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is different, but only because every one of those properties is either flat out self-contradictory or paradoxical. Unswerving faith is bad. Unswerving faith in things that cannot in principle be proved is worse. Unswerving faith in things that are blatantly self-refuting is evidence of mental instability.

Unswerving faith can be bad...very bad in fact.

The question is which has more effect on a "believer". An all powerful INFALLIBLE God, or a guy who wrote a book and put down his own name as an author...

Be honest now :-)

It depends on the person. The idea of an all-powerful, infallible god has little sway on me, mainly because I have no faith in it to begin with, but also because I can clearly see the contradictory nature of such an idea. A human authority with a good reputation and a history of doing good things will have a much greater chance of gaining my "faith" than that "god." And don't forget that people are more than capable of claiming the authority to condemn their fellows to hell.

It depends on the person. The idea of an all-powerful, infallible god has little sway on me, mainly because I have no faith in it to begin with, but also because I can clearly see the contradictory nature of such an idea. A human authority with a good reputation and a history of doing good things will have a much greater chance of gaining my "faith" than that "god." And don't forget that people are more than capable of claiming the authority to condemn their fellows to hell.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There is a DIFFERENCE between the two. It may depend on who you are as to which has thus and so an effect on people, but they are not the same...which is all I've really been saying.

Unswerving faith can be bad...very bad in fact.

The question is which has more effect on a "believer". An all powerful INFALLIBLE God, or a guy who wrote a book and put down his own name as an author...

Be honest now :-)

If you don't believe in an infallible god, and the man, we'll call him Staliln, has an army that will come and kill your entire family, which is a greater motivator? This is what you don't understand. If you don't believe in a higher power than that which is physically present here on Earth, the statements of etherial afterlife are meaningless. In that instance the church isn't scary and the dictator is.

The two are one in the same. The use of fear of torment or eternal nothingness drives the faithful to cxommit attrocious acts at the behest of whatever physical entity is seen as having access to the authority. Stalin was God to the Russians, jsut as God is God to you.

What ever works to make the point.

If making logical argument won't convince, then make illogical ones.

You are even being dishonest with your admittedly devious tactics. You do more that just try to point out what you perceive as absurd. You try to make a logical argument with incorrect premises, on purpose. You are just being arrogant or insulting or both at the same time. So, by what you've admitted and done, you have proven that you don't care about the truth. You only want people to agree with you. Why?

If you do believe in an infallible god then the belief is totally different than the threat of "just" death. If you don't believe in the supernatural there is just death, if you do then there is death...and then eternal torment. Also if someone threatens to come and kill your family you might begin to think that this system you're so "faithbound" up in might no be all it's cracked up to be. Not necessarily so with a supernatural system which usually incorporates infallibility in its framework.

You simply can't argue that the concept of God is the same as the concept of "man", or the tribe, or the secular "ism" you're caught up in. All "gods" are not created equal...

So, by what you've admitted and done, you have proven that you don't care about the truth. You only want people to agree with you. Why?

I didn't want to earlier because I honestly want to know, but I'll take a stab at it. You don't take the same critical look at your worldview that you do with others. You made up your mind a long time ago. That's natural as one gets older. Hundreds of years ago, before modern science, it might have been the rational thing to do. Now, it just isn't. The advancement of scientific understanding has been accelerating too fast. There are assumptions about humanity and the natural world that you seem to be making that are just plain unnecessary. I, for one, endeavor to never stop being skeptical of my own ideas, within reason.

You simply can't argue that the concept of God is the same as the concept of "man", or the tribe, or the secular "ism" you're caught up in. All "gods" are not created equal...

Stop being intentionally thick.

You simply can't argue that the concept of God is the same as the concept of "man", or the tribe, or the secular "ism" you're caught up in. All "gods" are not created equal...

Stop being intentionally thick.

I'm not the one implying that the concept of the supernatural is equivalent to the concept of the man made.

What ever works to make the point.

And that's my point... fallacious logic is a bad way to convince anyone of your point of view. If anything it makes people doubt everything you say even more.

The point of communication is communicating the message in a fashion that it can be heard. If making logical argument won't convince, then make illogical ones.
Rush does that all the time to point out absurdities in the 'progressive' movement.

NO.
mangy -and his dear friend "Rush" employ this tactic because that's all they've got -they are incapable of anything better, and are therefore REDUCED to wild, baseless, inflamatory, distorted statements, refusing to make answer to direct questions, changing the subject, and quote mining with little or no relevance to the matter at hand.
They do not make argument, they make NOISE. That is their PURPOSE.

You are just being arrogant or insulting

Go back and tally up all the insults made against me. Who is being arrogant and insulting?
I am not complaining, I take your insults as a sign I am succeeding. When people can't make a rational response, they get upset and emotional.

employ this tactic because that's all they've got

It is because it is effective. It works on Cali and all those at Media Matters and other socialist fronts who try to get them tossed off the air. What tolerance those 'liberals'!

They do not make argument, they make NOISE. That is their PURPOSE.

Don't forget fearing up the base to get them to the polls. They (Rush, Fox, Hannity, Beck) are a direct propaganda arm of the Republican party. Not that MSNBC is any different. It's just sad that it's so hard to find unbiased news out there.

I'm not the one implying that the concept of the supernatural is equivalent to the concept of the man made.

I'm not implying anything supernatural. I'm stating that one will react accordingly to what they perceive to be the supreme authority. It matters not if the gun to your head is marked christian or comrade, if you perceive it to be a gun, it's a gun.

What tolerance those 'liberals'!

At least they don't want to slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with their "compelling lies".

It's just sad that it's so hard to find unbiased news out there.

Daily Show with Jon Stewart

You are just being arrogant or insulting

Go back and tally up all the insults made against me. Who is being arrogant and insulting?
I am not complaining, I take your insults as a sign I am succeeding. When people can't make a rational response, they get upset and emotional.

So we are keeping score, are we? I was showing a specific example and your response is effectively, "well they do it, too." Real mature. Try winning a real debate with that one. It's no wonder you fall for the republican propaganda.

I got some real fear for you. The world is going to keep changing in every way in which you are afraid. Your ilk will keep losing just like you've been losing for the last 40 years.

It's no wonder you fall for the republican propaganda.

Speaking of which, Marjon, did you know that FOX news is owned by the same people who are funding the so called "Terror Mosque" in NY?That must really be a game changer for you.

It's just sad that it's so hard to find unbiased news out there.

Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Close, but not 100%. Close enough. We need something more than just 30 minutes a day, though.

It's just sad that it's so hard to find unbiased news out there.

Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Close, but not 100%. Close enough. We need something more than just 30 minutes a day, though.

Shall we petition Mr. Stewart to start a news channel? I bet Viacom would back him.

SK

You're not listening bro. I never said you were implying anything supernatural, you were implying that the CONCEPT of the supernatural is equivalent to the CONCEPT of the natural.

