March for Science Scam

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
March for Science Scam

I don't get the premise of the 'March for Science'. If someone were truely passionate about their science research, wouldn't they be willing toself fund their passion? Shouldn't the supporters of science fund these projects though kickstarter campaigns? Didn't the Wright brothers self-fundtheir airplane because they were passionate about flying? Same thing in music and art. Wouldn't anyone that was truely passionate not let not gettinga government check get in their way? Please explain how the leftist utopia should work. There is a small group of elites in each field, if you're a member of that club, the rest of societyshould work their ass off to fund your passion. If you're one of the plebs, you have no meaningful passion to pursue, you should just accept yourlot in life of hard work and pay taxes to fund the elitist scientists and artists pursuing their passion instead of your own. To me, the March is basically giving me the middle finger and saying their passions are more important than mine. I work, they play. Please explain so called passionate people that expect me to fund their passion or else they give up their passion. Worker bees and the bourgeoisie thatpursue their passions. This is progress? No. This is a scam. 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Some people do Kickstarter

Some people do Kickstarter or fund the projects privately. Not every one funds their projects through the government. And you are one contradiction after another. You think science is only a "leftist utopia"? Please.

And you contradict yourself when you say they should go Kickstarter but then you say they should pay it their self.

"Leftist" I don't you think you know what that word really means.

"Bourgeoisie" I don't think you know what that word really means.

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Im not sure of

the OP (opening Post), if I understand it correctly. As from what I know the march for science is about the application of science on global warming. I'd say what they're up to is the acceptance of science to slove (also solve) the matter not corporate  influence in government to thwart or discount the science. My opinion is, the world of man's own making has got us trapped. If we keep going as is (the profit margin is all, theory) we'll eat ourselves to death. IE. The southwest dessert regions are being eaten up by the  square mile at a gulp. The planet needs vast natural areas to maintain the stablity of the eco systems that all the elites make their money off of, and creates the jobs we need. bear in mind---what we have going for ourselves is an artificial system that encroaches on the natural. I think this is what the science marches are about. But, it's to late, we can't change the system we invented---there's to many people already and the system as is - is needed to maintain the dinner table. It's a no winner. There is no science that can win this---it's science that got things as is. As I've pointed out before---intelligence is the enemy.There's no such thing as "counter science". If so, it relys on the use of the natural also and----- it' would cause the same effects as we have now.
 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The thing here is

The thing here is multi-fold.

1: ANYONE can get a research grant. Literally anyone. All you need is a project with a goal that has value. Sure, you're more likely to get funding if you're a top scientist in your field; because you know what kind of projects the government is interested in and you know how to file an application. But any random idiot can get a grant if they have an idea and a plan on how to test it.

2: It is of value to society to advance scientific knowledge. Without research grants issued by governments, we would not have anything like the technology or knowledge we have now. The Wright brothers would never have flown if not for centuries of failed attempts to fly preceding their inaugural flight.

3: Capitalism got us here, not science. Science can't come up with an answer because testing alternatives is impossible. But that doesn't make it the fault of science. Science didn't even exist until the 1700's.

4: Everything is natural, including everything humanity has ever done. Unnatural is as broken a term as supernatural. It refers not to what something is, but to what something isn't. As a result, it says nothing about nothing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What we mean by natural

Vastet wrote:
The thing here is multi-fold. 1: ANYONE can get a research grant. Literally anyone. All you need is a project with a goal that has value. Sure, you're more likely to get funding if you're a top scientist in your field; because you know what kind of projects the government is interested in and you know how to file an application. But any random idiot can get a grant if they have an idea and a plan on how to test it. 2: It is of value to society to advance scientific knowledge. Without research grants issued by governments, we would not have anything like the technology or knowledge we have now. The Wright brothers would never have flown if not for centuries of failed attempts to fly preceding their inaugural flight. 3: Capitalism got us here, not science. Science can't come up with an answer because testing alternatives is impossible. But that doesn't make it the fault of science. Science didn't even exist until the 1700's. 4: Everything is natural, including everything humanity has ever done. Unnatural is as broken a term as supernatural. It refers not to what something is, but to what something isn't. As a result, it says nothing about nothing.

Is, an item is not made by intent. The universe has no intent, but, we are intelligent, right. The universe didn't intend to create anything intelligent it is merely a development by evolution of a bio structure.

A stem locomotive was not created by the universe directly, but rather by intent of what it created that became intellegent. That is to say, the universe didn't purposely create a locomotive. There-fore a locomotive is not a natural concoction. Of course it has to be understood that all is of the natural or a decendent of the natural, but, we use the tern unnatural to decern an item that wasn't automatically made by the universe of which it cannot do. So, an item devised by intent is considered unnatural. It is mainly used for refernce rather then fact of nature. SDuch as, Blaks Law Book-- in it's discription of a naural or artificial person. In this case a natural person is directly of nature while a person of civilization is considered an artificial person be cause it's mental faculties are interferd with by an intellegent force, mainly "government mandate" to form the perso to government social; standards.

IE, A person being intellegent can plumb a house and remain a natural person. A person who is seen or designated a "plumber" is an unnatural person. In the first instance the person has not been formed (in this case "person" is the mental not the physical) by the will of an inventor. While in the second case the person is seen as the physical and the mental is formed by intrusion of another persons will. It's a matter of government made verses natural made, and of course government also includes religion.

Persons formed by nature are considered natual. Persons deliberately formed by other persons to fit a particular making a mandate of officials are artificial. The artificial person is normally in intelligent societies formed for a materialphysical purpose--the same as the locomotive. It's the process to produce "persons" to be opertors of a machine---their own body. It's a matter of how society preferes to see others, as a plumber is a machine (prime mover, locomotive). In the other case a prime mover yes, but not seen as a machine. It's all a matter of how one is seen or determined by society. Civil societies see each other as "net gain" and in accordance with physical values, while in the othjer it is the mental values that are the person. Blaks Law Book confirms this, (as how the world sees it's inhabitants) as it is the "mind" that is changes not the physical. So there-fore then, Blacks Law Book sees "person" as a "mental" not a physical. But yet, the value of person is placed on the physical because it's the physical that is needed to gain by the labors of each other. ( A predatory system) Perdators see bodies not minds. But of course, the mind is still in the game, it's merely controled by others outside one's mind./self. While all things stay within the natural realm, it's matter of what "we" do with it that makes the difference.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:What we mean

Old Seer wrote:
What we mean by natural is, an item is not made by intent. The universe has no intent, but, we are intelligent, right. The universe didn't intend to create anything intelligent it is merely a development by evolution of a bio structure.