Is it your assertion that there is no difference between an atheist communist or a christian capitalist simply because both use faith instead of reason as their epistemological compass?

They do not make argument, they make NOISE. That is their PURPOSE.

Don't forget fearing up the base to get them to the polls. They (Rush, Fox, Hannity, Beck) are a direct propaganda arm of the Republican party. Not that MSNBC is any different. It's just sad that it's so hard to find unbiased news out there.

Like that didn't happen in 2008 with billionaire Soros and ACORN spewing propaganda?

It's no wonder you fall for the republican propaganda.

Speaking of which, Marjon, did you know that FOX news is owned by the same people who are funding the so called "Terror Mosque" in NY?That must really be a game changer for you.

Newscorp has thousands of shareholders.
How many shares do you have in your mutual funds?
Do you even know?
It is amusing how you all attack FoxNews, but they are doing well economically because their audience trusts them because they are honest about their position.
They don't have 'reporters' that get tingles up their legs when they see a politician. Or if they do, they are professionals and keep their opinions to themselves.

The concept of the supernatural is meaningless. Human authorities use all sorts of meaningless concepts to gin up their support. A meaningless concept has content that is self-contradictory. Any self-contradictory statement is the logical equivalent of any other self-contradictory statement, as from a self-contradictory statement, anything at all follows. Therefore, faith, that is, belief without evidence, in a supernatural concept is the logical, and I would argue moral, equivalent of faith in a self-contradictory but purportedly 'natural' concept of human authority.

The concept of the supernatural is meaningless.

Quantum mechanics was once considered super natural.

The concept of the supernatural is meaningless.

Quantum mechanics was once considered super natural.

First of all, prove it, you psychopath.
Second of all, even if it was, it was before anybody knew what Quantum mechanics was, hence the term or empty concept was meaningless.

Therefore, faith, that is, belief without evidence, in a supernatural concept is the logical, and I would argue moral, equivalent of faith in a self-contradictory but purportedly 'natural' concept of human authority.

I fail to see the relevance, since this statement, even assuming its own validity is (to borrow a word) meaningless.

Since when does an illogical self contradictory concept fail to sway human beings in their beliefs and actions? The question then becomes are all such concepts equal?

Does belief in the Tooth Fairy produce the same results in human civilization as a belief in a god? The concepts engender vastly different behavior because the concepts imply vastly different things. Hence they are without doubt not equivalent.

Again, almost the only thing they have in common is their root epistemology.

Yes you need your eyes to see an apple, you need them to see an orange, but that does not make an apple an orange.

However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
Stephen Hawking - A brief History Of Time

"And what do we consider to be unreal, supernatural or paranormal? If we had our "Theory Of Everything" as Stephen Hawking suggests, in truth, nothing would be supernatural. It's just that there's some things we don't yet understand well enough."
http://www.money-...ral.html

That certain meaningless concepts imply different behaviors in humans than other meaningless concepts says more about the culture those humans are in than the concepts or motivations of those humans. That there are no Crusades for the Tooth Fairy does not mean there cannot be. It is a mistake to think that a self-contradictory concept has meaning, but it is a mistake that a lot of people make. The extent the irrationality is pressed into behavior is what matters, not the reason it is irrational in the first place.

Excellent post Thras...

I do get what you're saying, and you are quite correct as far as I can see in the above. This does not, however, mean that we can ignore the culture, or how ingrained one concept is in said culture vs. others. This is why I believe it can be a horrifyingly dangerous mistake to equate religion with everything. We live in the world we do, and the fact is that (I'd hope you'd agree) that the Tooth Fairy and God are not equally "pressed" into our civilization. Could they be? I'm sure they could be, and it's a fine academic point you make, but in the end it's academic.

Whether or not you're a believer I think that when dealing with religion it's wise to remember that it is not equivalent to all the things it's commonly compared to. Whether you're trying to talk someone out of their religious convictions or proselytize.

Yes it depends on the person, but to most people religion is more important than or more dangerous than politics.

I will say one thing as someone who does believe.

Religion has no place in politics, it's an extraordinarily dangerous combination to human happiness, sanity, and life in general. To me there is no more dangerous a government than a Theocracy...period.

I don't remember which Dune book I read this in but I DO remember the quote...

"When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way"

Thank you Frank Herbert.

On edit: I will also say there is another dangerous circumstance which is more subtle...politics has no place in religion either.

Far from being academic, it gets to the heart of the matter. It is in our nature to be irrational from time to time, indeed, we are usually irrational more often than not. It is institutionalized irrationality we must be wary of, regardless of the supposed content of that irrationality. Whether it is baseless faith in a political or economic system, or baseless faith in eternal damnation or salvation, irrational belief has the potential to cause us to do any number of outrageous or immoral things. Perhaps politics and religion should stay out of each other's domains, but neither has the authority to dismiss reality.

Who is being arrogant and insulting?

It's arrogant to utilize physics for political means (QM, Popper's rationalism) without understanding physics. It's insulting (socialists) to call people socialists who are anti-socialists.

I am not complaining, I take your insults as a sign I am succeeding. When people can't make a rational response, they get upset and emotional.

employ this tactic because that's all they've got

It is because it is effective.

Your measure of effectiveness seems to be "renormalized" by discarding unfavourable data.
No, you are not succeeding. We are in 2010, not in 1920 when "Social Darwinism" was on the rise.

Far from being academic, it gets to the heart of the matter. It is in our nature to be irrational from time to time, indeed, we are usually irrational more often than not. It is institutionalized irrationality we must be wary of, regardless of the supposed content of that irrationality. Whether it is baseless faith in a political or economic system, or baseless faith in eternal damnation or salvation, irrational belief has the potential to cause us to do any number of outrageous or immoral things. Perhaps politics and religion should stay out of each other's domains, but neither has the authority to dismiss reality.

That is your problem. People do not have baseless faith in their politics or religion. It IS based upon the evidence they have collected and observed.
Calling them stupid for it because you don't agree with them won't help.

It is amusing how you all attack FoxNews, but they are doing well economically because their audience trusts them because they are honest about their position.

That was a spit-take. You owe me another coffee.

It's arrogant to utilize physics for political means (QM, Popper's rationalism) without understanding physics. It's insulting (socialists) to call people socialists who are anti-socialists.

I understand physics. Too bad economists and politicians do not.
I use Mises definition of socialism, state control of private property. When people here advocate for government control, they are socialists.
If you are insulted by that, maybe you should reconsider your politics and economics.

"I'm tired of watching liberal reporters gaze at President Obama like a teeny-bopper screaming at the mere sight of Elvis. Fox News has gained popularity by providing viewers with an alternative news source - besides liberal leftist news. "
"Many believe that Fox News is devoted to Republicans or conservative thinking. On the contrary. Americans are so used to liberal news force feedings, that Fox News appears like a right wing conspiracy. Fox News delivers both sides of the story. The reason that Fox News offends liberals, is because Americans are finally hearing both sides of the story."
"Liberal news organizations treat their liberal guests with the utmost respect and treat conservative guests like they are being interrogated. Not anymore. I can finally watch liberals squirm in the hot seat. "
http://www.helium...alsobama

"I'm tired of watching liberal reporters gaze at President Obama like a teeny-bopper screaming at the mere sight of Elvis.

Fox News has gained popularity by providing viewers with an alternative news source - besides liberal leftist news. "

Now were getting somewhere with you.

1. - Your just jealous and scorned; no different than the extreme progressives after Bush v Gore.
2. - You're absolutely right, but that does not justify their deceit. Past imbalances do not justify the abandonment of an entire philosophy.

IMO and in general, moderate conservative and liberal worldviews are equally valid. It's when one shuts out all opposing viewpoints, no matter the issue, that they lose credibility.

1. - Your just jealous and scorned; no different than the extreme progressives after Bush v Gore.
2. - You're absolutely right, but that does not justify their deceit. Past imbalances do not justify the abandonment of an entire philosophy.

IMO and in general, moderate conservative and liberal worldviews are equally valid. It's when one shuts out all opposing viewpoints, no matter the issue, that they lose credibility.

1. I am not jealous or scorned.
2. What deceit?
What is valid about moderate viewpoints?
What they share is the belief government is good and must solve all our problems when evidence supports the opposite.

Butting in again, apologies.

Just an observation of mine is that the truth of any argument tends to be on the self consistent extremes of any subject...either one or the other.

The only thing IMO a moderate can be certain of is that they're about half wrong all the time...

I understand physics.

No, you don't. You also don't understand economics or anything else besides idiotic talking points from right wing media.

I understand physics.

No, you don't. You also don't understand economics or anything else besides idiotic talking points from right wing media.

You are the one claiming to be so rational, prove your assertion.

You are the one claiming to be so rational, prove your assertion.

I've already proved that you're a lying, theocratic, politically retarded psychopath using your own words. It's your turn to try the big boys game. Remember the rules, you don't get half credit for defacating on yourself.

You are the one claiming to be so rational, prove your assertion.

Are you claiming you're not rational?

You are the one claiming to be so rational, prove your assertion.

Are you claiming you're not rational?

I am being accused that I don't know physics or economics. State your evidence, rationally instead of emotionally.
As that has yet to be accomplished, my accuser(s) may not be as rational as they claim.

I've already proved that you're a lying, theocratic, politically retarded psychopath using your own words

No, you have not.

1. I am not jealous or scorned.

You said you are tired of others' positive emotional reaction to our President, not their actual opinions. Why do you care so much about others' emotions? My guess was jealousy that your guy lost the election and you can no longer revel is similar emotions. Just a guess; I actually want to know why you care so much and why and how that influences the veracity or your convictions.

2. What deceit?

For starters, not disclosing the link between News Corp's #2 stockholder, his direct involvement with the "terror mosque," and the hypocrisy implicit in their coverage.

What is valid about moderate viewpoints?

I was speaking in generalities about my personal political views, not the validity of the moderate philosophy. I see each issue independently, they just happen to be moderate most of the time. Not always.

That's pretty easy, actually. #1: You're infamous for peppering these boards with cherry-picked links/quotes, and when pressed for your take on what that means, what you say is regularly proved wrong simply by reading beyond what you've quoted. #2: Where you're not wrong in your interpretation, your link is highly biased. Nobody who knew what they were talking about would need to cite cranks or political operatives for evidence. #3: You have never once held out any possibility that any of your beliefs might be in error. A fairly useful axiom: those that are absolutely certain of their beliefs are absolutely wrong. #4: Your assertions are contradicted at nearly every turn by highly respected professionals, who've spent their lives gathering evidence for their scientific beliefs. And finally, #5: When shown you are wrong you denigrate, insult and defile all those who disagree with you. And you're right, Skeptic didn't prove you're a psychopath. You did that yourself.

And you're right, Skeptic didn't prove you're a psychopath. You did that yourself.

Allow me to recant. Thrasymachus, you are quite correct in your statement above.

You said you are tired of others' positive emotional reaction to our President, not their actual opinions

No I did not. But I agree with the point the author was making, that quality journalists are not cheerleaders.

In spite of all your insults you no one has yet made any rational argument challenging my position of limited government, or inherent rights or defending our current socialist state.

You said you are tired of others' positive emotional reaction to our President, not their actual opinions

No I did not.

"I'm tired of watching liberal reporters gaze at President Obama like a teeny-bopper screaming at the mere sight of Elvis."

So that was a quote? I didn't notice; my bad. Why would you quote it if you don't FEEL the same way, jealous? Even so, why quote it directly and who cares what some guy thinks? He isn't in this discussion. I only care about your opinion. Stating others' opinions is not argumentative support. At all. You are routinely changing the subject.

...no one has yet made any rational argument challenging my position of limited government, or inherent rights or defending our current socialist state.

We disagree with your premise that our current govt has established a socialist state. This country is 99% the same as it was 3 years ago. You call us socialists; we are not. Ask a real socialist if he thinks the US is socialist state. He will probably laugh. And again, quit crying about insults, you big baby. ;) jk

Your positions on inherent rights and limited govt just go too far for me. I agree with the underlying ideas, but I don't agree with the conclusions you derive from them. I don't think your arguments follow. Public funding for disagreeable techniques does not equal a fascist state. The world is grey, as it should be.

Your positions on inherent rights and limited govt just go too far for me.

The men who wrote the Constitution did not think so.

BTW, didn't socialist regimes call those who disagreed with them mentally ill?
It it a coincidence those who call me a psychopath are the same people I think are socialists?

I don't think your arguments follow. Public funding for disagreeable techniques does not equal a fascist state.

There is hope. You agree Fascism is socialism.
Prove my arguments don't follow. Make some valid points to support your belief.

his country is 99% the same as it was 3 years ago.

The socialism really got going during Teddy Roosevelt's admin and took off during FDR and continued on.
What is that analogy about frogs and boiling water?

It it a coincidence those who call me a psychopath are the same people I think are socialists?

We call you a psychopath because you advocating killing everyone who doesn't agree with your "moral code" and insist that lying is a reasonable form of debate.

It it a coincidence those who call me a psychopath are the same people I think are socialists?

We call you a psychopath because you advocating killing everyone who doesn't agree with your "moral code" and insist that lying is a reasonable form of debate.

I support the natural right of self defense. How does that support your accusation?

I support the natural right of self defense. How does that support your accusation?

Because your notion of self defense boils down to the right to kill others who merely threaten your sense of self by having fundamental disagreements with you regarding the nature of economics, politics, physics, and reality in general, and your beliefs in those areas are archaic, idealistic (and not in a good way), unsupported by unbiased evidence, and generally quite mean-spirited. You are, in short, the perfect exemplification of everything that is wrong with humanity.