Which at it's most simple is merely entropy at work. Everything humans do increases entropy, which is the overriding law of the universe. Intent doesn't matter.

Making a distinction between intent and non-intent is pointless. We can't definitively say anything about intent outside our own species in the last few thousand years (and even that is spotty at best). Who's to say intent isn't involved in everything, or nothing, to some degree? Who's to say a billion different species don't have their own intent? We don't even know that we have free will. We assume we do (well, most of us do), but we don't know that we do. If we don't, then intent is exactly the same as non intent, and any distinction is a lie couched in ignorant arrogance.

Humans will never achieve the levels of creation or destruction the universe can put out there. What is global warming compared to the destruction caused by algea that released massive amounts of poisonous and corrosive oxygen into the atmosphere billions of years ago? What is a nuke compared to the collision that wiped out the dinosaurs? Or we can go more extreme. What is global warming compared to Venus? A nuke compared to a super nova?

Even if we have free will, nothing we've ever done or will do can ever compare to what happens daily in the universe. The creation and destruction of stars and worlds and solar systems. What difference does intent make?

Old Seer wrote:
Persons formed by nature are considered natual. Persons deliberately formed by other persons to fit a particular making a mandate of officials are artificial.

That is not logical. Officials were formed from natural processes, and therefore are natural themselves. Which then makes all their actions natural as well.

Everything is natural.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I understand what you're saying.

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
What we mean by natural is, an item is not made by intent. The universe has no intent, but, we are intelligent, right. The universe didn't intend to create anything intelligent it is merely a development by evolution of a bio structure.
Which at it's most simple is merely entropy at work. Everything humans do increases entropy, which is the overriding law of the universe. Intent doesn't matter. Making a distinction between intent and non-intent is pointless. We can't definitively say anything about intent outside our own species in the last few thousand years (and even that is spotty at best). Who's to say intent isn't involved in everything, or nothing, to some degree? Who's to say a billion different species don't have their own intent? We don't even know that we have free will. We assume we do (well, most of us do), but we don't know that we do. If we don't, then intent is exactly the same as non intent, and any distinction is a lie couched in ignorant arrogance. Humans will never achieve the levels of creation or destruction the universe can put out there. What is global warming compared to the destruction caused by algea that released massive amounts of poisonous and corrosive oxygen into the atmosphere billions of years ago? What is a nuke compared to the collision that wiped out the dinosaurs? Or we can go more extreme. What is global warming compared to Venus? A nuke compared to a super nova? Even if we have free will, nothing we've ever done or will do can ever compare to what happens daily in the universe. The creation and destruction of stars and worlds and solar systems. What difference does intent make?
Old Seer wrote:
Persons formed by nature are considered natual. Persons deliberately formed by other persons to fit a particular making a mandate of officials are artificial.
That is not logical. Officials were formed from natural processes, and therefore are natural themselves. Which then makes all their actions natural as well. Everything is natural.

True, all things are derived from nature. But if you go to blacks law dictionary they have artificial person. What does that mean to a lawyer. Hence--a person concocted by the will of an authority, is basically what it means. So, what you're saying is--the world is illogical. I concurr. It's authorities that decide what is and what isn't, whether they be right or wrong. It's their will that's happening on the planet, would that be so?. What the law dictionary is saying is---if it's tampered with by man it becomes artificial , iow unnatural. If you go back to a previous discussion on corporations---corporations are an artificial person. The "authorities" can make something into whatever they need it to be to acheve an end. I'm not questioning your reasoning, I'm questioning theirs.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: But if you

Old Seer wrote:
But if you go to blacks law dictionary they have artificial person.

What and what?

Old Seer wrote:
Hence--a person concocted by the will of an authority, is basically what it means.

The only things that match that description are corporations or a myths. Corporations should not be considered person's. Neither should myths for that matter.

Old Seer wrote:
So, what you're saying is--the world is illogical.

No not really. Individuals are illogical, but in general (under the circumstances) the world is pretty logical.

Old Seer wrote:
It's authorities that decide what is and what isn't, whether they be right or wrong. It's their will that's happening on the planet, would that be so?

Authorities don't have as much power as you give them credit for, which is impressive considering your government does have a ridiculous amount of power.
It isn't usually an individual that makes big decisions that last. Public opinion is a huge driver of policy over time, much more so than any individual leader. That's why the republicans invested so much in entertainment 20+ years ago; to get the payoff they see today. It kinda backfired on them a bit, but the goal of dumbing down and dividing the electorate was still a complete success.

None of which really matters to the use of natural. Even corporations and myths are natural, simply by the fact they exist. Humans are social tribal. We make allies and rivals. It is in our nature. It is perfectly natural that a species with such a nature would create groups to be allied to, and to name those groups the same way they name countries and continents and planets: to identify themselves.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's from Blacks dic.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?

Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

What is NATURAL LAW?

A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings, established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept Webster. The foundation of this law is placed by the best writers in the will of God, discovered by right reason, and aided by divine revelation ; and its principles, when applicable, apply with equal obligation to individuals and to nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 2, note; Id 4, note. See Jus NATURALE. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This expression, “natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered “according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a “state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational etc etc etc etc 

I'm sure you'll notice the religious incorporations in this statement. What this means is- government has the (or assumed it) right to soley decide what something is or isn't. On the mental basis Goc can spin straw into gold if they nake it a law. As the saying goes, those who control the meaning of words control society/people. We all know that straw is not gold, but, they can get ignorant followers to believe it is --if ---they can find a reason to explain it----which they always can. IE- campaign contribitions are still a bribe, but it's used to negate bribery and the massed stupidly follow the reasoning--because the unsupecting massed cchose them to make the determinations.

There's no such term in the law book defining "human"--so it is not a legal word in it common use. Technically, if the prosecution uses the word "human" in court the defense can object on grounds there is no leagal definition of the word---so--what does the prosecutor mean by "human". The defense can ask for a definition which the prosecution doesn't have. The procecution has to enter the term as an assumption---but an assumption isn't evidence or permissable. Ok, nuff og that. Do you see where we're coming from. The total of the legal system is nonsense. Artificial person is nonsense, but they have to have nonsense because they're trying to inpose thier system on a population that they cannot legally explain. etc etc etc. Hey, I'm with you, the system is all bullshit so they win. They can make anything legal or illegal depending upon how they need to trap the masses to their will. Very simple. Legal, does not necessarily have to operate on reality. That's why politition are such liars---they have to get through their own bullshit somehow.  Smiling 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I'm sure

Old Seer wrote:
I'm sure you'll notice the religious incorporations in this statement. What this means is- government has the (or assumed it) right to soley decide what something is or isn't.