Because your notion of self defense boils down to the right to kill others who merely threaten your sense of self

No. Self defense is well defined in courts of law.
You all claim to disagree with me and claim to be rational, but provide no rationale to support your positions. Only insults. That is a typical tactic of the modern 'liberal/progressive' who can't defend their statism.
Oh, and you called me 'mean spirited'. OOOOOH!
I support the liberty and opportunity outlined in the Constitution. How is that mean?

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)"
Another bit of evidence that many here are statists, opposing the people's right to self defense from criminals and the state.

"All programs on Discovery Health‐TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human
infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging
human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro‐birth programs must now push in the
direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."http://abcnews.go...10417970
How many agree with this?

It it a coincidence those who call me a psychopath are the same people I think are socialists?

We call you a psychopath because you advocating killing everyone who doesn't agree with your "moral code" and insist that lying is a reasonable form of debate.

I support the natural right of self defense. How does that support your accusation?

Because it is evasion of a direct answer.
Your adversaries here know by now that you subjugate all controversial terms (socialism, fascism, law, justice, poverty, Darwinism...) to your idiosyncratic private definition.
Thus we might not know how you define "self-defence" but we can be sure you won't define it any common way.

When the question "are you advocating killing everyone who doesn't agree with your "moral code"?" is not answered with "yes" or "no" but with a very stretchable term like "self-defence"
everybody is able to read from your mind what your written answer doesn't tell.

I support the natural right of self defense. How does that support your accusation?

Your sense of "self" seems to include your radical ideologies, which you will defend by lying as you stated. That is psychopathic. You lie without effort or emotional investment. If this conversation was in person, I'm rather sure that the only thing preventing you from shooting a debate partner would be the impending legal rammifications imposed by your self-proclaimed greatest enemy "the state".

Your sense of "self" seems to include your radical ideologies,

What is radical? That is a subjective term.

If this conversation was in person, I'm rather sure that the only thing preventing you from shooting a debate partner

Projecting? From many of your emotional and irrationals responses, that thought must have crossed your mind. It never occurred to me. I support the free exchange of ideas. I do not support your mob confiscating and redistributing my wealth.

idiosyncratic private definition.

I defined socialism. It is from Mises book, "Socialism".

"are you advocating killing everyone who doesn't agree with your "moral code"

What is your moral code? If someone's moral code includes murder, rape, robbery, violence, I don't agree with that code and will defend my life and property accordingly.

If someone's moral code includes murder...I don't agree with that code and will defend my life and property accordingly.

Your moral code includes murder. Should I defend myself from you accordingly?

If someone's moral code includes murder...I don't agree with that code and will defend my life and property accordingly.

Your moral code includes murder. Should I defend myself from you accordingly?

It does not.

You all claim to disagree with me and claim to be rational, but provide no rationale to support your positions.

From what I've seen on these boards, those making arguments against you usually explain their rationale. Because of this, most people here side with the rational argument (which generally seems to be the one against whatever you say since you support your positions with illogical arguments... a practice you've openly admitted to because it's "effective").

Also, please don't respond with something like:
"No. I'm ganged up on and insulted because of my religious beliefs and because I support the freedom of America through the free market, but you socialist statists wouldn't understand" or something along those lines. You're just victimizing yourself by spouting generalizations and falsehoods.

It's not your beliefs that make here people not like you; it's the ridiculously illogical and frustrating way you attempt to communicate and argue them on these boards.

Why can't we get a normal conservative libertarian in here to debate economics and politics? Oh wait.... it's because this is a thread about STEM CELL RESEARCH. A normal, rational, debater would avoid this thread like the plague. The few of us left are masochists that don't care that Mongo's primary tactic is to confuse and redirect. Always a great last ditch technique.

those making arguments against you usually explain their rationale.

Where is it? I missed it.

it's the ridiculously illogical and frustrating way you attempt to communicate and argue them on these boards.

Such as?

Where is it? I missed it.

Most posts that quote yours or follow ours stand as an example.

Such as?

The insistence that lying to sway other people is acceptable for example.

It does not.

Those who do not want to respect the life, liberty and property of others risk their own lives when action is taken to protect life, liberty and property. That's a veiled threat. The rest of the statements you've made are available here: http://www.physor...923.html

it's because this is a thread about STEM CELL RESEARCH

100 years ago science was exploring eugenics. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a socialist, advocated for negative eugenics. PP uses governemnt money to perform abortions and protect rapists. They don't report pregnancies of under age girls to authorities.
Govt funding of embyros will lead to ...what?

100 years ago science was exploring eugenics. Margaret Sanger,

A disgustingly misguided woman

founder of Planned Parenthood and a socialist, advocated for negative eugenics. PP uses governemnt money to perform abortions and protect rapists.

What?

They don't report pregnancies of under age girls to authorities.

No one does, it is illegal to violate someone's right to privacy within the medical field. Are you tellingus that peopleshouldn't have a right to privacy and doctor patient confidentiality?

Those who do not want to respect the life, liberty and property of others risk their own lives when action is taken to protect life, liberty and property. That's a veiled threat.

So you would do nothing to prevent someone from killing you or your family?
The police have NO legal obligation to do so. That has been decided by the Supreme Court. Look it up.

Are you tellingus that peopleshouldn't have a right to privacy and doctor patient confidentiality?

You support adults impregnating children? That is call statutory rape.

One thing I'd like to see happen in philosophy is a more intellectually honest scientific approach to the field.

Most philosophers I've read ask the question "What SHOULD man be". I'd like to see them instead ask the question "What IS man".

There is a ton of philosophy out there that is nothing more than veiled attempts to make their own pet moralistic ideals sound more scientific or reasonable than simply sitting on the floor, pounding it, and saying "because I say so".

So you would do nothing to prevent someone from killing you or your family?

That has nothing to do with respecting liberty or property.

The police have NO legal obligation to do so. That has been decided by the Supreme Court. Look it up.

Because you're not allowed to jail someone for "thought crimes" in the United States. That would be the hallmark of totalitarianism.

You support adults impregnating children? That is call statutory rape.

No I don't, now answer my question. Are you telling us that people shouldn't have the right to privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality?

You spew a lot of garbage about freedom, liberty, rights, etc and then you advocate killing people who don't share your belief system, jailing people for thought crimes, or the perception of thought crimes, and removing the right to privacy for people. You want rights for you and no rights for everyone else. Unlike you, I think my rights should be extended to everyone, no conditionals applied.

Where is it? I missed it.

Obviously. Unfortunately it's been pointed out to you by others in this thread and in other threads. I'm not mining them for you since you seem to lack the comprehension abilities to recognize rational agruments as rational.

it's the ridiculously illogical and frustrating way you attempt to communicate and argue them on these boards.

Such as?