And yet it hasn't. It has attempted to, but overall it has failed and will continue to fail. Because the government doesn't have the authority to make that kind of decision. It is a decision that rests with people.

Old Seer wrote:
As the saying goes, those who control the meaning of words control society/people.

No group in my lifetime nor in any history I've read was ever able to interfere in the defining of terms. Only English nerds do that, while working to make a dictionary that answers to no government or religion. In fact, it is the absolute failure of religious groups to redefine terms that helped prompt their war against the public school system. It is the people who make up terms and define them. Who use them. Every single time an authority attempts to interfere it fails spectacularly and completely, even if that authority is the dictionary itself.

Hell, even attempting to use the words created by the people too quickly comes off as an embarrassing cringe fest. Language is a category in which absolutely no person or group has any actual authority. It evolves independent of the wishes of any authority

There isn't a single politician who created more than one or two terms; terms that fell or will fall out of use within a generation. The vast majority of terms were adopted from their constituents, because using the language of your constituents makes it more likely they'll vote for you.

Old Seer wrote:
There's no such term in the law book defining "human"

Oh really? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes but

that definition of human could also be a dog or cat. Smiling It alll seems hypocritical to me. There's to many differences of opinion or the understanding, or how people see things or want to make them to be. But I do admit that you have found a source of the interpretaion of Human. There's to much disagreement in the world.I was just looking up "Animism". They would disagree with you, I think.

Here's two + yours.

What constitutes being a person?
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places. ... The plural "persons" is often used in philosophical and legal writing.

What is the definition of a human being?
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being. Origin of human being Expand.


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

It all depends upon "who" makes the rules.

Wow, look at this. I couldn't read the whole thing. It made me go out and dive into a snowbank. There was no snow.

 

http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:that

Old Seer wrote:
that definition of human could also be a dog or cat

No it couldn't. All three definitions are very specific in the use of the term homo sapiens. The only thing that can be human is human.

Old Seer wrote:
What constitutes being a person?

“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” were all defined legally by my link. Now I'll grant that only covers the US. Every country has its own definition. Some don't have any. But it's not like the legal definition of human in the US matters outside the US.

Old Seer wrote:
It all depends upon "who" makes the rules.

Except that's everyone, so you're pretending there's an authority when there isn't one. Noone made that rule. It was made by the entire government and voters one year, then reaffirmed by every preceding government and voter to follow. Everyone in all US history who had the right to vote also has a hand in this definition (yourself included). That's the majority of the historical population of the country for over 300 years.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Which one is correct.

Which country, which group, which indivicual. As best I know the people at large don't make the rules, polititions do. Out of all the determinations made by law, which country, group, is correct. If there all all these opinons and applicable laws which one shall I go by. laws are oft time made from opinions. Op[inions may not be correct. The best one can do is analyz all terms and see which one actually applies. Human has 3 applications, physical, intellectual, and mental. We choose the mental and usr it as a mental state or presents. That's the one that gets us along propoerly with each other. We throw out the other 2 and don't consider them human attributes. If a government wamt to make anything other it's not working to make peace with each other. It the one mental work fo us. Which ever the wporld has or wamts it to be isn't working to make peace in the world. Thaats what our interest is.

I'm not pretending there's an authority, the US government is the major authority in the US. That's not pretend, that's fact. It government that decided what human is according to it's authority and made the determination. The gov [roduced legal discription, not the people. Anyway, as I understand it.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15494
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 EXC you really need to

 EXC you really need to find a sky hero and go back to church and believe in creationism.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Climate change is not a conspiracy any more than gravity or evolution is. Don't like it tough shit!

This is just you being as paranoid as any economic right Christian who values "fuck you I got mine".

You are as paranoid as the asshole oil companies who wanted to keep lead in gas. As paranoid as car companies when Nadar told them their products were unsafe.

You fail to see the difference between corporate apology using "science" to justify keeping unsafe products on the market, and neutral objective science which doesn't favor money.

The data is in the vast majority of climate scientists are saying burning fossil fuels is hurting our planet. Now if you are so fucking stuck on your own goddamned selfishness, assholes like you won't have any future for your kids or grandkids and all that temporary profit now wont mean fucking shit.

Poor you, poor poor you, out of 7 billion humans you are the only person that matters. FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.

Nobody is against the private sector for merely saying we cant continue doing certain things. You CAN make a profit doing the right thing, just like car compainies learned to market seat bealts and air bags.

Neutral objective science is not a conspiracy. GROW THE  FUCK UP!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Which

Old Seer wrote:
Which country, which group, which indivicual. As best I know the people at large don't make the rules, polititions do.

The people elect them, and their replacement. In what world do you live when that means the people have no choice? Millions of times throughout history a politician made a choice the people didn't like, so the people replaced the politician with a different politician who undid what the people never wanted done. It's so common now that it happens at least once a month. In extreme cases, the politician doesn't live to regret pissing the people off.

If a politician makes a decision and isn't fired or killed for it, then the people approve his decision. The people have the final say. The people make the rules.

Old Seer wrote:
Out of all the determinations made by law, which country, group, is correct.

None and all. These are subjective opinions, not objective facts we are discussing. Human law has no impact on the universe, only on humans.

Old Seer wrote:
If there all all these opinons and applicable laws which one shall I go by. laws are oft time made from opinions.

You go by the law for the country you live in. Otherwise you go to jail. If you don't like local law, find a different locale.

Old Seer wrote:
Human has 3 applications, physical, intellectual, and mental.

FYI, that's one not three.

Old Seer wrote:
We choose the mental and usr it as a mental state or presents. That's the one that gets us along propoerly with each other. We throw out the other 2 and don't consider them human attributes.

Ridiculous. False from premise to conclusion and back again.

Old Seer wrote:
Which ever the wporld has or wamts it to be isn't working to make peace in the world. Thaats what our interest is.

Peace is in noones best interest. War is the natural state of the universe, not peace. Anyone who thinks peace is in their best interest should divorce themselves from society and live in a forest by themselves. Then maybe they'll learn how they need war to survive. It's easy to forget you're at war when everything is made easy for you. You don't have to hunt or gather, shelter is everywhere, and things that used to kill you now take a 5 minute trip to the doctor to fix.

Old Seer wrote:
I'm not pretending there's an authority, the US government is the major authority in the US.

The US government has no authority that the people don't grant it, and which the people cannot take away. The people are the authority, not the government.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I would say

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
Which country, which group, which indivicual. As best I know the people at large don't make the rules, polititions do.
The people elect them, and their replacement. In what world do you live when that means the people have no choice? Millions of times throughout history a politician made a choice the people didn't like, so the people replaced the politician with a different politician who undid what the people never wanted done. It's so common now that it happens at least once a month. In extreme cases, the politician doesn't live to regret pissing the people off. If a politician makes a decision and isn't fired or killed for it, then the people approve his decision. The people have the final say. The people make the rules.
Old Seer wrote:
Out of all the determinations made by law, which country, group, is correct.
None and all. These are subjective opinions, not objective facts we are discussing. Human law has no impact on the universe, only on humans.
Old Seer wrote:
If there all all these opinons and applicable laws which one shall I go by. laws are oft time made from opinions.
You go by the law for the country you live in. Otherwise you go to jail. If you don't like local law, find a different locale.
Old Seer wrote:
Human has 3 applications, physical, intellectual, and mental.
FYI, that's one not three.
Old Seer wrote:
We choose the mental and usr it as a mental state or presents. That's the one that gets us along propoerly with each other. We throw out the other 2 and don't consider them human attributes.
Ridiculous. False from premise to conclusion and back again.
Old Seer wrote:
Which ever the wporld has or wamts it to be isn't working to make peace in the world. Thaats what our interest is.
Peace is in noones best interest. War is the natural state of the universe, not peace. Anyone who thinks peace is in their best interest should divorce themselves from society and live in a forest by themselves. Then maybe they'll learn how they need war to survive. It's easy to forget you're at war when everything is made easy for you. You don't have to hunt or gather, shelter is everywhere, and things that used to kill you now take a 5 minute trip to the doctor to fix.
Old Seer wrote:
I'm not pretending there's an authority, the US government is the major authority in the US.
The US government has no authority that the people don't grant it, and which the people cannot take away. The people are the authority, not the government.
What you have there is your own determinations, just as we have ours. I prefere ours---it' makes me a nice guy. The US government has alot of power not grated by the prople. That's what US bureaus are for. The Gove here is quiet facism--for the time being. It technically a false democracy, and the basic rights of people are only maintained via protest. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No what I'm telling you are

No what I'm telling you are facts. Ignore them if you like, just as most of your population ignores reality for the fiction they prefer to believe. As long as you all choose to be a bunch of ignorant fools, you have noone but yourselves to blame for the state of your country.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, but

Vastet wrote:
No what I'm telling you are facts. Ignore them if you like, just as most of your population ignores reality for the fiction they prefer to believe. As long as you all choose to be a bunch of ignorant fools, you have noone but yourselves to blame for the state of your country.
As long as we're stuck with wars and trouble anyway, what difference does it make if all are fools. If it's a natural occurance on our part we're only being natural, wouldn't that be the case. Whilst I can decide to be a nice guy because of choice then I wouldn't be a person that deliberatly concoct a war. Nor would I care to put myself in a social position to make such decision for others. I haven't given up my rights to be a bad guy, I merely elect not to be one. That keeps all others safe from me, and in turn qui safe (not intirely tho) from others. Well--- then again, if you be correct it's only natural to be a fool. That would leave me unable to critisize someone for "being" a one.  Thanks for the conversation. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:As long as

Old Seer wrote:
As long as we're stuck with wars and trouble anyway, what difference does it make if all are fools.

Why wouldn't it make a difference? Everyone fools: bad time, extinction. Everyone not fools: good time, no extinction.

Old Seer wrote:
If it's a natural occurance on our part we're only being natural, wouldn't that be the case.

That doesn't mean we can't do better. Why not be better?

Old Seer wrote:
Whilst I can decide to be a nice guy because of choice then I wouldn't be a person that deliberatly concoct a war. Nor would I care to put myself in a social position to make such decision for others.

Wars are rarely deliberately concocted. Most of the time two retards who are full of themselves refuse to talk nicely, and instead keep calling each other names while waving sticks around.
You probably wouldn't do well in a position of such authority anyway.

Old Seer wrote:
That keeps all others safe from me, and in turn qui safe (not intirely tho) from others.

Your vision is very narrow. Other humans might be spared your decisions, but not life. In order to live you must kill.

Old Seer wrote:
Well--- then again, if you be correct it's only natural to be a fool. That would leave me unable to critisize someone for "being" a one.  Thanks for the conversation.

Natural doesn't mean uncriticisable. People choose to be fools. Nothing wrong with criticising such choices. In fact, if you don't criticise, then you're just as bad.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
How far

do you suppose "better" can go, and what do you propose is better or, would be better.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's not really possible to

It's not really possible to say how much better we could do. As we went, we'd find some policies and/or practices would end up being prerequisites for other policies and/or practices that aren't even foreseeable as yet.

As for what could or would be better, that could take years to detail. A short list of examples:
A greater focus on society than the individual would be a good start. Improving education by taking uneducated morons opinions out of it all together (elected trustees and boards should be abolished). Creating a distribution system for resources and education on a global scale for anyone willing to work together instead of waving their dicks around. Removing hypocrites from public office (see the entire US government). Changing government so it cannot be used as a way to get rich. Getting rid of the patent system altogether. Disallowing the personification of non persons in law. Mandatory public schooling. Mandatory enlistment in defence forces (though not for deployment to foreign nations to fight, rather to assist education by giving life experience). Restructuring of militaries to replace corporations. Mandatory minimum and maximum incomes. Complete and total transparency. Criminalise public lying (as a public official). Criminalise censorship. Returning agriculture to sustainable systems. Feeding, sheltering, and educating anyone willing to accept it. Reforming the justice system in multiple ways, starting by decriminalising all victimless crimes. Also focus on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment.

There's a lot more that I could come up with, and it grows exponentially the more people sign on; as noone could come up with everything that could be better.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I understand

the tuff job it would be. In essence you would restructure civilization. I see a flaw here tho. It would take the present political system to make the changes you propose, and theiy're not bad proposals at that, but wouldn't you have to get rid of them somehow/way before things could even get started on you proposals. How would you get new floks in gov to make the changes. The ones that are in the gov are there because they benefit from the way things are---they made them this way and it serves their purpose. You would need a complete star-over. How could that be accomplished if people keep puting the same liars in office. And, you may have to start with different people, as the one's in the world are what they are and probably wouldn't be able to change. So rather then new gov only you may have to have new people also. I think.  