This:

PP uses governemnt money to ... protect rapists

it's because this is a thread about STEM CELL RESEARCH

100 years ago science was exploring eugenics. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a socialist, advocated for negative eugenics. PP uses governemnt money to perform abortions and protect rapists. They don't report pregnancies of under age girls to authorities.
Govt funding of embyros will lead to ...what?

Is Ms. Sanger in this thread? SH is that you? smh And add another fallacy to the list on this thread. The Slippery Slope; a favorite of the fear monger.

PP uses governemnt money to ... protect rapists

PP accepts funds from the USG and they protect adults who impregnate minors. Really straight forward.

The Slippery Slope; a favorite of the fear monger.

It is called experienced. Some Lutheran minister is quoted as saying "First they came for the..."
As pointed out with the scientific community's 'great' contribution to eugenics, where that led.

That has nothing to do with respecting liberty or property.

Murder is taking away one's liberty and his property.

Are you telling us that people shouldn't have the right to privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality?

Medical facilities are required by law to report stab wounds or gunshot wounds. They are required to report any injuries that might even hint at child abuse. Teachers are required to do the same. An adult who impregnates a minor girl should be protected from prosecution?

Medical facilities are required by law to report stab wounds or gunshot wounds. They are required to report any injuries that might even hint at child abuse. Teachers are required to do the same. An adult who impregnates a minor girl should be protected from prosecution?

I don't know much about the policies of PP or the laws that affect them, but the adult isn't the one going to the clinic. The victim is. They are protecting the victim, not the adult.

The Slippery Slope; a favorite of the fear monger.

It is called experienced. Some Lutheran minister is quoted as saying "First they came for the..."
As pointed out with the scientific community's 'great' contribution to eugenics, where that led.

I already know you don't care why fallacies in general are not to be used to come to logical conclusions. I also am curious if you really do not understand why the slippery slope is a fallacy? More importantly, do you understand what using the SS fallacy to instill fear of the unprovable future can lead to? You know what, I know you do, because you accuse "progressives" of doing the very same thing. Why can't you point that critical finger towards "your side?"

We ought not stop any scientific endeavor because of a possible negative implication. If we did that, we wouldn't have nuclear medicine. Do you see why, from this perspective, you appear to be a dangerous Luddite?

PP accepts funds from the USG and they protect adults who impregnate minors. Really straight forward.

Privacy issues have have little to do with how their money is spent. They keep identities private to protect the girls' privacy. I'm not getting into a debate on the ethics of this because that's a tangent and is not relevant to this discussion.

Regardless, PP doesn't "spend government money protecting rapists". Purposely spinning your argument to make it seem that the government supports rape is intentional fear mongering and misrepresentation.

Govt funding of embyros will lead to ...what?

Your logic path appears to be this:

Point #1: Stem cell research is analogous to eugenics research.

Point #2: eugenics --> abortions --> PP --> PROTECTION OF RAPISTS BY THE GOVERNMENT

Therefore: stem cell research --> PROTECTION OF RAPISTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OR WORSE

As I said before: ridiculous and illogical.

(and don't quote mine to respond to my post please)

PP accepts funds from the USG and they protect adults who impregnate minors. Really straight forward.

So there's a government conspiracy to impregnate underage women in the US?

Medical facilities are required by law to report stab wounds or gunshot wounds. They are required to report any injuries that might even hint at child abuse. Teachers are required to do the same.

Yes because if someone is shot or stabbed there is no question of whether a crime was committed or not.

An adult who impregnates a minor girl should be protected from prosecution?

How do you know it is an adult who did the deed? You seem to know an awful lot about who's impregnating underage girls. ANswer the question, did you order the code.. wait, wrong question.

Why do you advocate the removal of patients' right to privacy?

We ought not stop any scientific endeavor because of a possible negative implication.

I am sure Mengele would have appreciated that as would those who used lobotomies to 'treat' mental illness.

"Large scale, cost-effective stem cell factories able to keep up with demand for new therapies to treat a range of human illnesses are a step closer to reality, thanks to a scientific breakthrough involving researchers at The University of Nottingham."
http://www.physor...firstCmt
Makes me question the motives of those so upset by the SCOTUS decision.

M, More slippery slope, huh?

Anyone care to count how many questions he has evaded or just plain ignored in this thread? And he wants US to defend our positions. sigh...

I guess otto was right; you're just a troll.

Since I know you can't defend yourself from todays arguments against you, I'll bite on your last quote mine.

I welcome the day where I can have cloned organ replacements at the ready in case I come down with some incurable illness. I'd like to live for a couple hundred years or so, if possible. I am an atheist, after all.

I know you can't defend yourself from todays arguments against you

What arguments?

Why do you advocate the removal of patients' right to privacy?

Minor children do not have a right to privacy.

Yes because if someone is shot or stabbed there is no question of whether a crime was committed or not.

Of course there are questions. Ever hear of accidents?
"does PP follow the law in reporting suspected child abuse? Apparently not in the case of the Wallace family, whose 14-year-old daughter got pressured into an abortion by the child’s father — her 21-year-old soccer coach. In Ohio, sex with a 13- and 14-year-old girl would be statutory rape. The soccer coach paid for the abortion and later posed as the 14-year-old girl’s father to ensure that the clinic would perform the abortion::
http://hotair.com...ry-rape/

Why do you advocate the removal of patients' right to privacy?

Minor children do not have a right to privacy.

In mongoworld -that is, the datapoint armchair equipped mangy hole from which the mangynoise blows- children don't have rights- they are chattel, and he likely views women in the same way -at least the women who aren't likely to krang his narrow skull with a cast-iron frying pan.

Ain't that right, margie?

PP accepts funds from the USG and they protect adults who impregnate minors. Really straight forward.

Privacy issues have have little to do with how their money is spent. They keep identities private to protect the girls' privacy. I'm not getting into a debate on the ethics of this because that's a tangent and is not relevant to this discussion.

Regardless, PP doesn't "spend government money protecting rapists". Purposely spinning your argument to make it seem that the government supports rape is intentional fear mongering and misrepresentation.

Govt funding of embyros will lead to ...what?

Your logic path appears to be this:

Point #1: Stem cell research is analogous to eugenics research.

Point #2: eugenics --> abortions --> PP --> PROTECTION OF RAPISTS BY THE GOVERNMENT

Therefore: stem cell research --> PROTECTION OF RAPISTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OR WORSE

As I said before: ridiculous and illogical.

So you say.
You have a right to your heuristic.

children don't have rights

They don't have the same rights as adults.
Cali wants all children to be raised the state so he and his socialist friend can train them to be good little Marxists.
That is the trend as the govt controls k-12, and limit many other parental rights.

Cali wants all children to be raised the state so he and his socialist friend can train them to be good little Marxists.
That is the trend as the govt controls k-12, and limit many other parental rights.

that's right, mangy, and the time will soon come when they will rise up and slay their running-dog capitalist lackey parents. If you listen real hard, you can hear them sharpening their steely knives, right now!

Pleasant dreams, margie...