Lets assume there's the right people already in society, how can you separate them, and what would you do with the one's that aren't right for the changes. Tuff ain't it.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: It would

Old Seer wrote:
It would take the present political system to make the changes you propose, and theiy're not bad proposals at that, but wouldn't you have to get rid of them somehow/way before things could even get started on you proposals.

Not necessarily. Public opinion will alter political positions faster than anything. When I was a kid, the only place you weren't supposed to smoke was at locations where the heat of the cigarette could start a fire, or an explosion. Planes, malls, grocery stores, and everywhere else was perfectly acceptable. Today you can barely smoke in your own home. Took a single generation to do a complete 180 on policy.

Similar scenario with gay people. When I was a kid, being gay was so wrong you weren't even taught about it existing. Many people who were caught were sent to conversion camps to attempt to force them to be straight. Now it's rare to find people who are against gay people, and gay people are allowed to marry in many places.

It is possible that wiping out the elites will be necessary. It has happened multiple times throughout history, and it could easily happen again. But it isn't necessarily necessary.

I don't think it's likely that we will actually get much better. I think it's likely we're on a path to extinction. But it isn't impossible that someday people will stop being idiots.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Your last sentence:

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
It would take the present political system to make the changes you propose, and theiy're not bad proposals at that, but wouldn't you have to get rid of them somehow/way before things could even get started on you proposals.
Not necessarily. Public opinion will alter political positions faster than anything. When I was a kid, the only place you weren't supposed to smoke was at locations where the heat of the cigarette could start a fire, or an explosion. Planes, malls, grocery stores, and everywhere else was perfectly acceptable. Today you can barely smoke in your own home. Took a single generation to do a complete 180 on policy. Similar scenario with gay people. When I was a kid, being gay was so wrong you weren't even taught about it existing. Many people who were caught were sent to conversion camps to attempt to force them to be straight. Now it's rare to find people who are against gay people, and gay people are allowed to marry in many places. It is possible that wiping out the elites will be necessary. It has happened multiple times throughout history, and it could easily happen again. But it isn't necessarily necessary. I don't think it's likely that we will actually get much better. I think it's likely we're on a path to extinction. But it isn't impossible that someday people will stop being idiots.
We have no doubt that at a time in the future (could be near) there'll be a world wide shootout, but it won't eliminate everyone. That's the time to implement a new plan. Yes/ no.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The timing is less important

The timing is less important than the people. It is unlikely that the best and brightest would survive such a war, making it highly unlikely that a shift in the favour of our discussion would occur.

Unfortunately, the most likely aftermath of a big war which does see some survivors is one in which religion surges and knowledge is extinguished.

If that happens, it'll be our death sentence. It won't matter what happens on the societal side except to those few who have to live with it until the inevitable end. By the time humanity restores the level of technology we enjoy today, too many resources will have been used to allow our descendants to replicate what we have now, let alone advance sufficiently to ensure the survival of any earth origined species.

Unless such a war is started and ended quickly by people with such an agenda, I don't see it happening. It's much more likely stupid people would pursue such a goal than intelligent people.

It would be the perfect time, but only if the conditions were perfect. Only if there are a majority of socialists who survive. That's not going to happen.

Our best chance is in getting things changed before such a war. The necessary infrastructure and communications exist now. It is only pride and ignorance standing in the way.

Bernie Sanders may have been able to kick things off. He's the only one I've yet to see who might've though. Clinton is no better than Trump in that regard. Smarter sure, but not more intelligent.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
When one considers

That it's only a short time in history that higher technology has been around, people have existed for 50,000 years or more without it, then it isn't necessary for it to be needed for people to exist, I would think. It would be an opportunty for people to start over. In the meantime on the climb back to technology the planet would renew, but, how long would it be before people under-go the same process. It may be inevitable that the whole process is an exersize in futility. Nature would be ecycling people---maybe. Then there may come a time it woudn't stsrt over, and as you say, the whole thing ends and the cockroaches rule . Hmmmm. So, eat drink and be marry, er merry,  for tomorrow we die---I suppose.

By the way. I just turnt on the tv a few minutes ago and there was on a doc. of Audobon. He was concerned about the direction things were going back in the early 1800s. BUT--the last bit was picture of him with a rifle and hunting dog--- After all his complaining a wonderment of the changing enviriroment------ there he is shown lending a hand to the problem he was wondering about. a bit hypocitical I'd say. The floks complaining are just as much the problem as any they disagree with.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There are metals that do not

There are metals that do not renew. We've already used too much to be able to start over. We're nearly out of them already. Asteroid mining is necessary for us to grow much further.

People can survive without technology, but sooner or later a disaster will strike and everyone will die. The entire species and everything we ever did: erased.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
What has the advancement of

What has the advancement of science and technology brought us overall? A massive increase in human population and massive extinction and disruption of other species. Hasn't made people happier, because any gains in areas like food production and health are negated by population increases.  Is there any reason to think that future advancements would change this fact? So why does government need to support science? Government wants to use science for military, surveillence, etc.. They seek to control you. If we can lower taxes, you can decide what science projects are worth. But no, in the land of the free and handful of elites decide what science is worthy.

I am not a climate change denier. It one of about a billion problems caused by overpopulation. It is just basic science, any species will increase in population until its environment can not support further growth. These so call science supports are the ones in denial. They want governement to force me to use less oil. But the oil just gets used by someone in another part of the world.

A real march for science would be all about getting government out of science, making people citizen scientists. Letting free people come up with solutions. Not having a gun put to our heads so our income is stolen for the elitist/Washington insiders pet projets.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: burning

Brian37 wrote:

 burning fossil fuels is hurting our planet. 

Sorry, I never knew the planet had feelings. I'm sorry earth.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What has the

EXC wrote:
What has the advancement of science and technology brought us overall?

Quite a bit, actually. Better quality of life, longer life, more capabilities. It would take a hundred years to detail what it has done for us.

EXC wrote:
A massive increase in human population and massive extinction and disruption of other species.

Both of which would have happened anyway. Human caused extinctions were occuring millennia before the invention of the wheel. Humans spread across the entire planet with nothing more than spears and fire. All technology and science have done is accelerate things, along with providing us self awareness of our actions. Which gives us the opportunity to address the issues we've caused. Take away the science and technology and we'd be in the exact same boat eventually, only we'd be ignorant of what we're doing. That's just a recipe for extinction.

EXC wrote:
Hasn't made people happier, because any gains in areas like food production and health are negated by population increases.

That's a ridiculous lie. We produce more food than we can eat, and people are much happier than they were.

EXC wrote:
 Is there any reason to think that future advancements would change this fact?

It is a lie, not a fact. But even if we pretended it were true, there is plenty reason to assume technology advances will fix many of the biggest problems we face.

EXC wrote:
So why does government need to support science?

I told you already. As your only rebuttal as yet is a blatant lie, I refer you back to my previous response.

EXC wrote:
Government wants to use science for military, surveillence, etc.. They seek to control you. If we can lower taxes, you can decide what science projects are worth. But no, in the land of the free and handful of elites decide what science is worthy.

Lies and half truths. I already contradicted this bullshit. Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. It just proves the person repeating the bullshit is a retard.

EXC wrote:
I am not a climate change denier. It one of about a billion problems caused by overpopulation.

Humanity is nowhere near overpopulated. The earth could sustain 10x our current population with ease. The problem is with our methods of sustaining our population, not the population itself.

EXC wrote:
But the oil just gets used by someone in another part of the world.

No it doesn't. Nearly every country on earth is beginning or well into processes to wean them off oil. You're just a selfish asshole who wants everything no matter the cost to 7 billion other people.

EXC wrote:
A real march for science would be all about getting government out of science, making people citizen scientists. Letting free people come up with solutions. Not having a gun put to our heads so our income is stolen for the elitist/Washington insiders pet projets.

Again you only prove you didn't bother reading anything in my responses to your lies.

EXC wrote:
Sorry, I never knew the planet had feelings. I'm sorry earth.

lol. On this I probably agree with you. Nothing we could do matters to the earth. We could wipe out all life and the earth would remain just fine.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What has the

EXC wrote:

What has the advancement of science and technology brought us overall? A massive increase in human population and massive extinction and disruption of other species. Hasn't made people happier, because any gains in areas like food production and health are negated by population increases.  Is there any reason to think that future advancements would change this fact? So why does government need to support science? Government wants to use science for military, surveillence, etc.. They seek to control you. If we can lower taxes, you can decide what science projects are worth. But no, in the land of the free and handful of elites decide what science is worthy.

I am not a climate change denier. It one of about a billion problems caused by overpopulation. It is just basic science, any species will increase in population until its environment can not support further growth. These so call science supports are the ones in denial. They want governement to force me to use less oil. But the oil just gets used by someone in another part of the world.

A real march for science would be all about getting government out of science, making people citizen scientists. Letting free people come up with solutions. Not having a gun put to our heads so our income is stolen for the elitist/Washington insiders pet projets.

 

Lets take alook at Vastets "natural process" Idea. Consider that from the start of people "being" it is nothing more then a grand experiment (non-intellectual of course) by nature to create a lesson process and time for us to eventualy learn a few things.  Maybe it's nature's way of saying, being intellegent has it's consequences. So. from this we learn, and if so then Vastet might be wrong that we'll get rid of ourselves. But, it would have to be that last remnant that survive that would see what;s to learn. If that last remining don't learn then they're gone with all the rest. Then us Old Seers will have been right---intelligence is the enemy. And, I suppose we'd be gone to--unless we go into the "Noah Mode" to secape (also escape) the mental flood.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:. I told you

Vastet wrote:
. I told you already. As your only rebuttal as yet is a blatant lie.

No you don't. If there is a rational reason to support something, make a rational argument and get people to voluntarily support you. That is crowdfunding, that is the free market of ideas. If someone can't do that, they get the tax man to force us??? WTF These scientist/welfare queens have totally duped you.

Government is putting a gun to people's heads to force something upon them. It is the opposite of a rational argument. It is the eilitist class making the working man into their personal slaves so they can pursue their interests.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
oh, suddenly EXC weeps for

oh, suddenly EXC weeps for the worker? that's rich...


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:No you don't. Yes

EXC wrote:
No you don't.

Yes I do.

EXC wrote:
If there is a rational reason to support something, make a rational argument and get people to voluntarily support you.

I did, you ignored it. Next!

EXC wrote:
That is crowdfunding, that is the free market of ideas.

Crowd funding is socialism.

EXC wrote:
If someone can't do that, they get the tax man to force us???

As has been explained to you multiple times, the tax man doesn't force you to do squat. You agree to pay taxes to the US government every second you choose to live in the US. If you don't pay taxes, then you're a thief who belongs in prison with all the other thieves.

EXC wrote:
Government is putting a gun to people's heads to force something upon them. It is the opposite of a rational argument.

Lies.

EXC wrote:

It is the eilitist class making the working man into their personal slaves so they can pursue their interests.

That's capitalism for you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Crowd funding

Vastet wrote:
Crowd funding is socialism. 

What is your definition of Socialism? Is it with a gun to my head or not? It seems you want people like me to vote for elites to decide how the fruits of my labor should be spent on science and charity. I just can't do it voluntarily so I should vote to have the tax man force me with a show of deadly force. I should want science and charity but I should do what others want, and I should vote to be forced to support others projects, not my own.

So we only try to cure popular disease like cancer since a majority want that disease dealt with. If I am affect by a rare disease tough shit, my money goes to Washington to let the beauracrats skim off and pass out for political favors.

 

Vastet wrote:
That's capitalism for you.

Is your definiton of capititalism with a gun to my head to force me to work for someone else?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:oh, suddenly

iwbiek wrote:
oh, suddenly EXC weeps for the worker? that's rich...

Yes I weep everytime another socialist/communist elitist leader says give me all the fruits of your labor, I'll look out for you. It'll be different this time than alll the other Socialist governments that failed. These leaders assume the workers are all idiots so they must decide where the charity and science investmens should go. Sorry I'm not buying the snake oil. Some system.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote:oh,

EXC wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
oh, suddenly EXC weeps for the worker? that's rich...

Yes I weep everytime another socialist/communist elitist leader says give me all the fruits of your labor, I'll look out for you. It'll be different this time than alll the other Socialist governments that failed. These leaders assume the workers are all idiots so they must decide where the charity and science investmens should go. Sorry I'm not buying the snake oil. Some system.




you don't have to buy, hoss. the worker takes, when he is empowered, and by everything i've seen from you over the years, you're among the parasites. you won't be in the equation at all. you'll be lucky if you're provided with a job mopping up shit in a dairy coop.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What is your

EXC wrote:
What is your definition of Socialism?

Put very simply so I don't have to write a novel; socialism is an economic system in which the population voluntarily shares ownership of the nation and all it's resources and in exchange agrees to work in the best interests of themselves and the rest of the population.

EXC wrote:
Is it with a gun to my head or not?

No. You don't want to be part of society, you're free to leave.

EXC wrote:
It seems you want people like me to vote for elites to decide how the fruits of my labor should be spent on science and charity.