They don't have the same rights as adults.

So then your stance on the pro-life question is bullshit as well. You can't have human rights if you start segregating who's human and who isn't.

Cali wants all children to be raised the state so he and his socialist friend can train them to be good little Marxists.

Yeah, because he's said that....

I'd like all children to be raised by someone other than you. Give them a fair shot at having an unbiased education.

That is the trend as the govt controls k-12, and limit many other parental rights.

What rights are limited? The right to beat your kid to a pulp, tell them they have no rights, and be an utter bully just because you're older and more physically adept? You make me sick.

SH: If children have the same rights as adults why are they forced by the state to attend school. How can teachers limit their free speech in class? Student's rights to practice religion are limited by the government in schools.
So, as I said, children do not have the same rights as adults.
Adults can limit the medical information releasable to others. Children cannot. Children cannot enter into legally binding contracts.
As I said, children don't have the same rights as adults.
I support charter schools and vouchers so parents and children can decide what schools to attend.
Most parent do want their children educated. Even parents who believe in God.

Cali wants all children to be raised the state so he and his socialist friend can train them to be good little Marxists.
That is the trend as the govt controls k-12, and limit many other parental rights.

that's right, mangy, and the time will soon come when they will rise up and slay their running-dog capitalist lackey parents. If you listen real hard, you can hear them sharpening their steely knives, right now!

Pleasant dreams, margie...

And people here call ME a psychopath!
The inmates are running the asylum.

SH: If children have the same rights as adults why are they forced by the state to attend school.

Find me an adult that wasn't once a child and your point will have relevance. All people are forced to go to school in a certain age range.

How can teachers limit their free speech in class?

They don't.

Student's rights to practice religion are limited by the government in schools.

Don't pray in my school and I won't teach algebra in your church. You aren't allowed to violate other students' freedom from religion in school.

So, as I said, children do not have the same rights as adults.

Adults aren't allowed to pray in schools either.

Adults can limit the medical information releasable to others.

No, they have to allow information to be released.

Children cannot.

Wrong.

Children cannot enter into legally binding contracts.

Also wrong

As I said, children don't have the same rights as adults.

Legally, yes they do.

Most parent do want their children educated. Even parents who believe in God.

But they don't want their children educated without bias. They want their kids to learn silly bullshit fantasy like creationism in science class, (in some cases).

Your religion posits that children are not people because they are not adults. Back when your religion was formed, being an adult was age 13. Most women are not sexually mature before age 13, and therefore, by YOUR heuristic, these "underage" women ARE adults and are defended by doctor patient confidentiality.

How about we release your juvenile medical records to the public.

There's a reason why medical records are private, to prevent you from being artificially limited by something that may not have been your fault or was outside of your control. The same goes for education. It prevents children from being limited by the bias or utter ignorance of their parents.

But they don't want their children educated without bias. They want their kids to learn silly bullshit fantasy like creationism in science class, (in some cases).

"The "educated class" is just the indoctrinated class today -- the mass of P.C.-whipped, totally predictable minds. If you want to see individualism -- if you want to see courage, creativity, and original thought -- don't look at the college-educated class. "
"But education always comes from within. Students bring their eagerness to learn with them; you can't make them educated any more than a parent can "grow" a child. People aren't carrots. You can't "grow" them."
"Indoctrination is not education. The only kids to be really educated on the P.C. campus are the young conservatives, because all that brainwashing forces them to think for themselves. The others just end up reciting the catechism."
http://www.americ...eft.html

"The "educated class" is just the indoctrinated class today -- the mass of P.C.-whipped, totally predictable minds.

Care to give us an example from these forums?

If you want to see individualism -- if you want to see courage, creativity, and original thought -- don't look at the college-educated class. "

Says the person who requires everyone to believe as he does in order to receive rights.

"But education always comes from within. Students bring their eagerness to learn with them; you can't make them educated any more than a parent can "grow" a child. People aren't carrots. You can't "grow" them."

Female uteri do so quite often.

"Indoctrination is not education. The only kids to be really educated on the P.C. campus are the young conservatives, because all that brainwashing forces them to think for themselves. The others just end up reciting the catechism."

There's nothing individual or entrepeneurial about your methodology.

But they don't want their children educated without bias. They want their kids to learn silly bullshit fantasy like creationism in science class, (in some cases).

Who's "they"?

There's a reason why medical records are private, to prevent you from being artificially limited by something that may not have been your fault or was outside of your control. The same goes for education. It prevents children from being limited by the bias or utter ignorance of their parents.

To be replaced by the bias or ignorance of the State? What makes the State better qualified to raise my kids or make decisions for them than me?

You know I think marjon is kooky and a little scary. I think you're fast approaching his level...

Who's "they"?

Some, not all, of the religious, as I stated via context above.

To be replaced by the bias or ignorance of the State? What makes the State better qualified to raise my kids or make decisions for them than me?

The state can only be as biased or ignorant as the voting block allows them to be. The state doesn't raise your kids, they give them information, you don't like that information, start parenting. The goal of the educational system is to make information readily available to children. Those children then think for themselves. Surprise, kids aren't stupid.

You know I think marjon is kooky and a little scary. I think you're fast approaching his level...

Exemplify why please.

The state can only be as biased or ignorant as the voting block allows them to be. The state doesn't raise your kids

That's why so many 'liberals' are going to lose in NOV.
The state is certainly trying to raise all the children as Cali wants.
We had Hillary's "It Takes a Villiage" we have the USDA trying to feed all the children in government schools, we have all sorts of government agencies promoting programs (midnight basketball) to raise children.

The goal of the educational system is to make information readily available to children.

That doesn't seem to be the goal of the teachers in that system if you follow what their unions do.
I know kids are not stupid. Public schools make them stupid. Follow the math scores. They typically peak in 4th grade and decline the longer they stay in school.

That's why so many 'liberals' are going to lose in NOV.

Good amount of GOP are going to lose as well.

The state is certainly trying to raise all the children as Cali wants.

Would that be Caliban or California?

We had Hillary's "It Takes a Villiage"

Because today it does.

we have the USDA trying to feed all the children in government schools

Because they're overly fat and suffer malnutrition at the hands of their parents' wallets.

we have all sorts of government agencies promoting programs (midnight basketball) to raise children.

Because that's far better than having them shooting robbing steal and dealing heroin.

That doesn't seem to be the goal of the teachers in that system if you follow what their unions do.

Then use the law to bust up the unions as TR and RR did.

I know kids are not stupid.

You don't talk like it.

Public schools make them stupid.

And this is why you're often called an idiot. How do public schools make kids stupid?

We ought not stop any scientific endeavor because of a possible negative implication.

I am sure Mengele would have appreciated that as would those who used lobotomies to 'treat' mental illness.

It was a heuristic.

"Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."