You don't get to choose everything your contribution to society goes towards. Society can't function that way. Anarchy will always fail.
Though in my view of how a social democracy should work, you would get to choose how some of it was used. Not all, but some.

EXC wrote:
I should want science and charity but I should do what others want, and I should vote to be forced to support others projects, not my own.

There's no reason you wouldn't be able to do your own projects. Funding would depend on what others thought of it to a large extent, but you'd be able to use the portion of your taxes that you choose how it is spent to fund your own project. That wouldn't mean you were exempt from service though. You'd still have to be willing to work.

EXC wrote:
So we only try to cure popular disease like cancer since a majority want that disease dealt with. If I am affect by a rare disease tough shit, my money goes to Washington to let the beauracrats skim off and pass out for political favors.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

EXC wrote:
Is your definiton of capititalism with a gun to my head to force me to work for someone else?

Not a gun per se, but threat of force is indeed a significant part of the capitalist system.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No. You don't

Vastet wrote:
No. You don't want to be part of society, you're free to leave.

No. I want my fair share of the earth's natural resouces. You didn't work to create these. The fairest system would be to divide up equally and people live in an area and under the rules they want. Then as people starve under crony socialism or they get tired of supporting freeloaders, they should be free to leave and more land becomes availale to people that don't believe workers should turn over all the fruits over to elitist party leaders that enrich themselves and their cronies. People can vote with their feet, what is wrong with that?

 

 

Vastet wrote:
 There's no reason you wouldn't be able to do your own projects.

Did you forget I'm a slave to the present welfare state. Over half of what I make they take already. Leaving me little time or money for my own passions and dreams. And you want an even bigger welfare state.

 

It is so irration what you expect people to swallow. The common man is to inept to decide where is charity and science donations should go. So we must have politicians and beauracrats decide for them. Of course they skim off a lot and pass out to cronies. If the common man is to inept to decide how his money should be spent, why is he qualified to vote. Or do you want a dictatorship? Dictatorship work of course by using all the money collected to prop up the strong man and his violent supporters. How does that advance useful science?

Hopefully the days of the working man turning over his power and wealth to government are numbered.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:. you don't

iwbiek wrote:
.
you don't have to buy, hoss. the worker takes, when he is empowered, and by everything i've seen from you over the years, you're among the parasites. you won't be in the equation at all. you'll be lucky if you're provided with a job mopping up shit in a dairy coop.

How did that empowerment work out in Venezuela? Oh, I forget, just trust you the next bunch of commies are the real deal. Give them all the country's wealth to manage, but never ever let the worker decide anything for himself. Some empowerment.

I swear this is just like religion waiting for the Commie Messiah to return. And he'll put me hell and all the true believers will be in paradise. The great prophet Marx predicted all this in his holy book. Face it, you're in a cult.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:No. I want my fair

EXC wrote:
No. I want my fair share of the earth's natural resouces.

Earth doesn't belong to you or anyone else. Denied as noone is entitled to a share.

EXC wrote:
You didn't work to create these.

Neither did you. Which is another reason you're denied.

EXC wrote:
The fairest system would be to divide up equally and people live in an area and under the rules they want.

You can see the future? Because otherwise the earth cannot be divided up equally.
Also, feel free to live by your own rules. I'll laugh my ass off when some random group kicks your ass and enslaves you because you have no defence against it.

EXC wrote:
Did you forget I'm a slave to the present welfare state.

Did you forget we aren't talking about current conditions, but conditions under socialism? No you're just stupid.

EXC wrote:
Over half of what I make they take already. Leaving me little time or money for my own passions and dreams. And you want an even bigger welfare state.

No I want to end the welfare state.

EXC wrote:
It is so irration what you expect people to swallow.

No what's irritating is your absolute stupidity and repetitive bullshit lies and strawmen.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: How did that

EXC wrote:

How did that empowerment work out in Venezuela? Oh, I forget, just trust you the next bunch of commies are the real deal. Give them all the country's wealth to manage, but never ever let the worker decide anything for himself. Some empowerment.

Huh?

Corruption is as corruption does.

Venezuela was a corrupt country with a corrupt leader with corrupt friends. They robbed the country of over 12 billion dollars.

When Chavez died he left is squatty little cunt of a daughter 5 billion dollars and his wife and other kids got the rest. Last I heard she was spending 10 million a week in clothing and shoes, jet setting around the world living at the properties her daddy bought with stolen money. They have 17 estates worth over 500 million dollars with over 200 thousand acres of land. Their grand children go to private schools and have private waiters, cooks and servants in the schools picking up after them and serving them lunch.

And corruption exists in our government as well in Buddhist governments and all the rest of them. It is the fault of the human ego, not the ideology of a government. Even Communism could work if the people in the system wouldn't be corrupt.

The key is to find a balance where the extremes are restricted.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The timing is

Vastet wrote:
The timing is less important than the people. It is unlikely that the best and brightest would survive such a war, making it highly unlikely that a shift in the favour of our discussion would occur. Unfortunately, the most likely aftermath of a big war which does see some survivors is one in which religion surges and knowledge is extinguished. If that happens, it'll be our death sentence. It won't matter what happens on the societal side except to those few who have to live with it until the inevitable end. By the time humanity restores the level of technology we enjoy today, too many resources will have been used to allow our descendants to replicate what we have now, let alone advance sufficiently to ensure the survival of any earth origined species. Unless such a war is started and ended quickly by people with such an agenda, I don't see it happening. It's much more likely stupid people would pursue such a goal than intelligent people. It would be the perfect time, but only if the conditions were perfect. Only if there are a majority of socialists who survive. That's not going to happen. Our best chance is in getting things changed before such a war. The necessary infrastructure and communications exist now. It is only pride and ignorance standing in the way. Bernie Sanders may have been able to kick things off. He's the only one I've yet to see who might've though. Clinton is no better than Trump in that regard. Smarter sure, but not more intelligent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

There's certainly an impact there, but that impact could be significantly lessened via education and social programmes. This hasn't been an issue for long enough to create a genetic divide. Maybe 4 generations tops. Probably only 2.

Fact is that most atheists throughout history coverted to atheism from a religion. People like me who have always been atheist are rare. The capacity to be an atheist lies in everyone at some point in their lifetime. The same is mostly true for intelligence in general.

There is no environmental divide separating the intelligent from the stupid, and there isn't one foreseeable either. That means the genetics of the stupid and the intelligent still mix regularly. Which means most people have the capacity to be smarter than they are. So in conclusion, the genetics are of less concern than the environment.