We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it. "
"The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea. "
"I talked with 18-year-old Dorian Cain in South Carolina, who was still struggling to read a single sentence in a first-grade level book when I met him. Although his public schools had spent nearly $100,000 on him over 12 years, he still couldn't read."
http://abcnews.go...=1500338

So you're saying that socialized education is better than the shitheap we have with charter schools and the erosion of teachers' inabilities to teach due to parental interference?

I agree.

The longer they stay, the dumber they get.

You must've been in school a LOOOOOOONG time then.

"In New York City, only 39 percent of eighth graders met the math standards compared with 71 percent of fourth graders. "http://query.nyti...609C8B63
The longer they stay, the dumber they get.

Kids don't learn anything in school because they parents don't parent. They don't teach them the value of an education because , like you, they're completely ignorant of what schools do and should be doing.

You're more concerned with having kids pray in school than teaching them evolution, chemistry, biology, and the relevant math skills to go along with them. You create controversy and fuck up everything because of your religious views. Not all people do this, just the socially maladapted like you.
You'd rather put an unruly child on ritalin than determine what the real problem is. You say they don't have rights, and teach them that they're broken from birth. Well no wonder they get dumber, YOU MAKE THEM THAT WAY.

You rail against socialized education but the countries with the most socialized education are the ones who are doing better and better.

Retards like you come up with concepts like un-schooling and other such foolishness, do you even have kids?

"In New York City, only 39 percent of eighth graders met the math standards compared with 71 percent of fourth graders. "http://query.nyti...609C8B63
The longer they stay, the dumber they get.

I bet you can't pass it, smart guy.

Because of Mongo, this thread could go on forever. He still hasn't answered the multiple retorts from yesterday's comments. I feel like a winner today. :)

As far as kids sleeping in school; there are many reasons. Sugar crashes from poor breakfasts and lunches, boring, unimaginative teachers (their fault, not govt), and as SH said, poor parenting. The last one is complex. Many inner city parents don't see the value in a well rounded education. They either didn't get one, so are ignorant to its value, or because of economic reasons it really has no direct value to their their ability to provide for their families. The can't see the indirect benefits. This is a vicious cycle that shows economic and education programs for the poor go hand in hand.

^ There are many such feedback loops in society that show the necessity for every level of powerful govt. (immigration, public health, energy, etc) I wouldn't expect someone like Mangy to understand the intricacies of such feedback loops. If he did, he would understand the immediacy of global climate change dangers.......oh boy!, here we go. :)

Because of Mongo, this thread could go on forever. He still hasn't answered the multiple retorts from yesterday's comments. I feel like a winner today. :)

As far as kids sleeping in school; there are many reasons. Sugar crashes from poor breakfasts and lunches, boring, unimaginative teachers (their fault, not govt), and as SH said, poor parenting. The last one is complex. Many inner city parents don't see the value in a well rounded education. They either didn't get one, so are ignorant to its value, or because of economic reasons it really has no direct value to their their ability to provide for their families. The can't see the indirect benefits. This is a vicious cycle that shows economic and education programs for the poor go hand in hand.

Care to back any of those assertions?
What a bigot! Inner city parents DEMAND better schools but no political clout as the pols need victims.
Boston city charter schools have waiting lists.

^ There are many such feedback loops in society that show the necessity for every level of powerful govt. (immigration, public health, energy, etc) I wouldn't expect someone like Mangy to understand the intricacies of such feedback loops. If he did, he would understand the immediacy of global climate change dangers.......oh boy!, here we go. :)

The feedback loops show the exact opposite.
Govt control of the economy is working out quite well, no?
What are ALL the feedback loops in global climate and what are there uncertainties? You think you know enough to fix it?

Care to back any of those assertions?
What a bigot! Inner city parents DEMAND better schools but no political clout as the pols need victims.
Boston city charter schools have waiting lists.

I knew I should have been clearer knowing you would jump on it. Replace inner city with tragically poor. It's a common sense theory. If you struggle to eat, you aren't too worried about trigonometry, the civil war, or Shakespeare.

Funny, I wonder how many people understood where I was coming from when I used the term "inner city." I know, its a poor synonym, but it still is common. Are you just picking fights?

Also, what about yesterdays arguments? Still capitulating? Loser.

There are many such feedback loops in society that show the necessity for every level of powerful govt. (immigration, public health, energy, etc)

Your dead wrong here.
They have messed up immigration by on two fronts, border control and immigrant visas. How has public health or energy benefited from powerful government? FDA approved drugs kill people they shouldn't or FDA can't approve drugs that help. Medicare/medicaid are broke and rife with fraud. Energy policy is a joke. No nuclear plant has been built for over 30 years. No gasoline refinery for over 30 years. The electric grid is falling apart.
What arguments?

There are many such feedback loops in society that show the necessity for every level of powerful govt. (immigration, public health, energy, etc)

Your dead wrong here....blah blah blah

I wasn't even close to defending any current policy of any kind. You probably blamed Obama for the economy in Feb, 09. Changes need be made in nearly every endeavor of human experience. Thank you for answering my question, though. Your answer shows that you don't understand the power of feedback loops in complex systems, therefore you can't see the necessity in gaining some control from outside the system.

FYI - I support new nuclear power plants. You are surprised? Unlike you, I don't allow general ideologies to rule my stance on individual issues.

What arguments?

Is scrolling up disabled on your browser or do you not understand it when someone logically wins an argument? Only the former is rhetorical, honestly.

How has public health or energy benefited from powerful government? FDA approved drugs kill people they shouldn't or FDA can't approve drugs that help. Medicare/medicaid are broke and rife with fraud. Energy policy is a joke.

Be thankful that your mother didn't take a thallidimide shot when you were in her womb.

Your answer shows that you don't understand the power of feedback loops in complex systems, therefore you can't see the necessity in gaining some control from outside the system.

Ever here of unintended consequences? That is what happens when you don't completely understand the system.
The global climate system is complex and can only be modeled. No model is perfect therefore any change you induce will have unintended consequences.
I don't recall what argument you claimed to have won.
It is apparent you don't understand the concept of holism, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

How has public health or energy benefited from powerful government? FDA approved drugs kill people they shouldn't or FDA can't approve drugs that help. Medicare/medicaid are broke and rife with fraud. Energy policy is a joke.

Be thankful that your mother didn't take a thallidimide shot when you were in her womb.

FDA's biggest blunders:http://health.msn...p;page=2
BTW, UK govt approved thalidomide.
Be careful what USDA approved eggs you eat.

FDA's biggest blunders:http://health.msn...p;page=2
BTW, UK govt approved thalidomide.
Be careful what USDA approved eggs you eat.

Yeah, people make mistakes. What makes you think you're immune to making mistakes?

FDA's biggest blunders:http://health.msn...p;page=2
BTW, UK govt approved thalidomide.
Be careful what USDA approved eggs you eat.

Yeah, people make mistakes. What makes you think you're immune to making mistakes?

Who was fired in the FDA or USDA for making mistakes?
Do you want safe products or do you want the government to provide cover for companies that make bad products?
If you want to hold manufactures accountable, then there is one simple thing you should support, make public all civil court proceedings. The results of any lawsuit filed in court must be made public record. No confidential out of court settlements.
What would replace the FDA is would be something like UL, which is privately funded. For example, no drug company could be insured unless all their products were certified by the private lab. This places the risk on the companies, their insurers and stockholders. That's real accountability.

More FDA follies:
"the FDA was at the heart of the recent vaccine-supply problems."
"When the FDA strengthened its CGMP protocols, it failed to inform the vaccine industry clearly of the change. As economist David Webster stated in a 2002 interview, “FDA didn’t communicate very clearly that they were changing the rules of the game. Because of that, a lot of manufacturers were sort of caught unaware.”"
"Although the FDA puts upward pressure on influenza and other vaccine prices by constantly expanding regulatory requirements, some childhood vaccines face government-imposed price ceilings. "
"The FDA and its supporters point to the most sensational and tragic instances from the past to justify the agency’s existence and its extensive powers."
http://www.indepe...sp?a=213

Who was fired in the FDA or USDA for making mistakes?Do you want safe products or do you want the government to provide cover for companies that make bad products? [...] The results of any lawsuit filed in court must be made public record. No confidential out of court settlements.
What would replace the FDA is would be something like UL, which is privately funded. For example, no drug company could be insured unless all their products were certified by the private lab. This places the risk on the companies, their insurers and stockholders. That's real accountability.

mongo actually making some sense...maybe there IS a god...

However,
It's no longer your dad's UL, and is morphing into a semi for-profit. Its funding is primarily derived from the makers of the products tested- and even then, only tested for specific safety/functionality parameters. That's the UL label!

FDA and its operatives need to be 100% accountable, well-funded, and corporate influence expunged.

FDA and its operatives need to be 100% accountable,

Who is fired when when FDA fails?
How do you hold them accountable? When govt agencies fail they complain they don't have enough money, so Congress gives them more money and more power for ... failing.

"Our commitment to quality and service has earned us the confidence of consumers, industries and safety professionals worldwide. "
http://www.ul.com...conduct/

Its funding is primarily derived from the makers of the products tested- and even then, only tested for specific safety/functionality parameters.

That is the point. If the UL label didn't have value, no one would pay for their service.

FDA and its operatives need to be 100% accountable,

Who is fired when when FDA fails?
How do you hold them accountable? When govt agencies fail they complain they don't have enough money, so Congress gives them more money and more power for ... failing.

That is the point.
We pay for government. Therefore, it is our right, and also our duty to compel government to serve the common interest(NOT the other way around)transparently, efficiently, and economically.

Unfortunately, the "freemarket" cannot, and should not, be relied upon to serve in the stead of government. Therefore the need and necessity for our tax dollars to be judiciously applied, and exactingly accounted for, and misfeasance, malfeasance, fraud, chicanery, and all abuse of government funding, operations, and Leg/Exec/Jud should be harshly punished.

our duty to compel government to serve the common interest(NOT the other way around)transparently, efficiently, and economically.

How?
The FDA, like all regulatory agencies, is a bureaucracy that grows daily. Their employees are covered by union rules. Congress funds them with massive omnibus spending bills with many other agencies.
When Chinese companies were caught adding melamine to increase test results food products, some were executed, but then, China hired the private NSF to test products.
"NSF International announced a new testing service for suppliers in the food industry to detect the presence of melamine, an industrial chemical used in plastics that was recently found in pet food products. "
"The resulting melamine contamination has generated an increased demand by pet food manufacturers who are seeking accredited laboratories that test for melamine presence. "
http://www.foodma...ting.asp

"in 1995 the American people had to spend $668 billion just to
comply with the regulatory burden, and he projects that the figure could rise as high as
$750 billion by the end of the century (Figure 3). The compliance costs fall
disproportionately on small businesses,22 which pay more in relative terms than do larger entities. Businesses with fewer than 20 employees had to spend $5,500 per employee in
1992 just to comply with the regulations. In the same year, the per-employee cost of
regulations for businesses with 500 or more employees was $3,000.23"
http://www.cato.o...-303.pdf
So, Cali, by supporting a massive regulatory machine, you are aiding and abetting huge corporations that can afford the costs.
That is what the meat packers did when they supported the creation of the FDA. They could afford the costs while their smaller competitors could not.

You didn't even read your link, did you?

Do you remember what was happening prior to the regulations? People were being caught in machinery, primarily children. There were tens of thousands of people maimed in the meat industry, parasitic infection was fairly common in pork products, it was utterly nightmarish. \

Secondly, your CATO report says there's no manner in which to justify the figures of cost, then they go ahead and try to give you figures of cost.....

wow.

"As popular myth would have it, there were no government inspectors before Congress acted in response to "The Jungle" and the greedy meat packers fought federal inspection all the way. The truth is that not only did government inspection exist, but meat packers themselves supported it and were in the forefront of the effort to extend it!"
"The myth is widespread and deeply rooted that big business and big government are rivals—that big business wants small government. "
"Sinclair, however, deflected the praise. "The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers' request," he wrote in a 1906 magazine article. "It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers." "
http://www.cato.o...4-1.html

It is amusing how all you supporters of massive government regulations are in lock step with the big corporations.

It is amusing how all you supporters of massive government regulations are in lock step with the big corporations.

You've drunk so much Kool-Aid I'm expecting you to shortly bust through the wall yelling "Oh YEAH!"

"The Office of Management and Budget (search ) estimates that federal regulations cost businesses between $500 and $600 billion each year. Those costs include paying lawyers to merely scan the Federal Registry each day to see if the most recently issued rules affect the business they work for. Crews puts annual compliance costs closer to $860 billion. Many times, it’s impossible for a company to comply with one regulation without violating another."
"Compliance costs are felt most by small businesses, which can’t afford expensive legal teams to keep tabs on new regulations, or, for example, to replace each employee’s computer keyboard when the Department of Labor (search ) decrees that certain keyboard designs could lead to carpal tunnel syndrome. "
"All of these regulations carry the weight of law, yet none of them are actually voted on by Congress,"
http://www.foxnew...,00.html

"Presidents love the rulemaking process because it provides an alternate path for politically unpopular laws. President Obama is moving greenhouse gas regulations through the EPA using the 1970 Clean Air Act; trying to have the FCC regulate the Internet using the 1934 Telecom Act; and installing some version of card check by recess-appointing union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Cap-and-trade, net neutrality and card check were all disastrous legislative failures, but the rulemaking process provides another avenue for these rejected laws to be pushed on the country.
"The REINS Act, sponsored by Kentucky Republican Rep. Geoff Davis, is one effort to bring citizens back into the rulemaking process. The act would require all major agency rulemakings to be treated like every other new law:

Read more: http://dailycalle...fOM7cqH:
I'm sure Cali supports this.