Should things keep going as they are, a barrier is inevitable, and we will split into multiple species. But that's still a few generations from being a real threat I think. By the time that becomes an issue, it will already be too late for us in other respects and thus it'll just be one more stone to pile on the cairn of humanity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
There's certainly an impact there, but that impact could be significantly lessened via education and social programs. This hasn't been an issue for long enough to create a genetic divide. Maybe 4 generations tops. Probably only 2. Fact is that most atheists throughout history converted to atheism from a religion. People like me who have always been atheist are rare. The capacity to be an atheist lies in everyone at some point in their lifetime. The same is mostly true for intelligence in general. There is no environmental divide separating the intelligent from the stupid, and there isn't one foreseeable either. That means the genetics of the stupid and the intelligent still mix regularly. Which means most people have the capacity to be smarter than they are. So in conclusion, the genetics are of less concern than the environment. Should things keep going as they are, a barrier is inevitable, and we will split into multiple species. But that's still a few generations from being a real threat I think. By the time that becomes an issue, it will already be too late for us in other respects and thus it'll just be one more stone to pile on the cairn of humanity.

Aren't we all atheists to start with, then we start to fling shit on our self saying its perfume? Kids usually just follow what their parents do, mimic actually. Even when I was going to church in my teens it wasn't until my parents said I could drive myself that I said "fuck this" and ended up at my friend's house playing games for an hour.

It will end up being like the Morlocks and Eloi. One species eating the other.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes I'd say we are all

Yes I'd say we are all atheists to start. But there's a difference between the atheism of a baby and the atheism of an adult. A baby has no information on the subject, and cannot be anything but an atheist. An adult has information, right or wrong, and uses that information to subconsciously form a belief system. Whether or not that belief system is rational is another discussion, but it is a belief system that a baby could not have under any circumstances.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Corruption is as corruption does.

Venezuela was a corrupt country with a corrupt leader with corrupt friends. They robbed the country of over 12 billion dollars.

When Chavez died he left is squatty little cunt of a daughter 5 billion dollars and his wife and other kids got the rest. Last I heard she was spending 10 million a week in clothing and shoes, jet setting around the world living at the properties her daddy bought with stolen money. They have 17 estates worth over 500 million dollars with over 200 thousand acres of land. Their grand children go to private schools and have private waiters, cooks and servants in the schools picking up after them and serving them lunch.

And corruption exists in our government as well in Buddhist governments and all the rest of them. It is the fault of the human ego, not the ideology of a government. Even Communism could work if the people in the system wouldn't be corrupt.

The key is to find a balance where the extremes are restricted.

So why ever give government so much power and free money in form of taxation? If you want to empower the working man, you can start by letting him keep 100% of what he earns. And forcing government to earn 100% of the money it collects.

The real political divide is elites vs the working man. Socialism/Communisms/Leftism are scams because they always end up being led by a strong man who tells the workers I'm with you so give me everthing. He then proceeds to distrute the wealth to himself and cronies that keep him in power.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'll laugh my

Vastet wrote:
 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

I've already revealed that you and fellow travelers don't actually believe that. If you did you'd support mandatory birth control, not allowing students to study what they please with public money, mandatory work for welfare recipients, etc.... In fact the left believes individuals can do as they please, no mandated personal responsibily. The governement bails you out and subsidizes them following their heart. The only exception is of course taxing the shit out of anyone that makes a decent income and doesn't need the government. Then then suddenly it is 'responsiblity to society' argument in order to use deadly force to steal. What a scam. 

Vastet wrote:
I'll laugh my ass off when some random group kicks your ass and enslaves you because you have no defence against it.

Stawman, I never said I was against defence spending. That should be the first duty. Your socialist state would go bankrupt paying for all the free stuff leaving nothing for defense.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I've already

EXC wrote:
I've already revealed that you and fellow travelers don't actually believe that.

You're delusional.

EXC wrote:
If you did you'd support mandatory birth control, not allowing students to study what they please with public money, mandatory work for welfare recipients, etc....

False false false.

1 There's absolutely no need or reason for mandatory birth control. None whatsoever.

2 There would be significant limits on what students could study, which you'd know if you'd ever bothered to read my posts over the last decade. Instead you make shit up because you know I'm right and you can't find a rational argument against me.

3 Same as 2. I won't force people to work when there is no work, but I JUST FUCKING TOLD YOUR DUMB ASS THAT THE POPULATION MUST BE WILLING TO WORK TO TAKE PART IN SOCIETY.

The piece of shit I flushed down the toilet last night is smarter than you, retard.

EXC wrote:
Stawman, I never said I was against defence spending.

Lies. Every single time you whine about taxes you also whine about defence spending, because there wouldn't be defence spending without taxes. You fucking moron.

EXC wrote:
Your socialist state would go bankrupt paying for all the free stuff leaving nothing for defense.

Nope. My socialist state would have better defence than every nation on Earth today combined.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote:. you

EXC wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
.
you don't have to buy, hoss. the worker takes, when he is empowered, and by everything i've seen from you over the years, you're among the parasites. you won't be in the equation at all. you'll be lucky if you're provided with a job mopping up shit in a dairy coop.

How did that empowerment work out in Venezuela? Oh, I forget, just trust you the next bunch of commies are the real deal. Give them all the country's wealth to manage, but never ever let the worker decide anything for himself. Some empowerment.

I swear this is just like religion waiting for the Commie Messiah to return. And he'll put me hell and all the true believers will be in paradise. The great prophet Marx predicted all this in his holy book. Face it, you're in a cult.

 


ok, well, all i'm saying is it's nothing you need to worry about because whether or not it works out for the rest of us, i can guaran-damn-tee it won't work out for you.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: There would be

Vastet wrote:
There would be significant limits on what students could study.

Then you should agree that the 'March for science is a scam'.

We let students study whatever they desired. To follow their heart and dreams. So guess what? Many became research scientists instead of general practitioner doctors. So there are too many scientist chasing after too few research dollars.

So now, after paying all this money for their education, these leftist scientists are demanding I pay even more to support their research to follow their dreams. Why can't they be forced into a career that is best for society, where they take care of themselves instead of demanding I pay more taxes for them to follow their heart's desire? And I got to pay massive taxes because of the doctor shortage as well.

If the major cause of war(population pressures) is removed, no one need spend massive amounts on defense. If you have a large volunteer force of soldiers and police, you don't need to pay someone who is more likely to turn the gun on the citizens that paid him than defend the citizens. You don't need taxation, governments can collect all they need from user fees.

Taxation is a scam.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen