Pharyngula

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn1ZF7yzePDe0HDTU0zXryIbpg3PZ9BHUM | August 19, 2011 10:45 AM

Is denying evolution more or less crazy than invading Iraq?

Posted by: Danilo | August 19, 2011 11:01 AM

Just when I thought that there was some rational and smart republican I had to see this and to make matters worse this guy is actually doctor.

Posted by: JediBear | August 19, 2011 11:04 AM

I hate to say this, but Ron Paul actually looks like one of the sanest of them -- that may be why they're ignoring him despite his continuing popularity with the base.

But that's not even like being the one-eyed man in the world of the blind. It's like being the blind man with a heightened sense of smell in a world where everyone is blind but fully and invincibly convinced they can see for miles with perfect clarity.

Posted by: mfd512 | August 19, 2011 11:25 AM

Getting us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is clearly less important to the Presidency than saying you believe in evolution.

How has Obamas belief in evolution (im assuming) translated to policy that I should value?

Evolution as a topic is only valuable in Presidential politics as a tribal signifier. It doesnt have any meaningful effect on policy.

Posted by: Danilo | August 19, 2011 11:36 AM

OF course that it matters whether or not he believes
in evolution.Think about it you are giving great deal of power to a man who believes that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time.

Posted by: Jack Lewis | August 19, 2011 11:44 AM

I guess the question (when dealing with Ron Paul) comes down to this: Does it matter if the President is a complete moron.
Some people think it doesn't apparently and mix this question with the following:
Does it matter if the President (Obama this time) is a self centered asshole completely bought and paid for by Wallstreet.
I'd say the answer is yes to both personally.

Posted by: JediBear | August 19, 2011 11:58 AM

@7,

The idea is that, if you weren't already somehow aware that his widely touted ideas on money, economics, and government were straight out of cloudcuckooland, realising that he's really just another science-denying religious nut might clue you in.

Posted by: viridian1 | August 19, 2011 12:15 PM

How can a candidate possibly expect to get support from the unedu-ma-cated voters (Conservatives, for those of you keeping score at home) if he/she admits that evolution is a scientific fact. You just can't give credence to the stuff "those scientists" say AND believe the word of god at the same time. It's illogical.

It's sad, really, because Ron Paul is an educated person, as are some of the other Republicans (excluding certain obvious ones). In spite of saying some good things (such as getting out of the wars in the Middle East), he's just another conservative who believes in small government (let the corporations rule the country) and defers to religion on social matters such as abortion.

Posted by: jsidhu88 | August 19, 2011 12:27 PM

Why has science become so much of a cult. Some people believe creationism some people believe in evolution, its called America where people can agree to disagree.

Posted by: maxdwolf | August 19, 2011 12:31 PM

@Lightball @16 "have become"? If you could show me a significant time in human history where national politics was a "discussion of ideas" I would like to know about it.

When you have a break on researching that you might care to google macro evolution and abiogenesis and have a gander at what the educated have to say about it, rather than creationists and ID'ers.

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 12:34 PM

I don't believe 100% in evolution. But that doesn't mean I think men and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time, nor does it mean I think the earth is only 6000 years old, nor does my reasoning originate because of the bible or religious ideas. Far from it.

I do 100% believe in survival of the fittest, and that organisms will adapt to their environment. I think we see great proof in this. This is of course the basis of evolution, but there is a hole.

What evolution doesn't recognize is that while these things may adapt and change(evolve) based on the environment - the actual DNA code itself and what organism comes as a result of that DNA is set in stone before any such organism appears.

Meaning, the basic DNA of a fish was the basic DNA of a fish before one "evolved". If I were somehow able to take DNA code of my choosing and turn it into a never seen before organism - is that evolution or is it creationism? Or is it actually neither since the combination I choose was already in existence, it was simply a matter of bringing it forward?

My DNA code was going to bring me about no matter who my parents were. While my DNA code is directly related to my parents, if by some chance it had come about elsewhere - it was still going to make "me".

I'm a programmer by profession, and I can go "create" a new program. However, the code I "create" was logically always going to give me the same result. Did I really create it? Or did I simply bring it into reality?

And then when you get into the deeper sciences, where time and space are one in the same, and all things and time periods must exist in some form at all "times", it clouds the water even more. As time is a major part of evolution.

So /shrug.

But really, evolution is more about religion and politics than it is about science anymore. And such critical thinking is just as absent as it is in those that are ridiculed.

Posted by: lightball | August 19, 2011 12:43 PM

@maxdwolf

Perhaps become was the wrong word, but in times of severe turmoil, genuinely different ideologies arise and we need to be able to extract ourselves from the nonsense of the year to year campaign and realize that we are entering such a period. Look at the elections of 1860, 1896, .

I'm not accusing the media or the American public of sinking below their usual level. I am accusing people who believe themselves to be educated and intellectual, who would use such words to distingish themselves from the larger population, of disregarding genuine campaign issues in favour of arrogance and condescension over what are ultimately sensationalist topics in our current fiscal, economic, and military crises.

Posted by: amphiox | August 19, 2011 12:47 PM

the actual DNA code itself and what organism comes as a result of that DNA is set in stone before any such organism appears.

No it isn't.

Meaning, the basic DNA of a fish was the basic DNA of a fish before one "evolved".

Not it wasn't.

And, seeing as the DNA of a human is more similar to the DNA of a ceolacanth than either are to the DNA of a halibut, and the DNA of a human, ceolacanth, and halibut are all more similar to each other than any of them are to the DNA of a Great White, and the DNA of a human, ceolacanth, halibut, and Great White are all more similar to each other than any of them are to the DNA of a lamprey, there is no such thing as the "basic DNA of a fish".

Posted by: Lars Larson | August 19, 2011 12:57 PM

Mitt Romney also believes in evolution. Those crazy Mormons and their weird tolerance for scientific study! (Doesn't help them with the lack of DNA evidence for Jews sailing to the Americas in 600 b.c., however.)

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 1:01 PM

"No it isn't."

"Not it wasn't."

Yes it is, and yes it was.

But you believe whatever you want, I have little patience for people who can't look at things beyond time.

I guess according to you it's impossible for a human to take DNA and create their own organisms.

Hell, I bet it never even dawned on you that the study of DNA is nothing but reverse engineering.

Posted by: probert24 | August 19, 2011 1:08 PM

I wish Dr Paul would come around on this issue, but in his defense he is right when he states his opinion on the issue is irrelevant. It was kind of touched on in some other comments, but one of his first steps as President would be to close the department of Education – see test scores of in the public schools. 4th graders do well but the longer they stay in the Govt system the worse they do...

Anyway, the individual States would then be in charge of what their children are taught. If this were to happen President Paul’s opinion in the matter would be moot as he would not be dictating what is being taught.

Posted by: Peter H | August 19, 2011 1:14 PM

@ #16:
"...you have oversimplified Ron Paul's view: he believes in micro-evolution, and is agnostic on macro-evolution)..."

Micro- and macro-evolution is a distinction without a difference.

@ badmedia

Equating generic code and programming code fails.

Posted by: melianthus | August 19, 2011 1:16 PM

Is this website actually run by scientists, or mere poseurs?

To say that Evolution is only a theory is actually correct. I believe in natural selection, but I don't pretend for even a moment that it isn't possible that there is some mechanism at play that we don't know about that could utterly change the way we view evolution.

If you have an ideological problem with Ron Paul, just admit it. Because the truth is Ron Paul BELIEVES in science. He just thinks its none of his business if his neighbor does. And THAT is NOT the same thing as rejecting science.

Posted by: Peter H | August 19, 2011 1:19 PM

Should read: "genetic code"!!! Clumsy typing!

Posted by: Rasmus | August 19, 2011 1:26 PM

I'm a programmer by profession, and I can go "create" a new program. However, the code I "create" was logically always going to give me the same result. Did I really create it? Or did I simply bring it into reality?

No it wouldn't. A program is just a long ASCII string.

Source code does not do anything unless it's funneled through exactly the right toolchain of software and hardware. If a single bit in one of the toolchain binaries on your computer is flipped, or if a single flip flop in the hardware is broken, your code will not compile or run properly.

And it gets worse. If you were to change the properties of your toolchain in just the right way you could get it to compile a piece of source code into a binary that does something completely different than the coder intended!

So no, you don't create programs out of thin air. What you do when you write code is you make tiny modifications to an existing physical system to make it do your bidding.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 1:39 PM

Let's take a look at some of the Libertarian Party platform's most evil parts:

«1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.»

That stance on abortion is such a cop-out. As in most cases, doing nothing is taking sides. If in large parts of the US, abortions are practically not available, are you really giving women a free choice in any meaningful way?

This is why libertarianism is such bullshit. Libertarians say they want to give people freedom to choose, but they never want to give people options.

And when they say "government should be kept out of the matter", they mean no public funding, and they mean removal of current funding for the generalized women's health clinics which currently exist.

Those clinics currently can't use public funding to perform abortions (which is a problem, a problem which libertarians refuse to help with), but the buildings can exist and their staffs can be maintained for other health services with public funding. Remove the funding, and many of them couldn't stay in operation, and would have to close.

Libertarianism would make abortion even less available than it already is, which is pretty darn unavailable, particularly in rural areas.

Our resident economist has more to say about their platform.

Posted by: Mr Ashy | August 19, 2011 1:42 PM

I just knew that if you criticised Rn Paul, you would get a bunch of his lunatic worshippers coming on here to tell you how he is the greatest thing ever and the only person who can save the nation.
How he will do that when evidence and logic must come second to ideology will have to remain a mystery.

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 1:49 PM

I just knew that if you criticised Rn Paul, you would get a bunch of his lunatic worshippers coming on here to tell you how he is the greatest thing ever and the only person who can save the nation. How he will do that when evidence and logic must come second to ideology will have to remain a mystery.

Did you also realize people like you who apparently don't understand his positions or the logic behind them would also come and dismiss him?

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 1:59 PM

No clue where this libertarians are racist crap comes from. Apparently, you don't know anything about libertarians, and falsely associate not being in favor of social programs as racists.

Get your dang pants off your head.

Some of the truest words I've heard on racism comes directly from Ron Paul. It's on a level of intelligence that racists plain and simple do not have.

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

-Ron Paul

Seriously, how can anyone believe someone who says this, or supports a person who says this be considered racist?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 2:27 PM

No clue where this libertarians are racist crap comes from. Apparently, you don't know anything about libertarians, and falsely associate not being in favor of social programs as racists.

Actually, it comes from the evidence, as provided by the likes of Lew Rockwell, that many libertarians are pro-segregation.

And then there's Ron Paul's flagrant racism:

« Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”...

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of hisInvestment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”»

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 2:41 PM

It's typical of libertarians even today to claim that segregation wasn't racist—as noted above, libertarian leaders like Lew Rockwell are openly pro-segregation—so let's see how our current crowd likes it.

Then you are a collectivist, and believe people get qualities based groups, rather than individuals.

I suppose this is convenient for you, as you can then find 1 example of something, and then apply it to the entire group.

Hmmm, sounds like the same kind of logic racists have, and the same kind of ignorance racist show when they try to claim all people of a race are like 1 example they toss around.

Time to talk about how libertarianism would deal with the real world.

I'm not holding my breathe.

As a result of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, restaurant owner Lester Maddox was forced—forced by the government!—to serve black people.

Was Title II morally wrong?

Yes, it was morally wrong. Because it is making the choices based on race, and solely on race. You shouldn't be judging people based on race at all.

By doing that, what you are doing is making people adopt the group mentality, where they think they get their rights based on that group, and not because they are individual. A person should neither gain nor lose rights based on race, gender and so on. Everyone is equal, and everyone should have the same exact rights.

Lester Maddox is obviously ignorant. However, in a free market this ignorance would eventually be punished because he is cutting out a large portion of his customers. And not just the ones he wants, people such as myself would never eat there either.

I wouldn't want to eat there at all if the guy is racist. Does the law make him not a racist? No it does not. So why support him financially in any matter? Just because by law he has to serve someone, that means we should?

Personally, I think he does the world a favor by not allowing them. Not because it's right to not allow them, but because he's professing his ignorance to the world. Don't want to serve people because of skin? Don't serve me either, your competition who isn't an ignorant racist will get my business. As a result of the law, no such luck. The racist stays in business. Screw that guy IMO.

So yes, it's nice that people are getting served, but to pretend it doesn't come with it's own consequences is foolish.

If the same person were to try such today, they'd be out of business within a month. And that's not a result of the law you cite, that's a result in a change of heart in the public. Such would not be tolerated by society.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 3:02 PM

These are just some of the things that REALLY matter right now, my self I am a believer in evolution, but I am also a believer of survival of the fittest, and it is the economically fit people who are having to pay for the economically unfit now, and that not fair.

So you really don't know what survival of the fittest means in the first place, and you're evil enough to endorse your misunderstanding as the moral way for humans to interact. (Taking your misunderstanding seriously, anyone who wants to kill you and take your stuff would be morally entitled to do so, because hey, survival of the fittest!)

and there are many more of us who if we did get to keep more of our money would be more willing to donate larger sums to non profits that can help those less fortunate as well,

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your complete lack of understanding of economics is yet another reason why libertarianism will never work.

In the real world, charity cannot replace government.

In shrinking economies, people give fewer and smaller donations to charity. And bad economies are exactly when people are losing their jobs or taking pay cuts and needing support. From the first article, "Like most groups that help the needy, the food pantry says demand is growing at a time when donations are dropping. 'Anytime our economy goes down, even slightly, it puts us in that perfect storm'"

Government does not experience that kind of death spiral that charities do in a bad economy. Government can keep up a more consistent level of support precisely when charities cannot, precisely when support is needed. This is just one reason why charity can never replace government.

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 3:37 PM

Before the libertarian biz kicks off someone better at it than me needs to explain to badmedia why he's, at best, oversimplifying the role of DNA and the environment in development. Some epigenetics is needed methinks.

That's a bit beside the point though. More important is why the extremely abstract notion about "imagining DNA", or whatever it was, represents any kind of hole in evolution theory. Seems more like solipsistic gymnastics to me.

If you are so sure of your position, then why didn't you just do it yourself?

I'm not over simplifying the role of DNA, I am being general about it. If you want to bring in things of more detail, be my guest. I will show you how it is just like the way a computer program works.

When I make a program, it often carries many different versions. Often times the program changes so much that it looks completely different(since most of the visual aspects represent a minority of the code, similiar to DNA and why we share so much).

So do I at all find it odd that humans would share so much of the same DNA as monkeys and other species? Not at all. In fact, it would be more perplexing if they didn't.

But in the end, the DNA is the code that decides what organism comes as a result. If you can show me 2 organisms that share the same DNA and are different, then I will gladly say I am wrong.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 3:44 PM

Yes, it was morally wrong. Because it is making the choices based on race, and solely on race. You shouldn't be judging people based on race at all.

Oh my god, you are so stupid.

You didn't even look to see what Title II said, did you.

This is what you just said is morally wrong:

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

You're against that, you said it was morally wrong. You are therefore racist and pro-discrimination.

Stupid, stupid libertarians.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 3:55 PM

It is demonstrated that Lew Rockwell is pro-segregation; I linked already to the evidence.

Far from shunning Lew Rockwell, the libertarian movement treats him as one of their leaders.

Ron Paul has for many years been a columnist for Lew Rockwell.

The Ron Paul letters have been debunked repeatedly over the past 20 years. There is a reason why the MSM won't report it on, only the occasional blog. He didn't write them, and yet he still took responsibility for them because he allowed it to be published under his name without knowing the content.

Oh really?

I think he did write them, but even if that was true, we still need to ask how it is that this scenario—a racist is sending racist letters out of his office—by 1992 was only happening to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul hired racists. That's because libertarianism appeals to racists. No other politician at the time had this problem. Ron Paul was hanging out with white supremacists, and that's how he ended up with a racist in his office. I suspect that racist was Ron Paul himself, but even if not, this degree of a problem with racist hangers-on is unique to libertarians. Only libertarians coddle white supremacists and make them comfortable.

Posted by: mistermuz | August 19, 2011 4:05 PM

re: @
"If you are so sure of your position, then why didn't you just do it yourself?"
I'm as sure of my position and my ability to explain it as my post implied, I would hope.

None of this gets to the nature of this hole in the theory of evolution.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 4:07 PM

Lester Maddox is obviously ignorant. However, in a free market this ignorance would eventually be punished because he is cutting out a large portion of his customers. And not just the ones he wants, people such as myself would never eat there either.

Your naive outlook brings us to the vile shit that gets passed around at libertarian Eugene Volokh's website, which is at least wisely dismantled by commenters there.

One of them adds this: "The context of civil rights in the South was such that if the law had taken the libertarian route -- that is, had protected Maddox in his right to refuse service to blacks -- the South would still be segregated today for the most part. That's because public opinion in the South supported an apartheid system in which blacks received inferior treatment. It was a method of racial control enforced socially, not by government. It was only because government intervened that we were able to break this dysfunctional social practice."

So I'll have to grant one thing; there's a good chance that commenter is a libertarian if they're hanging out at Volokh's blog, and if so, that means there's at least one libertarian who's not as stupid as you.

When you say that Title II shouldn't have been passed, you are saying the South should still be segregated today, because that would have been the result.

Posted by: ike.solem | August 19, 2011 4:19 PM

I doubt any of the candidates could even state what "the theory of evolution" is, in any meaningful scientific manner.

The same is probably true for "the theory of gravitation", "the theory of quantum mechanics", "the theory of chemistry", "the theory of biology", etc.

It seems they don't even understand the scientific method itself, in most cases.

Notice, too, that the modern scientific approach has abandoned 'certainty' in favor of probability, across the board.

Why? Well, there are endless number of philosophical arguments that science cannot address, such as "we are all living in a perfect computer simulation of reality" - no matter what experiment you did, it would follow the rules of the simulation.

Some people are just not comfortable with this notion of uncertainty, they want absolute certainty - but that notion is just a mirage, a figment of the imagination, just like a 'perfectly exact' measurement is. As far as we can tell, there's no such thing.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 19, 2011 4:21 PM

The Ron Paul letters have been debunked repeatedly over the past 20 years. There is a reason why the MSM won't report it on, only the occasional blog. He didn't write them, and yet he still took responsibility for them because he allowed it to be published under his name without knowing the content.

The looneytarians pretend their hero Ron was "too busy" to read his own newsletters. The guy is a politician. Any politician wants to know what sort of things are being connected with his name. The idea that a politician can't take 20 minutes out of his busy month to read the newsletter with his name on the banner doesn't pass the giggle test.

Face it, looneytarians, your boy is a fucking racist and proud of it. There is a reason why each of his candidacies were endorsed by Stormfront, Vanguard News, and the Nationalist Coalition.

James Kirchick wrote in the New Republic:

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles ... seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Here's a few choice tidbits quoted in National Polls:

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Reported by Alan Bernstein of the Houston Chronicle, 1996

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 4:25 PM

My links on charities are dying links, so I'm going to copy them here:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gu1LpIGjuMMJ:www.koaa.com/news/charities-feeling-pinch-of-tough-economy/&strip;=1

Charities feeling pinch of tough economy

Posted: Apr 1, 2009 4:18 PM by Andy Koen

More paper bags loaded with groceries are heading out the door at the Cooperative Care Center in downtown Pueblo. Like most groups that help the needy, the food pantry says demand is growing at a time when donations are dropping.

"Anytime our economy goes down, even slightly, it puts us in that perfect storm," said executive director Marcie Reynolds.

The food bank Care-and-Share says nearly all of their 400 partner agencies in Southern Colorado are facing similar situations. John Dase, development director for the Pueblo warehouse says many charities just "can't keep up with it, it's that bad."

"They're in the same boat as we are, 35 to 40 percent increases," Dase said.

Much of that increase is coming from new faces. Reynolds says many of clients are people who recently lost a job or encountered some type of financial crisis like a loss of health insurance.

"They're doing okay one day and in the morning they wake up and everything has changed for them," Reynolds said.

But despite the strain, Reynolds says the center will continue to be part of the safety net for those facing hard times.

"Even though the contributions may go down just a little bit, they still come in because Pueblo has a big heart."

Helping to meet that growing need can be a treat for your taste buds. Care and Share is hosting its annual Taste of the Springs fundraiser this weekend. Just stop by the new warehouse at 2605 Preamble Pt. (near Powers and Constitution) in Colorado Springs starting at 3:00 p.m. Sunday.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 4:28 PM

Tightening the black ties
THE NEW REALITY | Even wealthy are going to fewer charity events

March 31, 2009
BY BILL ZWECKER Sun-Times Columnist

"Thank goodness we don't have the Bernie Madoff problem, like they do down in Palm Beach,'' said veteran Chicago charity and civic doyenne Maureen Smith, with obvious sympathy for the charity scene in that Florida city long known for glittering ''over-the-top'' galas that have raised millions for worthy causes for many decades.

Smith, the chairwoman of the Joffrey Ballet with a reputation as a highly successful fund-raiser for many Chicago nonprofit organizations, was responding to a very simple question: How has the economic meltdown affected the charity scene in Chicago?

» Click to enlarge image
Big donors to Millennium Park mingle near the Bean in their formal finest in 2004, back when money was flowing more freely. The next big event: the opening of a new Art Institute wing on May 9.
(Sun-Times Library)

Even without being conned by the $50 billion Madoff Ponzi scheme, many Chicagoans' bank accounts are far smaller than they were a year ago. Now that the core group of people who regularly attend and support black-tie fund-raising parties have been so severely hurt by the stock market tailspin, one might have assumed Chicago institutions that provide the foundation for the cultural life, social services, educational opportunities or health care and medical research in this city are hurting badly.

Chicagoans knowledgeable about fund-raising in this difficult year admit there are challenges they haven't faced in the past.

However, many counter that positives still exist. As just one case in point, Smith noted the recent biannual wine auction held for the benefit of the Lyric Opera of Chicago. ''Look at what they raised. It was something like $1.2 or $1.3 million. That's a huge amount of money, especially given these very uncertain times."

Looking toward her April 24 Joffrey gala, Smith insisted, ''Things are going along fine. We have found that where in the past people would buy $10,000 tables [for the event], they are now doing $6,000 tables. It's a case where you have to simply sell more tables to make up the difference."

Perhaps even more surprising is the May 9 glitzy and official grand opening night for the long-anticipated Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago. The ticket price is a new Chicago record. The least expensive ticket is a staggering $2,500 per person -- ranging up to a whopping $10,000.

Smith, a co-chair for that gala, reported ''$2 million is already in and the invitations have not even gone out yet. It's the party everyone wants to be at.''

That's a point confirmed by Andrea Schwartz, the director of media relations and cause marketing for Macy's North and Macy's Midwest. ''While people are cutting back and seemingly going to fewer black-tie parties or big social events this year, I think people consider attending that Art Institute party an investment in a part of history,'' said Schwartz, comparing it the opening gala for Millennium Park.

A key player in that Millennium Park event was Donna LaPietra, herself a member of many major Chicago area charity boards -- including the Shedd Aquarium, Green City Market, Chicago Botanic Garden, School of the Art Institute and Steppenwolf Theatre -- and a key participant in raising millions for various nonprofits. LaPietra says all organizations today have to ''work smarter, think more creatively and find new ways to reach out to the community to support their goals.''

Considered to be a tireless fund-raiser, LaPietra says the realization of economic turmoil was detected fairly early on by members of Chicago's civic community.

''Once fall '08 hit and things continued to get worse, dealing with how to confront this crisis was the No. 1 topic on everyone's agenda. How to address it. How to communicate with our key sponsors and donors ... that all became part of a very important equation.''

LaPietra, along with Smith and Schwartz, pointed out appearances for social functions held to raise money for not-for-profit institutions became extremely important. ''Everyone knew we had to scale down on things like flowers, decorations and 'goodie' bags."

Traditionally given to charity party attendees, the "goodie" bags -- often extravagant parting gifts donated by retailers and high-end manufacturers -- are nowhere as lavish as they once were.

"Goodie bags" or pricier items donated for charities' silent auctions, live auctions or raffles, Schwartz said, are ''not as common this year.''

A member of the committee organizing the Harvest Ball for the Chicago Botanic Garden in September, who requested anonymity, confirmed, ''We are getting things donated, but it's much, much harder than in the past, and a lot of stores and restaurants and hotels have had to turn us down, citing the economy.''

As an example of how party organizers are ''thinking smart,'' LaPietra pointed to an April 23 fund-raiser for the School of the Art Institute, focusing on the school's fashion design program. ''Instead of flowers on the tables, we're suspending the dress forms the students use over the tables. It costs nothing, and frankly is a nice way of tying in the decorations to what we actually do at the school,'' said LaPietra.

While still an expensive ticket, Steppenwolf's upcoming big annual gala, co-chaired by Mayor Daley's daughter Nora Conroy, decided to reduce its entrance fee for supporters by one-third. Even so, the price of admission to the evening's festivities at the Halsted Street theater complex is $1,000 a person (compared to the $1,500 a person charged last year).

Along with the obvious trappings of glamor, corporate donors -- especially banks and financial institutions -- do not want to be front and center this year, listed in charity programs as buying things like $10,000 or even $5,000 tables at big parties.

''It's another way companies are being creative,'' said Macy's Schwartz. ''Instead of the corporation buying an expensive table and filling it with their executives or customers, they are making a similar donation to the organization from their corporate foundation. ... The charity still gets its money, but doesn't have to set up a table, decorate it or provide dinners for the people sitting there.''

Schwartz used that example to point out that while organizations in Chicago seemed to be holding their own on contributions, ''the party scene does seem a little smaller than in the past. ... That doesn't mean less events -- just somewhat fewer numbers of people at them.''

Man-about-town Neal Zucker, a Goodman Theatre board member and a very visible presence at most Chicago charitable functions, agrees that people are making ''smarter choices, being more selective and mainly focusing on the causes they really care about.

''While people are still saying they will honor commitments to various charities, including those big gifts -- contributions to capital campaigns for example -- they are telling organizations that they may have to postpone, if not cancel, those cash contributions.''

Another evident cost-saving measure is the increased number of e-mail invitations, as opposed to the traditional -- and often very expensive -- printed invitations sent via ''snail mail.''

''Yet another expense, like flowers, wine and the rest, you need to get underwritten,'' said Zucker, referring to the old approach. He pointed to an e-mail he received for Thursday's special donors preview of the new Holocaust Museum in Skokie, chaired by civic leader and philanthropist J.B. Pritzker. Colin Powell is the evening's special speaker, ''and the whole thing is already sold out -- via e-mail,'' said Zucker.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | August 19, 2011 4:30 PM

oops, that last one at #71 was

http://web.archive.org/web/20090403073136/http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1502979,CST-FTR-charity31.article

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 4:41 PM

ramus:

The reason I wrote a reply to your post is because you said something that is not true. I'll quote it again...

My whole point is that the function that your source code performs depends not only on the code but also on the substrate that it runs on.

But this is true also of DNA. Without the cells that build and follow it, then it does nothing. It also too needs the correct conditions and so on.

When those conditions are not meet, there is no life. Just as if the conditions for the code is not correct, it doesn't work.

What I am really trying to get at is that logic is always the same.

2+2 is always going to equal 4. Even if nobody realizes it, and nobody has expressed it yet. You can express it with different symbols, it's still the same. And that's just a function of logic.

And the DNA code of an organism in the end, like computer code and like math has an end result. And that end result is not going to change based on the DNA. Only by changing the DNA can you change the result, aka 2+3 always equals 5.

So, while we may see a 2+2 expression change to a 2+3 expression, it doesn't mean it evolved into 2+3. It's just another true expression that was always true, and was always going to get that result. 2+3=5 was there even before 2+2=4 that came before it was expressed.

Now, I totally believe that in the way things evolve on earth, due to changes in the DNA and survival of the fittest doing them out. I don't think I just sprang out of nothing etc. However, I do completely recognize the fact that my DNA was going to bring "me" about from the start, and in that manner "I" did not evolve, the sequence evolved until I was expressed and of course - in an environment that I could survive in.

I do not see why people do not understand this part of evolution. I think it's more like they don't want to admit it.

[quote]
Could you imagine two completely different organisms that have identical genomes, but different cellular machinery? I'm not a biologist so I don't know how to analyze that, but I'm guessing the answer is you could.
[/quote]

What you would be talking about is interchangable logic expression among operating systems. And sure that is possible.

However, in the end you are really only changing the environment, which is part of the overall equation.

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 4:53 PM

In other words, you're afraid to read the truth about your political idiocies. Why am I not surprised?

No, in other words I don't bother to read the opinions of people who lack the ability to debate honestly.

The only people such arguments would ever influence aren't the kind of people who make logical decisions to begin with, so I'm not going to waste my time addressing it. If that persons argument influences you to vote one way or another, then you don't matter. So why should I waste my time responding?

If such responses are all I can get here, then I won't bother posting comments. As the name of the site is scienceblogs.com, I was kind of hoping for a generally higher level of intellectual discussion.

If you present an argument that is based on substance, I will be happy to reply. Until then, you don't get ignored. To go along with the evolution theme - I'm not going to present an environment where such things survive.

Good day.

Posted by: Rasmus | August 19, 2011 5:19 PM

2+2 is always going to equal 4

That really depends on what kind of machinery you use to perform the addition.

If you give the problem to a human being you will get the answer 4, because the human is intelligent and understands what you're getting at.

Machines are usually not that smart. What if all you have to work with is a single 2-bit adder without carry functionality? That thing is going to output the answer modulo 4, which means 2+2=0.

This sort of problem might sound artificial, but it is a genuine concern in some situations as I'm sure you're aware yourself.

Posted by: Kemist | August 19, 2011 5:34 PM

@75

Like a lot of people who have not worked with living things, you misunderstand biology and the natural world.

DNA "encoding" is not "set in stone". It's a fortuitous happenstance dependant of the quircks of chemistry and random chance.

DNA is not a programming language. It's a chemical. What drives protein assembly from it is mainly a set of physical forces. To see it as "code", and its product as "information" is a profoundly human construct - useful in some aspects, pointless in assuming that living things are engineered in any way.

That's what evolution is about : getting beyond the oh so tempting, and for some people, appealing, apparence of engineering in living things. We have seen it in living things themselves, and have begun the next step : to see it in action in the chemical beginnings of life, that is abiogenesis. And those chemicals in turn have their origin in the beginning of the universe itself.

So it might be the case, as you word it, that you came out of "nothing" - and isn't that amazing ?

Posted by: wiscogrrl73 | August 19, 2011 6:01 PM

I read this post today in the last hour of my work day. As I walked out of the building for the weekend with two co-workers, I asked, "Were you both taught evolution in school?" They both agreed they were. "And do you accept it as fact?" "No," they both answered. "I mean, I can see some of the points," one said, "but I believe in Jesus Christ." She's Catholic. Is this now the norm? If you are person of faith in ANY denomonation, you now accept creationism as a real thing? I was horrified. In fact, I rushed home and created an account here in the hopes of receiving some support. *blush* Does anyone else ever feel surrounded? I've been following the blog now for a few months, but it wasn't until today, following this exchange with two individuals I really like and respect, that I HAD to sign in. I need to feel in common company. I need to know that "they" are not taking over. Give me some hope people. This godless girl needs a hug.

Posted by: steveg1961 | August 19, 2011 6:12 PM

@36,

From your link,

Self-Direction was the most strongly endorsed value for all three groups, but for libertarians the difference was quite large. If libertarians have indeed elevated self-direction as their foremost guiding principle, then it makes sense that they see the needs and claims of others, whether based on liberal or conservative principles, as a threat to their primary value.

Of course, the argument is merely an obvious non sequitur.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRkoahhhx.Yzdal_PxYjoj6ZpS6rgBzHuzY-#48851 | August 19, 2011 6:25 PM

I think Romney accepts evolution too.
Yep, Paul who was an MD does not accept evolution. If you can't accept evolution despite the evidence, you have no business having a job which requires making decisions based on evidence.

Posted by: Timberwoof | August 19, 2011 7:05 PM

Strange Gods: Thank you for your review of "Why Libertarians Are Bad People 101".

jsidhu88 asked, "Why has science become so much of a cult. Some people believe creationism some people believe in evolution, its called America where people can agree to disagree."

I don't grant your premise that science is a cult. I use Isaac Bonewits' definition of cult, presented here: http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html , and I don't see anything cultish about it or the people who do it. Sure, I can disagree that talking to an imaginary friend in the sky will end a drought. What's more, we can investigate the notion rationally and conclude that that sky-friend doesn't exist and should not be used as the basis for a government.

lightball wrote that "The people are supposed to have the power, and the elected officials are their instruments, and as such we are supposed to be voting for ideas (political ideas), not our impression of the intelligence of the candidates."

No, I want my elected representatives to be smart. They have to make decisions about all sorts of issues. They can be expert in the ones that come up most often, and they have to be able to grasp expert testimony on the rest. I do not have the time to review every issue they have to decide, and I certainly don't have the expertise and experience to make a correct decision in each case. That's what I elected my representatives to do for me. So absolutely I'll be voting for or against them based on intelligence!

James F: "Any chance we could strike a deal: we biologists won't speak as authorities on computer programming, and computer programmers won't attempt to explain "weaknesses" of evolution. Actually, as far as I know we already fulfill our part of this deal."

I'm all for it. I'm not a biologist; I just pretend to be one on Second Life. So I have a question for you. Has it been demonstrated that the genetic code is a Turing-Complete mechanism or implements any of the concepts central to computing: abstract representation of real-world data; abstract representation of discrete mathematical and logical operations; and data-controlled execution of code through selection and iteration?

It seems to me that if an analogy must be made, then the environment and "program" is the wet stuff in a cell and the physical and chemical laws it follows, and the DNA is data that the program acts on. To put it crudely, the cell (or even the multicellular thing and its larger environment) is a Second Life simulator and the DNA is a state backup file that contains plans for buildings and objects. (That analogy is complicated a but because an object can contain programming, which I'm not sure DNA does.

Posted by: mikee | August 19, 2011 7:13 PM

oops correction

Macro-evolution looks at how (genetic and physiological etc) diversity arises beyond the level of species.
Ample evidence can be found at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Posted by: Timberwoof | August 19, 2011 7:21 PM

Geeze, Nerd, way to jump to conclusions! If you'll recall from reading the thread, James F asked for his deal because of badmedia's analogies between DNA and computer programs. I suspect that the analogies are inappropriate, but since I'm not a biologist, I thought instead of making shit up and pretending it was real, I'd ask one. (If I was wrong in assuming that one should ask a biologist about biological stuff rather than making shit up, please let me know.)

If the answer is, "No, DNA doesn't act like that", then I can be more confident in saying that it's not a Turing-complete programming environment, and falsifying badmedia's claims.

My question has nothing to do with deities or bushes.

Posted by: Timberwoof | August 19, 2011 8:25 PM

"Centralization = power to the elite and few who control things who are in most cases up for sale to the highest bidder."

Is that like letting corporations decide where the work gets done or what I get to watch on TV or which web sites get faster data rates than others?

Corporations have enormous economic power, and this is translating into political power. For example, the ability of the EPA to limit pollution (which has been demonstrated to be a net positive for us air-breathing special interests) is being chipped away by corporate interests who don't want to be burdened with the expense of keeping the air clean. Instead, they want to burden the rest of us with the expense of dirty lungs and ugly skies.

Will you please explain to me how a free market free of environmental regulations will keep corporations from trampling on the rights of the rest of us to live on a clean planet?

A single badly-run company could spew all kinds of crap into the air and then fail miserably despite the best efforts of the others, and we'd still have shit all over the place. I'd rather have a government in place to regulate corporations than have corporations regulate me or pollute my environment. (Oh, wait, you're going to make me buy my "right" to clean water and air because you have the right to shit everywhere? If you lived on a space ship with limited supplies, you'd get fed to the recyclers before you did any damage.)

Posted by: Timberwoof | August 19, 2011 9:00 PM

Badmedia quote Milton Friedman, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

There are limits to freedoms. An important thing to me is a clean ecosystem, so I'll use an example from that. If one person has the freedom to chop down a forest and burn all the wood, then everything living in that forest and nearby and downwind (including the humans, if you don't want to grant rights to nonhuman living things) does not have the right to the benefits of that forest. If all the stakeholders in the forest "own" it, then the person who has a "deed" to the land it's on does not have the right to burn it down.

The analogies to this sort of situation are numerous. For example, if people live along a stream, do they have the "right" to its clean water after someone buys the land upstream and uses the water to brew beer? I suppose the brewery could install a water purification plant and then sell the purified water to recoup its costs. But did it have the right to the upstream water to begin with?

The principle supported by Milton Friedman's quote often devolves into the summation of Libertarian thought often seen here: "I got mine; fuck you!"

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 9:05 PM

Yes. It's been done with cats. Not to mention the possibility of weird little mutations that occur during development as the cells undergo mitosis. Or epigenetics. Or the influence of environment on gene expression.

Still a cat?

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 9:17 PM

Is that like letting corporations decide where the work gets done or what I get to watch on TV or which web sites get faster data rates than others?

No, I'm not sure I'm understanding your correctly, because that doesn't make sense to me.

Corporations have enormous economic power, and this is translating into political power. For example, the ability of the EPA to limit pollution (which has been demonstrated to be a net positive for us air-breathing special interests) is being chipped away by corporate interests who don't want to be burdened with the expense of keeping the air clean. Instead, they want to burden the rest of us with the expense of dirty lungs and ugly skies.

What you are saying is their is a victim to the actions. As their is a victim to the actions, those things should be illegal outright.

And btw, such regulations actually go to benefit corporations. I know it may not be obvious. But lets say I own corporation A. My competitor, corporations B makes the same process though different means. So if I can get regulations passed that effect Corporation B more than my own Corporation, then by passing such regulations I can actually gain in the long run, even though short term I may have to lose a little. Likewise, if I can put in regulations that I can afford to push through, and my competitors can't, I can use that as an advantage.

This is why we so many lobbyists. And they are constantly doing this. Sugar companies want to pass laws against artifical sweetners and so on.

When polluting should be illegal outright. What gives these special groups the ability to pollute the air? Regulations do.

[quote]
Will you please explain to me how a free market free of environmental regulations will keep corporations from trampling on the rights of the rest of us to live on a clean planet?
[/quote]

Because it should be illegal completely to pollute other peoples environment.

Again, if I throw my trash in your yard - I am held responsible. But a corporation is allowed to do it because they are within regulations? Would it be ok with you if I passed regulations that allowed me to put 10% of my trash in your yard?

[quote]
A single badly-run company could spew all kinds of crap into the air and then fail miserably despite the best efforts of the others, and we'd still have shit all over the place. I'd rather have a government in place to regulate corporations than have corporations regulate me or pollute my environment. (Oh, wait, you're going to make me buy my "right" to clean water and air because you have the right to shit everywhere? If you lived on a space ship with limited supplies, you'd get fed to the recyclers before you did any damage.)
[/quote]

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between free markets and corporatism.

What we have today is not a free market, it's corporatism/facism.

I have to buy clean water already in the system you are supporting.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/YEYsrbwCq.Y4LMwj3w9A6fczj9N_szc8#7eb9d | August 19, 2011 9:25 PM

Do you think that maybe that's why scientists CALL things a theory? Because either there is not sufficient proof - or the thing is not susceptible to proofs at all!

Actually, I'm gonna have to go with option C, which is that scientists are using a different definition of theory than the one most people are used to. Really, it only takes the tiniest amount of research to figure that sort of thing out - the reason why "it's just a theory" is a nonsensical and ignorant argument has been explained a million times.

I'd just like to remind you all Ron Paul will bring all our soldiers home starting the day he takes office.

Naïveté, thy name is lnardozi.

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 9:42 PM

Again, you've only noticed half the picture. Naturally governments are swayed by money, because the rich lobby while the poor only vote. But in a market where the only vote is with your wallet, the poor don't even get that.

Decentralization is only power to the people when nobody else can take over. We can see how well deregulated markets protect them in real life; you still end up with an elite, only now they're less accountable. What Friedman is talking about is a freedom to swing your fist that does not end at my face, so to speak, and he's right that I don't believe in it.

There are so many poor people because we have the federal reserve. Which constantly transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.

Do you know what purchasing power is? Well, everytime new money is created - you lose it. And worse of all, it's taken from you as a loan, so you have to pay back the money they stole from you to begin with.

Simple economics.
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

Lets say that in the world, there was a total of $100. Of that $100 you own 10% of it, or $10.

The only thing on the market to buy are apples. And lets say there are 20 apples. Supply and demand would state that each apply has a value of $5. With your $10 you could afford to buy 2 apples.

Now, enter the federal reserve. They come along and they create another $100. You may say - big deal, they didn't take any money from me. False.

Redo the above. Now there is $200 and you have $10. Well now you only have 5% of the total wealth. And your purchasing power has been cut in half. Now each apple is worth $10 a piece, and you can now only buy 1 apple. You've been robbed of your purchasing power, and not a single dime was taken from your wallet.

Where did that purchasing power go? To the people who got the newly created $100.

But guess what? That $100 was a loan, and comes with interest. Yeah, even though it got it's value from your original wealth it's still a loan you have to pay back since it was loaned to the government.

But $100 is not owed back, $105 is owed back if @ 5%. Guess what? That extra $5 is never created. So it needs to come out of the original $5 back to the bank.

Do that 20 times, and now the bank is owed the $100 it created and the $100 they didn't create. 21 times and it becomes impossible to pay back - just like our national debt is impossible to pay back. If we paid off the national debt there wouldn't be any money in circulation at all.

And the corporations that get the newly created money aren't the ones who have to worry about it. Reagan called it trickle down economics, but it's bullcrap. It provides a way for the corporations to control the people economically because the wealth is constantly taken from the bottom and put at the top.

This is inflation and deflation. This is why things cost way more than they did when you were a kid.

Meanwhile, the people who get the newly created money don't feel the effects, because the value didn't come from them, it comes to existing money.

It's the poor who suffer the most from this economic policy. Because they are on fixed income. When they are using their $10 to buy 2 apples to live on, and then suddenly the price goes up because of the inflation, all they get is less purchasing power. They can no longer afford to feed themselves on their fixed income.

At the very least the money which is created should not come as a loan with interest. Since it gets it's true value from the people to begin with, they should be owing us, not the other way around.

This is why Kennedy had the executive order for the treasury to issue silver backed dollars before he was killed. LBJ undid it within months of taking office.

It's not free markets that give the corporations such economic power, it's the monetary system. It's all a big giant scam.

Any politician who does not want to change this is not worth voting for period.

Lets give everyone a fair shake economically and then talk about if the people are able to make a difference via the markets.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 19, 2011 9:48 PM

I suspect that the analogies are inappropriate, but since I'm not a biologist, I thought instead of making shit up and pretending it was real, I'd ask one. (If I was wrong in assuming that one should ask a biologist about biological stuff rather than making shit up, please let me know.)

You probably wouldn't be surprised what illogic the creationists have about evolution. The idea is simple, random mutation followed by natural selection. Here is such a case, where bacteria learned to grow on citrate, which they couldn't digest at a the beginning of the study. Nothing directed, except living to reproduce.

Posted by: badmedia | August 19, 2011 10:23 PM

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

#1 tactic for dishonest debating?

Name calling

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 19, 2011 11:14 PM

badmedia the looneytarian whining:

#1 tactic for dishonest debating?

Name calling

That's wrong. But you're a looneytarian, so you're almost automatically wrong.

The #1 tactic for dishonest debating is LYING. You looneytarians like this tactic a lot. You lie about your hero Ron Paul not being a racist. You lie about your "concern" towards anyone who isn't you or isn't rich. You lie about wanting government off the backs of people. And you in particular, looneytarian badmedia, lie about dishonest debating. "You're wrong because of fact A" is no more or less dishonest than "you're wrong because of fact A, you asshole."

What you're really upset about is that we don't take looneytarianism seriously. That's because we can see how fucked up it is. And you know you don't have a good defense for this. So instead of refuting our arguments, you whine about tone. Guess what, asshole, tone trolling will win you zero points on this blog.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 19, 2011 11:45 PM

If you in anyway believe that by calling me names you are hurting me and thus helping your cause, then you are sadly mistaken.

Then why do you keep whining about being called names?

I wrote a couple of long posts, one on looneytarianism in general and one on how Ron Paul is a racist. Your reaction was to whine about my use of the word "looneytarian." So I'm forced to believe that you don't have any good arguments against my post and instead are whining about one particular word I used.

As I said before, tone trolling will not help you on this blog. But continue to use the tactic. It's apparently the only one you've got.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 19, 2011 11:57 PM

thereisnospoon is a firm believer in the slippery slope fallacy.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 20, 2011 12:27 AM

No, asshole, you are whining "I don't respond to posts that do that, so there, nyah!" That's fucking whining, asshole.

Why should I respond to someone who can't show other people even the slightest bit of respect?

What have you done to deserve respect? Respect is earned and you've failed to earn it. Whining about tone earns you negative respect here.

Now that we've got that sorted out, are you going to respond to my posts or are you going to continue to whine about tone and lack of unearned respect? Your choice, asshole.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 1:05 AM

What have you done to deserve respect? Respect is earned and you've failed to earn it. Whining about tone earns you negative respect here.

Now that we've got that sorted out, are you going to respond to my posts or are you going to continue to whine about tone and lack of unearned respect? Your choice, asshole.

Nope, have a nice day.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | August 20, 2011 2:02 AM

Badmedia, "So you are saying my DNA could produce something that is different than me?"

Of course it could.

IIRC twins have identical DNA (assuming we're talking monozygotic twins) but don't generally turn into carbon copies. It is apparently possible to end up with a male and a female, though it looks like this is disputed. My mother was an identical twin but because of differences in upbringing and other major life events she was quite unlike her twin by adulthood.

Take a clone/twin of you, raise them in a totally different millieu and you will not be you.

DNA is not a simplistic code like your analogy to source code implies. Hell, real computer software is not much like your story implies. Have you ever dealt with self-modifying code? I suspect that at least gets a tiny bit closer to the complexity of the world of DNA and the other bits of biology needed to make a living thing. DNA is not deterministic; bits get mangled during transcription (is that the right word?) as cell grow and divide.

You shouldn't try to force a complex biochemical system into the narrow straitjacket of contemporary software engineering any more than a biologist should try to explain software engineering in terms of only, say, mushroom spore growth.

Posted by: Angry Sam | August 20, 2011 4:39 AM

The fact that Rep. Paul doesn't particularly care about the supposed "debate" on evolution puts him head and shoulders above every Republican candidate not named Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson. I'm willing to overlook his backward stances on immigration and abortion, particularly since the President has little to no control over those issues anyhow. Combine his call for an end to the military-industrial complex and I can't help but hope he wins the Republican nomination, even though he has no shot. It's too bad the Dems don't have their own perpetual candidate calling people to stick to their own principles.

Posted by: Angry Sam | August 20, 2011 6:36 AM

Racism and criticism of the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds are two different things. I don't agree with his take on the CRA, but due process is a very convoluted area of constitutional law, and his argument isn't without merit. Luckily the Supreme Court happened to disagree with his position.

Are you referring to something else, though?

Posted by: Rasmus | August 20, 2011 7:01 AM

badmedia: When you're talking about 2+2=4 you have to understand that your view (which is probably the most popular view) that mathematics exists eternally in a world of ideas is only one way to view mathematics.

I prefer to view mathematics as a set of symbols and rules and a community (or a number of communities) of people who are trying to do either useful or neat things with such symbols and rules. I like that view because it assumes fewer things. It doesn't assume that there exists a world of ideas.

But that's philosophy. I don't think it really matters if you take a Platonic view or if you take a different view, unless we can find the world of ideas and use features of that world to our advantage.

Okay, so what about Biology? Let's say that DNA is merely a physical representation of an object in the world of ideas. So what?

Oh, and Zeitgeist macroeconomics? Come on!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 20, 2011 7:43 AM

So the looneytarian asshole, badmedia, is all upsetipoo because people used language he doesn't approve of. He won't debate whether Ron Paul is a racist because the evidence his hero is one contains the word "looneytarian."

In the real world, people use derogatory language towards ideas they despise. But then looneytarians hate the real world because it shows how their economic-political fantasies are unworkable and actually bad for the vast majority of people.

I have few prejudices. I could care less what your color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are. That's because you have no control over these things. I am prejudiced against certain attributes which people choose for themselves. I am prejudiced against creationists because they consciously reject reality for a 2500 year old religious myth. I am prejudiced against fundamentalists who use religion to push an anti-humanist sociopolitical agenda. And I am prejudiced against libertarians because of their beliefs which can be summed up as "I got mine, fuck you!" I show these prejudices by using language which displays my disdain.

Incidentally, I have no objection to having rude language used towards me. Turnabout is fair play.

One last thing on this topic. This is Pharyngula. We do not stick out our pinkies when sipping tea. We do not clutch our pearls and collapse on the fainting couch. We can be rude, crude and socially unacceptable. As the late A. Bertram Chandler put it: This is Liberty Hall, you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 9:32 AM

You can't make a frog out of cat DNA, therefore you don't believe 100% in evolution? Uh... really?

You aren't anywhere near being close. I'm saying the evolution does not explain the fact that the combinations that result from DNA are predetermined. And that the DNA code is for a cat is going to give you a cat each time, never a frog.

I don't doubt practical evolution in terms of survival of the fittest, the way the species that are tested on that come about due to mutations and so on.

Posted by: Kemist | August 20, 2011 9:36 AM

So you are saying my DNA could produce something that is different than me?

Of course it could, as someone else has said - an identical twin, or a clone for that matter, isn't yourself. Different experiences and environments produce different memories, minds et can even influence physiology. You are in fact the product of a random association of genetic recipe and environment.

This notion you have of DNA as an exact blueprint marks you as profoundly ignorant of biology.

Other than that, I don't think you actually understand as you didn't really address what I said. It's like saying rocket fuel can't be explained via physics because it's a chemical.

I think it's you who don't understand my argument - you're treating physical objects - chemicals - as if they were, exactly in all their details, abstractions or models. Those abstractions and models (human constructions) are useful, but they have their limits - our own limits, in fact.

Physics and chemistry are two slightly different human constructions trying to explain, for instance, rocket fuel. They have a different focus and thus are best suited to understand different aspects of the same thing. But rocket fuel isn't physics or chemistry - it's a chemical, something that exists in the real world.

And there is no such thing as random. Random is merely a result of lack of information. If all factors were known, random does not exist.

Aahhhh, determinism it is.

Looks like somebody needs an intro class in quantum physics.

Posted by: txpiper | August 20, 2011 10:08 AM

Quel Dommage,

"I'm an economist. If you're interested I can give reasons why these proposals would be economic suicide for this or any other first or second world country."

I'd like to hear your reasons. I'd also like to hear your thoughts about how having a debt that exceeds GDP, and running annual deficits over 10% of GDP.

"I don't buy libertarian portraits of the future utopia."

It looks to me like things are going to get really ugly.

Posted by: captainahags | August 20, 2011 10:16 AM

badmedia, you say you have all the answers, yet you consistently refuse to divulge them. Even with your "I won't answer anyone who won't talk to me as if I wasn't on the internet" attitude, strange gods before me @59 provided evidence and a citation about Paul's racism and his writing for a confirmed racist, and there wasn't a single name-call in there. Haven't seen you answer that.

The reason people are calling you names is because you're doing what everyone who doesn't know anything except their own blinded ideology does when they show up here- throw out their talking points, then stuff their fingers in their ears and yell "LALALALALA" whenever anyone rebuts them. Refusing to answer someone's points because of their tone scores you zero points, and if you really were so offended by the tone here, you would leave and quit annoying us with your libertarian bullshit.

(Oh god! I said bullshit! Are you going to refuse to answer me now?) But since you haven't left, I'm convinced that you're not really concerned about tone, and are rather looking for any way to wiggle out of actually answering any of the serious and valid criticisms of your ideology and its leaders.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2011 10:30 AM

I look at the way DNA works, and I recognize that it behaves much like a computer program does.

Nope, not a good analogy. A good computer program will give you the same results each time with the same data. Biology is sloppy. It will give you a different answer each time. The answers may be similar, but not exactly the same. You fail at biology like you fail at politics. You can't grasp what you are dealing with.

Random does not exist.

Only in your deluded mind. Random does exists. Tell me which pieces of the DNA aren't going transcribed right during cell mitosis. Tell me which atom of a piece of uranium is going to decay in the next ten minutes. Tell me how you expect the QM equation to break down. Quit lying to yourself, then you an quit lying to your betters.

Posted by: Rasmus | August 20, 2011 10:32 AM

badmedia: If your point isn't that computer programs and genomes exist (in an idealized way) in a Platonic world of ideas then I have no idea what you were trying to say when you wrote your first post upthread.

Posted by: Kemist | August 20, 2011 10:36 AM

All things of the universal follow laws and logic. Just because you do not understand the blueprint does not mean a blueprint does not exist.

But we do understand it, if you mean DNA, and we know it does not explain everything ! Not as a blueprint !

Laws and logic are human constructions trying to make sense of the natural world, they are not the world !

I look at the way DNA works, and I recognize that it behaves much like a computer program does.

When you have a hammer everything starts looking like a nail.

Random does not exist. Things can only appear random to a person due to a lack of information. If all factors involved were known, then there is nothing random at all.

Determinism.

That's a naked assumption with nothing behind it.

To keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

Posted by: No One | August 20, 2011 10:44 AM

I accidentally hit the reply button before I was finished.

No you didn't.

Posted by: Kemist | August 20, 2011 10:50 AM

I said these things are predetermined due to the nature of the universe, which has basic laws that it follows(action->reaction). To say you would get a different result is to say that the laws of the universe do not apply. Which is to say it is not of this universe.

That's determinism.

And it's mostly dead in modern physics.

You keep using "laws" as if they were real things in themselves rather than human constructions. That's where you're wrong. The model isn't the real world. That's where the real world differs from the programs.

Sometimes the only thing that can be predicted is action-> an array of possible reactions with different probabilities.

And it's not due to difficulties or inadequacies in measurement, but to the very nature of the real world we are observing.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 10:58 AM

badmedia: If your point isn't that computer programs and genomes exist (in an idealized way) in a Platonic world of ideas then I have no idea what you were trying to say when you wrote your first post upthread.

I misunderstood what you meant in regards to Platonic world of ideas. I focused on the world of ideas part and thought you meant like a cartesian theater type reality. Sorry about that.

I'm guessing you got this because I said things are discovered rather than created, so yes that is somewhat what I meant.

Does my response still make sense outside that error?

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 11:13 AM

That's determinism.

And it's mostly dead in modern physics.

It's math, and modern physics is wrong and einstein was right. Not to say that quantum physics is wrong, but that there is nothing random about it. Again, random is merely an illusion brought about by lack of information.

[quote]
You keep using "laws" as if they were real things in themselves rather than human constructions. That's where you're wrong. The model isn't the real world. That's where the real world differs from the programs.
[/quote]

The law is what makes you fall to the ground. The expression of that law is the human construct.

If you are unable to see the understanding there, then there is nothing I can do for you.

[quote]
Sometimes the only thing that can be predicted is action-> an array of possible reactions with different probabilities.
[quote]

No, even within an array you still have to have a factor that determines which of item is selected.

The best you can do this on a computer is to use pseudo-random numbers, and then select the item based on the number generated.

A true random number is a logical impossibility. There are actually services that exist for the generation of random numbers because the random numbers generated by computers are predictable. What these services do is take atmosphere noise, which is an unknown factor into the equation, at which point the number becomes impossible to predict.

Pseudo random numbers in general suit the purpose for most programs that need a random event. Because it's presented to a human who doesn't know the factors, and for our purposes it appears and plays as random.

But true random is a logical impossibility.

[quote]
And it's not due to difficulties or inadequacies in measurement, but to the very nature of the real world we are observing.
[/quote]

Obviously it is if random is at all used in the explanation.

Posted by: Vene | August 20, 2011 11:17 AM

I think badmedia has entered not even wrong territory for DNA now. It's just incoherent.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 11:28 AM

Oh dear. You've been sleeping for decades.

Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty relation in 1927. One of its most impressive effects, the Casimir effect, was first observed in 1948 (quite some time after it was predicted). In 1964, John Bell proved mathematically that any theory which assumes hidden non-random variables "behind" the random of quantum physics cannot make the same predictions as quantum physics... and yet, the predictions of quantum physics that have been tested so far are accurate to amazing degrees.

Yes, there is true random. Yes, things like radioactive decay do not have a cause; they happen just because they can. No, the universe is not deterministic; not only can't you measure the position and the momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision and accuracy at the same time, neither its position nor its momentum have a precise value in the first place.

Where I come from, these things are taught (well, except for Bell's theorem) in the 12th year of school. That's because the Federal Republic of Austria collects enough taxes to finance its public schools and pay its teachers as well as the people who develop the national curriculum. You've been robbed; your politicians who have the public schools financed by micro-local property taxes have robbed you.

You must be trolling me. It's impossible that in nearly everything you responded to you did so while at the same time either no where near coming close to addressing what I said, or simply debunked yourself in the process.

I sit here and say directly that random is merely an illusion because we lack information that affected the outcome...

And you quote uncertainty principle, which is completely based on the fact that we do not know?

Are you freaking serious?

And btw, the metro area I live in is almost as big as your entire country population wise.

If the program I was under amounted to only the area I lived in, that would be fine.

But how about you take all the countries of Europe, combine them together and then make a 1 size fits all program that works. Because that is what we have in the US.

What I support is for these programs to be held on the local level, which would be more like the individual countries of Europe, rather than the entire European Union.

Btw, are you in favor of the European Union?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 20, 2011 11:43 AM

Having reread the thread, I've discovered the looneytarian is not only a whiny tone troll but an ignorant whiny tone troll.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 20, 2011 12:20 PM

Where do you think the value of the new money they create comes from?

It comes from the existing money supply, and it devalues existing money. More money in circlation = inflation = raises the prices of good = punishes the hell out of poor people = makes them unable to afford simple things such as food, housing, healthcare.

So the looneytarian deigns to talk to me. What's the matter, looneytarian, you didn't get enough satisfaction from whining? Or did you break your vow of silence so you could show your ignorance in yet another topic?

Instead of discussing the deeper questions of how does fiat money work and how the money supply is controlled, I'll just consider inflation.

First, what is inflation? It's the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and subsequently purchasing power is falling. Right after World War II, one could buy a loaf of bread for 15¢, a new car for less than $1,000 and a three-bedroom house for around $5,000. In the 21st Century, bread, cars, houses and just about everything else cost more. A lot more. Clearly, we've experienced a significant amount of inflation over the last 60 years.

When inflation surged to double-digit levels in the mid- to late-1970s, many people declared it public enemy #1. Since then, public anxiety has abated along with inflation, but people remain fearful of inflation, even at the minimal levels we've seen over the past few years. Although it's common knowledge that prices go up over time, the general public doesn't understand the forces behind inflation.

Economists wake up in the morning hoping for a chance to debate the causes of inflation. There's no one cause that's universally agreed upon, but at least two theories are generally accepted:

Demand-Pull Inflation: This theory can be summarized as "too much money chasing too few goods". In other words, if demand is growing faster than supply, prices will increase. This usually occurs in growing economies.

Cost-Push Inflation: When companies' costs go up, they need to increase prices to maintain their profit margins. Increased costs can include things such as wages, taxes, or increased costs of imports.

Personally, I tend towards Cost-Push Inflation.*

Many people think inflation is evil, but it isn't necessarily so. Inflation affects different people in different ways. It also depends on whether inflation is anticipated or unanticipated. If the inflation rate corresponds to what the majority of people are expecting (anticipated inflation), then we can compensate and the cost isn't high. For example, banks can vary their interest rates and workers can negotiate contracts that include automatic wage hikes as the price level goes up.

Problems arise when there is unanticipated inflation:

● Creditors lose and debtors gain if the lender does not anticipate inflation correctly. For those who borrow, this is similar to getting an low interest loan.
● Uncertainty about what will happen next makes corporations and consumers less likely to spend. This hurts economic output in the long run.
● People living off a fixed-income, such as retirees, see a decline in their purchasing power and consequently their standard of living.
● The entire economy must absorb repricing costs (called menu costs) as price lists, labels, menus and more have to be updated.
● If the inflation rate is greater than that of other countries, domestic products become less competitive.

People like to complain about prices going up, but they often ignore the fact that wages should be rising as well. The question shouldn't be whether inflation is rising, but whether it's rising at a quicker pace than your wages.

Finally, inflation is a sign that an economy is growing. In certain situations, little inflation or deflation can be as bad or worse than high inflation. The lack of inflation may be an indication that the economy is weakening. It's not so easy to label inflation as either good or bad, it depends on the overall economy as well as one's personal situation.

*I'm a New Keynesian economist.

Posted by: Rasmus | August 20, 2011 12:27 PM

I misunderstood what you meant in regards to Platonic world of ideas. I focused on the world of ideas part and thought you meant like a cartesian theater type reality. Sorry about that. I'm guessing you got this because I said things are discovered rather than created, so yes that is somewhat what I meant. Does my response still make sense outside that error?

What I mean is that it seems that you think that there ideas exist in their simplest and purest form in some sort of reality. Perhaps they are encoded deep down in the fabric of the universe, or perhaps they exist in some other reality that is connected to our universe.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that.

I think that ideas are emergent phenomenon. I think the idea that a+b=b+a is more popular than the idea that a+b=2*a+b, because the idea that a+b=b+a rhymes extremely well with a lot of the patterns that we find in the universe. I think a+b=b+a is a consequence of the fact that two rocks on a table don't pop in or out of existence if you lay them down in a different order.

Even if you're right about the reality of ideas I still don't see how that would have any bearing on biology. My understanding is that biology is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry and physics.

Posted by: Peter H | August 20, 2011 12:30 PM

@badmedia

We sit here noticing betimes that such as you bring those names upon themselves. Richly deserved in this case.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 20, 2011 12:35 PM

I have two guesses:

...about what you might mean. They're probably mutually exclusive.

Personally, I tend towards Cost-Push Inflation.

Don't both occur? Do you mean that cost-push inflation is more common than demand-pull inflation?

I think a+b=b+a is a consequence of the fact that two rocks on a table don't pop in or out of existence if you lay them down in a different order.

I think a + b = b + a is a description of the fact that two rocks on a table don't pop in or out of existence...

My understanding is that biology is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry and physics.

Unsurprisingly, I agree.

Posted by: mistermuz | August 20, 2011 2:06 PM

There's a topic being circled somewhat. It probably has been addressed more or less, but: Our man here keeps coming back to his thing about people not being able to "think outside of time" like he can.
Putting aside whether or not that's true for a moment, what is it that thinking outside of time is supposed to tell us about the world and how it came to be?
It sounds terribly theological.

Posted by: ike.solem | August 20, 2011 2:17 PM

badmedia has apparently been saddled with a 19th century education. This means (s)he has as much to unlearn as to learn. . . the unlearning process can be much more difficult than the learning process.

To explain, at the end of the 19th century, many people thought that physics was complete - for example, see Laplace [paraphrased] - "If a mind, at any given moment, could know all the laws and all the forces operating in nature and the respective positions and momenta of all its components, it could thereby know with certainty the future and the past of every entity."

However, further physical experiments showed that it is not possible to measure position and momenta exactly for any component - that's the conclusion of the uncertainty principle - which applies to other relations than just position and momentum, such as energy and time. Hence, the concept of an 'exact' simultaneous measurement is a figment of our imagination.

(Note also that the 'hidden variables' theories that Einstein promoted to get around this problem have never gotten anywhere, and Bell's inequality seems to rule them out entirely.)

Secondly, we've discovered that identically-structured pairs of deterministic systems can give rise to radically different outcomes after short time periods, even though their their initial states are almost completely identical. This phenomenon was predicted by Poincare and first demonstrated with computers by Ed Lorenz (a meteorology researcher). Examples include things like turbulence in fluid dynamics, trying to balance a pencil on its point, etc. This was popularized as 'chaos theory.'

So, badmedia, to have a modern scientific discussion, instead of a 19th century one, you have to at least absorb the above information and abandon the Laplacian mind-set.

Otherwise, why even agree to believe that DNA is how information is transmitted? That wasn't discovered until the mid-20th century. If you're going to deny modern physics, why not also deny modern biochemistry, too?

(Avery discovered the central role of DNA, Chargaff discovered the fixed nature of GC & AT ratios, Franklin crystallized the DNA, Watson stole Franklin's X-ray diffraction work and showed it to Crick, who worked out the correct maths - Fourier transforms - to recover the structure.)

Maybe that's all nonsense, too? How can you be sure it's true? After all, X-ray diffraction is a quantum mechanical process, according to physics. Nevertheless, you speak with certainty about DNA as 'computer code' - but what about codon wobble at the third position? What computer code behaves like that?

As far as DNA, RNA, proteins and the ability of life to use energy to swim upstream against the normal flow of entropy? Note that if these molecular components were "rock solid and immutable" then change over time - of any kind, evolutionary or developmental - could not happen. Nevertheless, maintaining a high level of integrity of DNA is critical, as seen in the universal distribution of DNA repair proteins across all domains of life. A Goldilocks situation...

For more:

Pray (2008) DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation (introductory)

Aravind et al. (1999) Conserved domains in DNA repair proteins and evolution of repair systems (advanced, pdf)

Really, as D.M. points out, this should all be taught in general form at the grade school / high school level.

P.S. Ecological systems, including the study of specialized human ecology (aka economics) are even less deterministic, despite the ludicrous claims of modern economists. The value of econometric models (which are based on 19th century deterministic physical models) is nil.

Posted by: amphiox | August 20, 2011 2:34 PM

So you are saying my DNA could produce something that is different than me?

Yes.

Yes. It's been done with cats.

Still a cat?

A different cat.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | August 20, 2011 3:35 PM

Will you please explain to me how a free market free of environmental regulations will keep corporations from trampling on the rights of the rest of us to live on a clean planet?

Because it should be illegal completely to pollute other peoples environment.

Again, if I throw my trash in your yard - I am held responsible. But a corporation is allowed to do it because they are within regulations? Would it be ok with you if I passed regulations that allowed me to put 10% of my trash in your yard?

It's the government and the state that makes and enforces the laws. Regardless of whether those laws say "no pollution, period" or "no more than x g/m3". I don't see how you can logically say that the government is to blame for creating one, but the other would magically exist without it.

And are you seriously suggesting that libertarians would be happy with an absolute ban on all pollution anywhere? No internal combustion engines? No lighting fires? No shooting guns?

(I acknowlegde that bad laws and bad regulations can sometimes be worse than none. But that doesn't mean we should oppose good laws and regulations).

Posted by: amphiox | August 20, 2011 4:22 PM

There is a concept, txpiper @174, known as a "happy medium", which, I suppose might be alien to entities of your particular political persuasions.

There are many continua in biology, on which evolution is free to move, in either direction, and evolution is not bound to progress solely to one extreme. Instead it will always move towards local optima somewhere in between.

A high mutation rate means a greater number of offspring that will fail to inherit beneficial adaptions from the parent. This means a higher rate of offspring mortality, and the parent must devote more resources to produce more offspring. Thus improved error-correction offers a direct advantage to the individual is favored by natural selection.

This produces a serendipitous additional benefit that does not accrue to the individual and is not selected for, but comes along anyways, free of charge. The higher the mutation rate, the shorter a string of self-replicating information must be to successfully propagate down through the generations without suffering an error catastrophe that destroys the information over time. And thus improved error correction enabled self-replicating genomes to become longer, allowing for complexity to increase.

But if the error repair is TOO good, the offspring will be TOO identical to the parents, and will possess the same disadvantages, the biggest probably being the same degree of vulnerability to pathogens and parasites that are probably infesting the parent even as the offspring are being born. And this will result in more offspring dying from those parasites (which they will probably catch from the parent in the very act of being born), and thus an error correction ability that is TOO rigorous will be selected against.

And thus natural selection optimizes the error correction to a level that is neither too low or too high, and the evolvability of greater complexity arises as a bonus.

Your ability, txpiper, to yet again produce a citation and highlight it for all to see in bold font, to the educational benefit of all the lurking readers, that supports and elaborates on evolutionary theory while you purport to be arguing against it, is remarkable.

I am beginning to think that you are actually a stealth evolutionist, and perhaps even an educator, of the Socratic school, maybe even in biology.

Bravo! Keep up the good work in demonstrating the validity of evolutionary theory by double negation!

Posted by: ike.solem | August 20, 2011 5:10 PM

@txpiper, you must love "stuff like this" because it shows the essential nature of evolution - not towards 'progress' but towards survivability.

Consider plant evolution under a drastic climate change regimen. Those plants that throw out more variants in their offspring are more likely to see one of their offspring succeed in these radically changed conditions. What would, under 'normal' environmental conditions, have been a disadvantageous freak, under these new conditions, is a success story.

So, you also agree that 'intelligent design' is a load of rubbish, right?

You also have yet to address the issue of the evolutionary origins of belief in a 'supreme being'. Isn't it the case that such beliefs grew out of the alpha-dominant structure of proto-human civilizations? That is, since human societies were structured around alpha-dominants, it was natural that religious belief in a 'universal' alpha-dominant-type would follow?

If not, where do you think belief in such a 'supreme being' came from?

P.S. @amphiox

There is absolutely no difference between the "random" and the "appearing-random-but-actually-predetermined-from-information-that-is-impossible-to-know".

No practical difference whatsoever.

I must beg to differ, with all due respect! Contemplate the use of radioactive decay in the generation of sequences for use in computer security protocols. Never mind me, listen to this person:

This page explains why it's hard (and interesting) to get a computer to generate proper random numbers.

https://www.random.org/randomness/

a key point:
"These characteristics make PRNGs [pseudorandomnumbergenerators] suitable for applications where many numbers are required and where it is useful that the same sequence can be replayed easily. Popular examples of such applications are simulation and modeling applications. PRNGs are not suitable for applications where it is important that the numbers are really unpredictable, such as data encryption and gambling

(For such purposes, use the time gap between each sequential radioactive decay - that will generate true randomness.)

So - Yes - there IS a difference! The philosophical implications will drive you to drink, guaranteed :) !

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 9:06 PM

If not, where do you think belief in such a 'supreme being' came from?

There is a big difference between god and what people say about god. IE: Just because a religion may be wrong about the nature of god, and say many ignorant things in relation to god, it doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

In the bible there is some really good and true wisdom and understanding. My favorite bible verse is in Proverbs 8. As George Carlin said - never forget Proverbs - and for good reason. I think you might like Proverbs 8 as well for the most part.

There is a big difference between those who accept and those who understand. As the Einstein quote I mentioned earlier says, so to does the bible.

The religious people you know merely accept things, they do not understand.

Among those who understand, god is not the "alpha male" religious people make it out to be. Among those who just accept religion for what it says, what you say in large part is true - and for the reason. They model their god after man, because it is all they know.

Truth be told, if "Jesus" were to come back to the earth today, Christians would reject him and vice versa. And he even directly says all this as well. The religions of this world are evil in nature, promoting ignorance and so on.

I must beg to differ, with all due respect! Contemplate the use of radioactive decay in the generation of sequences for use in computer security protocols. Never mind me, listen to this person:

This page explains why it's hard (and interesting) to get a computer to generate proper random numbers.

https://www.random.org/randomness/

a key point:
"These characteristics make PRNGs [pseudorandomnumbergenerators] suitable for applications where many numbers are required and where it is useful that the same sequence can be replayed easily. Popular examples of such applications are simulation and modeling applications. PRNGs are not suitable for applications where it is important that the numbers are really unpredictable, such as data encryption and gambling

(For such purposes, use the time gap between each sequential radioactive decay - that will generate true randomness.)

So - Yes - there IS a difference! The philosophical implications will drive you to drink, guaranteed :) !

Hey, someone gets it finally.

The reason those things generate "true" randomness is due to a lack of information. Which again is fine and suits our purposes, but is still all about the lack of information. It just makes it unpredictable for our purposes, where as psuedo random numbers are generated based only on math. The addition of the external unknown factor into the equation makes it unpredictable.

But when we realize that the external factor is generated based on it's own sequence of events, from a logic universe, you end up right back to square one.

Of course, our entire existence is based on lack of information.

The philosophical implications are huge. When we get down to topics such as free will and choice in a universe of action/reaction especially.

To be honest, I'm quite shocked that these things have been meet with such hostility.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2011 9:20 PM

it doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

Then to prove you aren't delusion fuckwitted fool, you should be able to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Which means the equivalent of an eternally burning bush. Put up or she the fuck up.

Of course, our entire existence is based on lack of information.

Utterly and totally false. The evidence is there, but your are too entranced with your fallacious presuppositions to see reality. I pity your lack of cogency and intelligence.

To be honest, I'm quite shocked that these things have been meet with such hostility.

You come to a blog where reason and science are used, and give us presuppositions and sophistry, and not one ounce of physical scientific data? And wonder why you are shown hostility? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out your problem. You are a presuppositionalist liar and bullshitter, and we know it. So fade back into the bandwidth with the rest of the abject delusional fools.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 9:37 PM

badmedia: you are floundering. You don't seem to realize that you're talking to some very smart people here who know quite a bit about biology, physics, and economics, while you are at best naive and most often grossly ignorant.

I suggest you take a break and rethink what you're doing here, because it is positively painful to watch you make an ass of yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppFVmnmpGz8

Posted by: Peter H | August 20, 2011 9:57 PM

One more illustration of why you cannot equate genetic code with computer program code.

Posted by: txpiper | August 20, 2011 10:15 PM

amphiox,

"There are many continua in biology, on which evolution is free to move, in either direction..."

Yeah, I'm thinking the explanations enjoy that same flexibility.

===

ike.solem,

"where do you think belief in such a 'supreme being' came from?"

There are as many answers to this question as there are creative deities, which range from distinct personalities to highly sublimed but ignoble concepts.

Posted by: ManhattanMC | August 20, 2011 10:23 PM

It's been a schadenfreude fest watching badmedia get flayed alive. And still the corpse speaks.
What kind of Dunning-Kruger poster child computer programmer argues economics with an economist, biology with several biologists, politics with political scientists and historians and physics with physicists all from Ron Paul and creationist talking points?

"They All Laughed".

Indeed.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 10:45 PM

There's a topic being circled somewhat. It probably has been addressed more or less, but: Our man here keeps coming back to his thing about people not being able to "think outside of time" like he can. Putting aside whether or not that's true for a moment, what is it that thinking outside of time is supposed to tell us about the world and how it came to be? It sounds terribly theological.

Spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

"In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum."

Where as you might look at your current position as only x,y,z, I think of the current position physically as x,y,z,t.

And while looking at things with any single value of t, we have what we "see". However, it's when you start to take in multiple positions of t that things get interesting. Especially if you are able to visualize such in your head.

Even more so when you start to realize that t is not just a linear dimension, although from our perspective it appear linear because we experience it as such. And that's when you start getting in the things quantum physics sees, where in reality the dimension next to us left and right, is as "far" away as the "time" behind us. Meaning, an alternate reality where you had walked in that line, 2 feet to the left, is the same distance in spacetime away as 2 feet in the line you are visualizing walking across the room. IE: The bigger the differences, the bigger the jump. If you jump back in time 40 years, that's a large jump. But if you jump 40 years to say the "left", then you get the same amount of change.

So, why does it matter? All which is possible exists. Because if you can visualize the walk, then you can also visualize the other alternate possibilities around you. And when you remove "time" completely, then all those possibilities exist at once, and everything becomes static, without movement.

And now you may be starting to see the universe without time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY

All that is possible exists. Our reality is defined by our limited perspective in this. IE: Your reality is defined by where you are sitting, because that is all we see.

Much like a movie film. Without the factor of time, you can stretch that movie film out and view it all at once. But it doesn't become an experience until we break it up into sections of time and view it. IE: While the movie film itself is static, it is the limited perception/view of that film which brings the movie into reality.

Only in our case, it's not just a single film, a directors cut as tradtional physics would suggest(1 instance, set in motion at the big bang of which is a following result of action/reaction), and as some religious would suggest(god being the director). But is instead multiple films "laid upon" each other.

Where quantum physics is wrong is that it's not random how things change. The things they see is not a result of random, it's a result of choice. The fundamental problem that science and math can not deal with is choice. Choice is in itself completely illogical. The closest thing we can do to simulate this mathematically is - tada random. The observer effect should bring in some clues.

Simple demonstration. There are 2 possible futures for you to choose from. Now, tomorrow you can go out, see someone on the street, say something nice to the and maybe make a friend. On the other hand, you can go out and rob a bank, and probably end up in jail. Both possibilities exist - which one becomes reality is a matter of your choice.

I'm currently most interested in the effects due to other people and so on. Things like - am I tied to others, and we live in a shared reality which we all bring things into as a collective, or if it's all based only on a single person(doesn't seem to be the case, as it the relationship between choices and the physics would be easier to see).

Yes, call me ignorant for saying all this, I don't mind. There are astrophysicists who are coming to similar conclusions, so you won't be able to do it for long.

Posted by: badmedia | August 20, 2011 11:15 PM

Then to prove you aren't delusion fuckwitted fool, you should be able to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Which means the equivalent of an eternally burning bush. Put up or she the fuck up.

Looking for the creator within the creation is like trying to find Bill Gates inside your Windows OS.

I could care less if it passes muster with scientists. Or anyone else who is so arrogant as to believe anything which hasn't come across their own perspective is by default false. Our perspective of even the known universe is so small, that such a declaration is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. There is nothing physical that could ever prove it to you. Name 1 thing that you would say would be proof of the creator god to you. There is nothing, because it could all be faked and done via advanced technology and amount to nothing but tricks.

Tell me the 1 thing that could physically happen that would make you change your mind? A man who appeared next to you? A man who knew your history? Able to read your thoughts? Heal you? Teach you advanced physics?

Utterly and totally false. The evidence is there, but your are too entranced with your fallacious presuppositions to see reality. I pity your lack of cogency and intelligence.

If you were able to go with your current knowledge into the body of a bird, you are not a bird. You are a man in a birds body. The only way to be a bird is to have only the knowledge and person experience of the bird. Lack of information defines our reality.

You come to a blog where reason and science are used, and give us presuppositions and sophistry, and not one ounce of physical scientific data? And wonder why you are shown hostility? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out your problem. You are a presuppositionalist liar and bullshitter, and we know it. So fade back into the bandwidth with the rest of the abject delusional fools.

I expected a higher level of intelligence, yes.

Posted by: txpiper | August 21, 2011 1:10 AM

aquanerd09,

In the parade of arguments, the ones that don't recognize the narrow and finite limits of human perception are the poorest. Perhaps you have never heard of 'transcendence', but this word, like the word 'infinity', represents something real that our minds can only barely comprehend. Your response to your niece was more juvenile than her question.

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | August 21, 2011 1:22 AM

Badmedia's fanatical defense of Ron Paul reminds me of the perservating Oprah fangirl who was here several months ago.

aquanerdo9 @198
It is deities all the way up and turtles all the way down.

Badmedia

Where quantum physics is wrong is ...

This takes the cake - is there no field where you don't know more than the experts who have spent a lifetime learning and advancing our knowledge.

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 2:23 AM

Damn that's simplistic. What you are trying to describe is called hyperinflation. While it has happened (Germany after World War I is the most famous example) it's extremely rare and happens only under unusual circumstances.

I was talking about normal inflation, which in the US and Europe since World War II has generally run at between 3% and 6%. There was the double digit inflation of the 1970s, commonly ascribed to OPEC tripling the price of oil and then restricting oil exports to the US, but (a) that was unusual and (b) didn't even approach hyperinflation.

No, hyperinflation doesn't kick in until the interest levels start to become unpayable. At which point, the only way to pay the existing interest is to continue to increase the money supply at an ever increasing rate in order to use a portion of the newly created money to appease the existing interest. This is of course a downward spiral and eventually leads tot he money being worthless.

The CPI no longer takes into account oil and food is the only reason it is so low.

Furthermore, the reason the why the dollar has managed as long as it has in the face of history is because it has been accepted as the world currency, which has allow us to export the inflation. As not all the money is hitting our markets. However, we are starting to see some of that money coming back now.

We have used our military to keep the currency as such, because OPEC takes the dollar for oil. One of the little things not really mentioned about Saddam that really sealed his fact was the threat to go to the Euro. Iran says the same. By doing this, we keep oil loosely tied to the value of the dollar.

Now then. It's not so much the inflation itself that I'm upset about. You have to create new money in order for things to flow. However, it has to be done in direct proportion to the economy, NOT at the whims of those in office who add money as they think they see fit.

That lesson was learned in the Continental Dollar and is the entire reason the constitution requires gold and silver etc. They did it in an attempt to keep politicians from inflating to much. As the natural inflation of it would somewhat keep up with the market. It's far from perfect, but it was done because politicians can not be trusted.

If they could be, then it being issued in direct proportion to the economy would be best. IE: To match normal market inflation. In which case, the average cost of goods should neither increase, nor decrease aside from their own natural inflations and deflations in supply/demand.

However, that it comes at a loan with interest is absolute BS. That we have an income tax as a result is absolute BS. Congress should create the money by themselves - DEBT AND INTEREST FREE. The money that is created is used to pay for the government, because it is an invisible tax on the people as I pointed out. Fraction Banking should be outlawed completely for the theft that it is.

If any of us did "fractional banking" we'd go to jail for counterfeit. They do it legally.

High inflation can hurt people on fixed incomes. If you had bothered to read my post #161 I even said so quite explicitly. I also qualified my remarks by specifically referring to unanticipated inflation.

Then why support it if you realize it? Our system is in a constant state of deflation and inflation. It gets natural deflation because of the fact money is all loaned, and @ interest. Which is why all the banks have to do is stop loaning out money to stop the economy - which they have done in the past in order to seize any assets used as collateral.

A looneytarian who's anti-corporate and who doesn't worship at the feet of St. Ronnie? A sure sign of the apocalypse.

Reagan before he was elected = great. Reagan after elected, not so much.

You are absolutely clueless about the national debt. You need to find out who it's owed to. The answer will probably surprise you.

I know about bonds and such. The largest owner of the debt is the federal reserve and the government itself. You have some citizens who own a good portion as well, but it's spread out.

Now, tell me what is in it for those to buy the bonds.

Also, admit to the bonuses of what a bank will get from purchasing these things over a normal human being. I'll be conservative and say, 30%.

I don't feel like giving a lecture on what money is, how it's generated, and how it circulates. Go read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. He's a conservative, anti-government type so he probably won't upset you too much. My major objections to Sowell are he tends to be superficial and writes in an angry tone, often accusing others of economic ignorance, as if that is the only possible explanation for disagreement with his views.

There's also Charles Wheelan's Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science. Wheelan is an American correspondent for The Economist magazine so he's used to writing about economics for the non-economist. The book is well written and easy to follow.

Money is nothing more than a value on the transfer of energy.

I know things get more complicated in detail. I'm being simplistic on purpose. Because it is all built upon the principles of fractional banking, and a monetary policy based on debt. And that is the main part I personally care about economically. I can appreciate those who study things further, but I can not subscribe to theories of "easy credit" and other things, which are morally bankrupt and pay no heed to those which they are taking the value from.

There is no reason for the country to have a debt. The money should be issued straight from the government - debt free. Because "we the people" are the supposed owners of the government, and it's "we the people" that the newly created money gets it's value from.

I do appreciate the intelligent response.

Posted by: Mercurial Muse | August 21, 2011 4:51 AM

Ron Paul has my vote. Evolution is a non-issue. It is not like global warming, which is a man-made concern and thus requires a politcal response. Species will continue to evolve regardless of which political party holds power. It's like arguing over what to call the color of the sky. Who gives a fuck? It is what it is.

Go ahead and support your war-monger Obama who pays lip service to peace, and then surges the Afghan war and bombs the shit out of random Arabs with drones while letting Netanyahoo get away with illegal land grabs in Gaza with America's blessing. I never thought Obama would turn out to be an Uncle Tom, but Ralph Nader was definitely right on that score. Obama is Bush light, with dark skin. Pathetic!

Posted by: Nightjar | August 21, 2011 6:08 AM

Your response to your niece was more juvenile than her question.

Oh, are you suggesting that perhaps it should have been followed by a quick and simple introduction to the concept of "special pleading"?

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | August 21, 2011 7:10 AM

Go ahead and support your war-monger Obama who pays lip service to peace, and then surges the Afghan war

Somewhat off-topic for the main discussion, but I thought I'd point out Obama campaigned on the issue that the Iraq was was a distraction from the "real" war in Afghanistan, and that if elected he would divert troops and resources from the former to the later. He specifically said "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars". Regardless of whether that was a good idea or not, and regardless of whether anything else Obama has done or not does is good or bad, complaining that "Obama ran on a pacifist ticket, then renaged on his promises by intensifying the Afghan conflict" is at best ignorant and wrong, and at worst a lie.

Posted by: mistermuz | August 21, 2011 7:47 AM

badmedia @#195

Well thanks, but this:
"So, why does it matter? All which is possible exists. Because if you can visualize the walk, then you can also visualize the other alternate possibilities around you. And when you remove "time" completely, then all those possibilities exist at once, and everything becomes static, without movement."
...doesn't tell us why it matters at all. In fact nothing you've said there does.
I really don't have the time to delve into it but from my vague readings this seems more like the "What the @#@$% do we Know?" version of astrophysics and cosmology to be frank.
The question remains: what does positing a position of absolute knowledge across all time and space and/or of all possibilities existing simultaneously (assuming one can exist, which I'm not sure it can beyond the theoretical, aposition you will never hold, do for you, or us for that matter?
How does considering this argue for any percieved hole in evolution theory?

I suggest you have talked youself into a sort of 'determinism of the gaps' via this approach, but speculating peoples minds doesn't do too well in internet discussions.

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | August 21, 2011 11:01 AM

badmedia

I know Nerd of Redhead can be a tad "blunt", but you really should click on the Dunning Kruger link. Understanding the DK will help you avoid embarrassment in many aspects of life, not just Internet discussions.

Tis - I have a question about how inflation is calculated. How does the calculation distinguish between paying more for the same old stuff and paying more for newer better stuff? Is suspect inflation is not as bad as the numbers may suggest.

I have seen Ron Paulists and other Fed Bashers use automobile prices as a particularly dishonest example of how inflation is much worse than the official values. They ignore the fact that a modern car has airbags (even for side impacts) and way better structural crash protection, gets much better gas mileage, emits much less pollution, and lasts twice as long as a 1970s car. The modern car also has anti-lock brakes and often has all wheel drive.

To all - Do some of Badmedia's goofy economic ideas come from Zeitgeist?

Posted by: Opus | August 21, 2011 11:19 AM

The critical point to keep in mind when talking to a libertarian true believer is that, for them, ideology overrides reality. When badmedia says

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

the fact that this is demonstrably incorrect is immaterial. His/her ideology says that it is correct, and that is all that matters.

To True Believers like badmedia, if libertarian ideology says that there is no such thing as true randomness then the Uncertainty Principle has been falsified. The truth has been passed down from on high and badmedia will believe that perceived truth and go forward to preach to those of us whose world is constrained by reality.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 21, 2011 11:56 AM

I'd like to thank 'Tis again for sharing his economic wisdom and using it against the looneytarians.

You are absolutely clueless about the national debt. You need to find out who it's owed to. The answer will probably surprise you.

I know about bonds and such.

lol!

Posted by: Rasmus | August 21, 2011 12:32 PM

To all - Do some of Badmedia's goofy economic ideas come from Zeitgeist?

Not all of it, but the idea (see post #107 upthread) that the banks have set up the game so that there will never be enough money to pay back both the loans and the interest is the central "tenet" of Zeitgeist's economy section.

Ron Paul thinks that the opposite is true, that the banks make more money than people can ever pay back.

badmedia seems to be worried about both these alleged problems...

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 1:57 PM

The critical point to keep in mind when talking to a libertarian true believer is that, for them, ideology overrides reality. When badmedia says

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

the fact that this is demonstrably incorrect is immaterial. His/her ideology says that it is correct, and that is all that matters.

To True Believers like badmedia, if libertarian ideology says that there is no such thing as true randomness then the Uncertainty Principle has been falsified. The truth has been passed down from on high and badmedia will believe that perceived truth and go forward to preach to those of us whose world is constrained by reality.

I never said that at all.

Being as I'm former military, I've had my dealings with the EPA, and had to pull details that were oriented towards following EPA regulations. And the military would be fined rather large sums if things weren't done a certain way.

I think pollution should be outright illegal, and that regulations only go towards making pollution legal for certain people(aka corporations with the lobbyists). IMO, pollution regulations would be like me getting a regulation that allowed me to throw like 10% of my trash in your yard.

I'm more harsh than liberals when it comes to polluting the environment, not less.

However, the US government does in fact have a horrible track record when it comes to environmental things. And, private businesses would be more accountable to LAWS that outlawed pollution. I seriously doubt that quote meant that the private businesses would be policing themselves, and if it does then it's wrong. I wouldn't say the government was completely unaccountable.

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 2:16 PM

"The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance."

John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919 - discussing, among other things, the cause and dangers of hyperinflation.

Are you talking about the use of "easy credit" in order to advance the market? The argument that while the money is created and the inflation occurs, because that money is put to use towards advancement? IE: You give someone a loan, and then they take that money and create a new business, or produce a new product, etc?

And because of this, market size is increased and thus the inflation is offset - in the same manner I mentioned earlier that the currency should be issued in direct proportion to the economy.

Resources and things of value being the point of the quote.

And that the failure to do so leads to hyperinflation. Is that not just a reason as to why it gets to the point where the interest is to high.

I could go along with that somewhat, if not for the interest. Because of the interest, I disagree. Again, the interest money itself is never created, so any such endeavors carry a negative with them to start. And even if the specific endeavor were successful, it would mean that someone else by default has to fail, because there isn't enough money to go around.

You are already goujons, man. Why do you keep coming back for more?

Same reason a cat scratches the tree.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | August 21, 2011 2:44 PM

That was a lousy bit of blockquoting.

Again and in lay language - hyperinflation is not simply high inflation and is not caused by your imagined exponential increase in interest rates.

Hyperinflation happens when a government and/or its central bank tries to get out of a temporary hole by printing money which is backed by neither assets nor growth.

Hardly surprisingly, this wheeze does not solve whatever the problem was but the pressure is now on to do it again ... and ...and again in the firm but idiotic belief that maybe a 6 will come up at the 75th throw.

After several iterations of this your entire currency is worthless, whatever the original problem was it has not been solved and nobody in the entire global finance system trusts you.

Weimar Germany -> Hitler is the textbook example but the same adventures in Hungary in the 1950s and Zimbabwe more recently are available for you to study, should you really want to understand all this.

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 3:16 PM

Well thanks, but this:

...doesn't tell us why it matters at all. In fact nothing you've said there does.

I really don't have the time to delve into it but from my vague readings this seems more like the "What the @#@$% do we Know?" version of astrophysics and cosmology to be frank.
The question remains: what does positing a position of absolute knowledge across all time and space and/or of all possibilities existing simultaneously (assuming one can exist, which I'm not sure it can beyond the theoretical, aposition you will never hold, do for you, or us for that matter?

Sorry, I thought it would be somewhat obvious that such understandings is what lead to Einsteins theories regarding spacetime.

While some may ridicule me for it, such thought experiments reveal alot to those who participate.

"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Einstein.

How does considering this argue for any percieved hole in evolution theory?

What is evolution without time? What is evolution when all points in "time" exist at once?

I suggest you have talked youself into a sort of 'determinism of the gaps' via this approach, but speculating peoples minds doesn't do too well in internet discussions.

Copernicus didn't do to well trying to debate people of his time either - didn't make him wrong. Which is of course not proof that I am right either, however I will never respond to insults, or base my thoughts and ideas based on if they will play well with the audience.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 21, 2011 4:35 PM

The money is not worthless outside the US. To say that is like saying a load of cattle I own is worthless until I sell them. It's still an asset with value.

You really have no grasp of what you're talking about. Yes, money from one country is worthless outside that particular country. If I went to my local shop and tried to pay with dollar, they would refuse me service.

What it worth something is the possibility to exchange those money into something I can use - a possibility which is guaranteed by the US Federal Bank to central banks elsewhere, which in turn guarantee it to the banks in their countries (I am ignoring the exchange companies, which have no such direct guarantee, but which are implicitly covered by the banks' guarantee).

As I said before, and as 'Tis Himself patiently explained at great length, it's not money that's worth anything - it's the implicit guarantee they carry. That's why some countries' currency can't be used outside their borders - nobody trust the guarantee.

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 5:11 PM

My appologies for the horrible formatting. I am trying to make a mental note to go over before posting, but I keep forgetting.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 21, 2011 5:21 PM

Sorry about the blockquote failure in #232

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 21, 2011 5:30 PM

If the token is convertible on demand into a commodity like gold, the token is known as commodity money. The exchange value of commodity money varies, but is usually greater than its value as a commodity. A precious metal coin is simply a token potentially convertible into the bullion that comprises it.

A problem with the Spanish Empire was that the large amount of gold and silver gotten from their conquest of the Americas led to rapid inflation.

We simply put our trust into it because of that status, and we hope and trust that it will be taken care of properly. However, they obviously do not - turn on the TV. I've seen so many businesses go out of business in the past couple of years. I've watched the spending dry up, and so on.

What does the first part of this paragraph have to do with the second part?

Government is bad at regulation, therefore we need MORE LAWS!!

LOL! Good summary.

That any bank could fail is damn near mind-boggling. The amount of greed such requires is nauseating.

Alright, he has a point here.

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | August 21, 2011 5:31 PM

sauron 496 @226

Regulations ARE laws, you stupid fuck.

There is difference

Laws are enforced by big manly policemen with guns.

Regulations are enforced by effeminate nerdy (even female) bureaucrats.

Right wing authoritarians like laws and despise regulations. Especially when the laws control women's reproduction. The pro-choice movement would make more headway if they said they opposed attempts to regulate abortion.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 21, 2011 5:41 PM

Among those who understand, god is not the "alpha male" religious people make it out to be. Among those who just accept religion for what it says, what you say in large part is true - and for the reason. They model their god after man, because it is all they know.

So... you understand. If you understand, you can explain.

Please try to explain why you think you're right.

The reason those things generate "true" randomness is due to a lack of information. Which again is fine and suits our purposes, but is still all about the lack of information. It just makes it unpredictable for our purposes, where as psuedo random numbers are generated based only on math. The addition of the external unknown factor into the equation makes it unpredictable.

That's something you still haven't understood.

Deterministic chaos is deterministic. That's pseudorandom.

The random of quantum physics is not deterministic. Really, it's not. It is truly random. Reality itself is a blur.

Even more so when you start to realize that t is not just a linear dimension, although from our perspective it appear linear because we experience it as such. And that's when you start getting in the things quantum physics sees, where in reality the dimension next to us left and right, is as "far" away as the "time" behind us. Meaning, an alternate reality where you had walked in that line, 2 feet to the left, is the same distance in spacetime away as 2 feet in the line you are visualizing walking across the room. IE: The bigger the differences, the bigger the jump. If you jump back in time 40 years, that's a large jump. But if you jump 40 years to say the "left", then you get the same amount of change.

You seem to be trying (and failing) to explain the multi-world interpretation of quantum physics to us.

You don't even know that it's not the only possible interpretation. *sigh* Spend a few hours in Wikipedia to learn the basics, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY

What a stupid video. The voice tells one thing, and the walls of text tell another thing at the same time. *eyeroll* We know what a dimension is, thankyouverymuch.

Where quantum physics is wrong is that it's not random how things change. The things they see is not a result of random, it's a result of choice.

Show me, and I'll learn Swedish just to phone the Nobel Committee.

I'm completely serious. Show me, and I'll learn Swedish just to phone the Nobel Committee.

Hint: What is choice?

What is choice at the Planck level?

How do brains work?

There are astrophysicists who are coming to similar conclusions

That's how it seems to you, because you haven't got the foggiest idea what they're saying.

Hint: the universe doesn't consist of people, and quantum physics isn't a theory of sociology.

Looking for the creator within the creation is like trying to find Bill Gates inside your Windows OS.

Well, no. It's like trying to find "© Microsoft Corporation" and maybe an Easter egg inside your Windows OS.

In the parade of arguments, the ones that don't recognize the narrow and finite limits of human perception are the poorest. Perhaps you have never heard of 'transcendence', but this word, like the word 'infinity', represents something real that our minds can only barely comprehend. Your response to your niece was more juvenile than her question.

So, what makes you think that anything transcendent actually exists?

Inventing a term doesn't make what the term describes spring into existence, you know.

Badmedia's fanatical defense of Ron Paul reminds me of the perservating Oprah fangirl who was here several months ago.

...who then mentioned she was brought up by the TV in general and Oprah in particular. A truly sad case.

Furthermore, the reason the why the dollar has managed as long as it has in the face of history is because it has been accepted as the world currency, which has allow us to export the inflation.

So why does any other country not have high inflation? Why did most of the Euro-zone countries have inflation well below 3 % even before 1999?

That we have an income tax as a result is absolute BS.

Is there any country in the world, other than the hyper-rich ones like Brunei, which lacks an income tax!?!

I'm beginning to understand why there are so many libertarians in the USA – the question is actually why there are so few outside the USA, and that question is answered by the fact that so many libertarian arguments apply only to the USA.

Money is nothing more than a value on the transfer of energy.

*blink*

Please do explain.

I think pollution should be outright illegal

Then why do you call yourself a libertarian?

Sorry, I thought it would be somewhat obvious that such understandings is what lead to Einsteins theories regarding spacetime.

...what? Relativity completely ignores quantum physics. It's not built on it as you imply.

While some may ridicule me for it, such thought experiments reveal alot to those who participate.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment was only a thought experiment for decades. The authors used it to show that quantum physics sometimes led to an absurd result – and claimed that because quantum physics was so absurd, there had to be something wrong with it.

When the experiment was finally performed, the absurd result Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen had predicted really came to pass. Reality really is counterintuitive, and there's still no evidence that anything is wrong with quantum physics.

Oh, BTW, it's a lot. One lot, two lots, three lots...

"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Einstein.

Imagination can be limiting, as the little story I just told shows.

Fortunately, science isn't limited by imagination.

What is evolution when all points in "time" exist at once?

What is "at once" when there is no time?

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 5:57 PM

A problem with the Spanish Empire was that the large amount of gold and silver gotten from their conquest of the Americas led to rapid inflation.

Congress is given the power to coin gold and silver and regulate the value of it.

Meaning, simply bringing in more gold doesn't increase the money supply.

What does the first part of this paragraph have to do with the second part?

The banks that went bankrupt, the economy in the toilet as a result? Businesses going under because the economy is in the toilet?

Government is bad at regulation, therefore we need MORE LAWS!!

LOL! Good summary.

Actually, it's one of the more ignorant things anyone has said in this thread to me.

Regulations do not make pollution completely illegal. While most people focus on "20% less pollution due to regulations", I'm thinking well the other 80% is still legal. It in effect actually legalizes pollution.

And who do you think influences these regulations? Perhaps all those companies with all the lobbyists?

IMO, pollution and doing such things to the environment is a crime that has a victim. If I throw my trash in your yard - I've committed a crime. I'll have to pay restitution, or clean up the mess and pay for any harm I may have caused you. The same should apply for corporations, and such money should go to the victims, not to the government in the form of fines(although fines could certainly be added to restitution).

Who says there should be regulations against murder and rape?

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 21, 2011 6:06 PM

The banks that went bankrupt, the economy in the toilet as a result? Businesses going under because the economy is in the toilet?

How did businesses go bankrupt because of fiat currency?

Posted by: badmedia | August 21, 2011 6:24 PM

Let's consider fiat currency. First, realize that fiat money is not a fraud. It is a social system, wherein something with no intrinsic value is agreed upon as a medium of exchange in order to simplify exchanges and to make it possible for someone who has nothing tangible that another person wants to still exchange with that person without having to first exchange with others.

Fiat money is not the fraud I agree. As I keep saying, if it was issued in direct porportion to the economy - as the feed claims to do, then it's fine.

It's using it to rob the people of purchasing power that is the fraud. Only creating it via loans @ interest. Inflating and deflating for personal profits or politics.

The other thing to realize is that nothing, not a damned thing, has intrinsic value. Various commodities may have values fixed either by law or by agreement, but these values are artificial.

True, this is one thing about the gold standard that some people don't like.

Money is a fiction. As has been already said, it's a replacement for bartering. Instead of "I'll give you five bearskins for that horse" it's "I'll give you five hundred thalers for that horse." It seems more civilized to use money rather than barter. But bearskins will keep you warm on cold nights but thalers won't.

It is more civilized, especially when it's honest money.

Coins and bullion, the gold standard so admired by the Teabaggers, is almost as inherently worthless as fiat money. Gold and silver do have value on the market. But their values, particularly gold, are artificially high. If gold wasn't seen as a precious metal its cost would be much less than it is.

I'm not a fan of the Tea Party believe it or not. IMO, it was nothing more than an attempt to hijack the enthusiasm for the principles of Ron Paul. Pro-war, anti-gay marriage and in general no different than neo-cons of the GWB years.

Ron Paul is btw not in favor of a gold standard, and neither am I. The gold standard is mostly only mentioned for educational purposes with inflation.

Ron Paul actually supports allowing competing currencies to the dollar. So that people would have the ability to use a different currency for their savings, to avoid losing purchasing power through inflation.

My perfect world system would be colonial scripts system. Where the government handles the money supply, and issues it in direct proportion as I've mentioned a few times. Which would not be issued as debt, and would not include interest as a result. The problem with this is nothing forces the politicians to only issue it as needed.

So it's the psychological aspects of gold which drive up its price. Gold is valuable because we agree it's valuable. Gold coinage is "good" because we say it's "good." Its "goodness" is purely fictive.

I do agree for the most part. However, I do not think it's at all fair to present it like the psychological aspects are without merit, without reason, or that economic conditions, including the amount of money in circulation goes towards determining that perceived value.

Similar arguments can be made about fiat money. We say a dollar is worth a dollar and a pound is worth a pound and a euro is worth a euro because we say so. Currency markets play complicated what-if games to determine the relative value of the dollar to the pound and the euro. But in the end the game is primarily psychological.

The purpose of the gold standard and commodity backed dollars had little to do with being able to get value back from the dollar directly. It's done as a means of keeping the currency from inflating beyond the markets. Nobody really turned their dollars in to redeem the gold it was worth. But because it was tied directly to the amount of gold in the reserves, it put the brakes on inflation.

Posted by: Opus | August 21, 2011 6:56 PM

Umm, Badmedia?

Can you take your eye off that shiny, gold-foil covered chocolate coin for a minute?? Just one brief moment??

In your comment #221 above you said, when reduced to its essence:

Government involvement in our lives is BAD. We need more Government involvement in our lives!!

Does something sound a bit strange about that?

Wait, quit looking at the shiny chocolate coin!!

Why are you advocating for something that you oppose? If it's bad when the government boogeyman comes to see us, why would we want the government boogeyman to come see us even more often??

I'm beginning to think that 'badmedia' refers to the quality of the data storage involved in your cerebral processing. . .

Posted by: amphiox | August 21, 2011 9:47 PM

Sheesh. The Tragedy of the Commons dates at least back to the Ancient Greeks.

Libertarianism as a practical philosophy for managing human affairs has been dead in the water since before Aristotle.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 22, 2011 1:26 AM

You say exactly why it's not worthless after telling me I'm ignorant for saying it's not worthless.

If you don't understand the difference between something being worth something in itself, and something being worth something because someone else guarantee the value of the thing in a commodity that you'll accept, then it's no surprise that you have so little understanding of economics.

You're just being anal and pretending like because I took what you said into account, I didn't know what money is or where it gets it's value. Of course when I made my statement I was considering such.

You might consider such, but you clearly don't understand it. This is demonstrated in your answers to me, and moreso in your answers to 'Tis Himself.

I'm not sure why you would believe a central bank is the only way conversion could be guaranteed. We do still have a treasury and mints, and it would of course be wise to convert such things for any country where we have healthy amounts of trade.

How exactly would the mint guarantee the value of dollars to a foreign bank? How would the treasury? The only guarantee the foreign bank will accept is the implicit guarantee that they can get something they value for the money (e.g. their own currency)

Posted by: badmedia | August 22, 2011 6:32 AM

How exactly would the mint guarantee the value of dollars to a foreign bank? How would the treasury? The only guarantee the foreign bank will accept is the implicit guarantee that they can get something they value for the money (e.g. their own currency)

First explain to me this notion that only banks can do this. Explain to me why if such a demand exists, why there wouldn't be entities to make such transfers possible. Why would it be impossible for the US Treasury to carry out the same function? Oh yeah - they can.

If the need for such transfers exists, then someone will make it happen. Just like the Templars who had the service for people traveling from Europe to the Middle East, so people wouldn't have to much such trips while carrying large sums of money. The demand was there, and someone supplied it.

Hell, there is a freaking currency market where people trade back and forth between currencies for profit.

Oh yeah, I forgot. If we implement such laws, suddenly our carriages turn back into pumpkins, and we lose all technological gains of the past 200 years, so such markets are surely to go to the wayside. /rolleyes.

PS: Go try and buy oil without US dollars and let me know how that works out for you.

And yet, the funny thing here is - you're entire argument is that it's ok that banks demand there be value behind the money, but it's fucking looney tunes if individuals expect it. It's fucking looney tunes if individuals gets upset if the their currency is being constantly devalued.

I'm ignoring the rest of what you said, you can either accept that I was including that money can be exchanged, or you can keep on ignoring that fact in your pathetic attempts to belittle me. I've come expect this much from a group of people who can't understand the difference between attacking people and attacking positions and lack the personal integrity to give a damn towards it.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 22, 2011 7:10 AM

Congress is given the power to coin gold and silver and regulate the value of it.

Meaning, simply bringing in more gold doesn't increase the money supply.

Gold and silver have market values independent from any connection to money. Do you think it could end well if Congress ignored supply and demand and artificially declared a value for them?

Ron Paul actually supports allowing competing currencies to the dollar. So that people would have the ability to use a different currency for their savings, to avoid losing purchasing power through inflation.

Over here, many loans are taken in Swiss Francs instead of € (or, before that, the local pre-€ currency) because the Swiss Franc has a reputation as a particularly hard currency.

Right now, however, this is backfiring. The € is dropping, and the Franc is skyrocketing (it's the only thing besides gold to do so, because it has that reputation as a hard currency!). A Franc used to be around 0.8 €, now it's almost at 1. The third-largest city in the country is now suddenly deep in debt because it had taken up a large loan in Swiss Francs long ago. Had the Reptilians not waited so long to raise the debt ceiling, that loan on the other side of the ocean would have been easy to repay.

And yet, the funny thing here is - you're entire argument is that it's ok that banks demand there be value behind the money, but it's fucking looney tunes if individuals expect it. It's fucking looney tunes if individuals gets upset if the their currency is being constantly devalued.

As far as I can tell, history shows that deflation is worse than inflation, so it's safer to err on the side of inflation.

And that's still assuming that inflation is automatically bad...

Posted by: badmedia | August 22, 2011 9:09 AM

Gold and silver have market values independent from any connection to money. Do you think it could end well if Congress ignored supply and demand and artificially declared a value for them?

The value is in relation to the amount of money. When on the gold standard, gold and silver do not really rise in price, because the dollars value was directly tied to it. By taking us off the gold standard, the price of gold and silver skyrocketed due to the inflation in money which could occur after.

Over here, many loans are taken in Swiss Francs instead of € (or, before that, the local pre-€ currency) because the Swiss Franc has a reputation as a particularly hard currency.

Right now, however, this is backfiring. The € is dropping, and the Franc is skyrocketing (it's the only thing besides gold to do so, because it has that reputation as a hard currency!). A Franc used to be around 0.8 €, now it's almost at 1. The third-largest city in the country is now suddenly deep in debt because it had taken up a large loan in Swiss Francs long ago. Had the Reptilians not waited so long to raise the debt ceiling, that loan on the other side of the ocean would have been easy to repay.

I'm guessing you are talking about how the inflation also devalues the loans and makes them easier to pay? IE: If you take out a loan 1 year, and then the money supply doubles then in value you only need to pay 50% of the loan back in it's value/purchasing power.

That would be the case if the loan money were spent before the inflation, getting it's full value, but then when it's paid back it's done under the devalued currency, so while the amount is the same, the purchasing power of the amount is much lower.

This is actually part of the problem. While it's good for those who get the loans, it's bad for everyone else. The reason they are able to spend the loan money with it's more purchasing power than is because there is a delay between the addition of money, and the inevitable price increase that will occur after.

You're compliant basically amounts to the Franc not being devalued enough.

Of course, those who have savings in Francs, rather than debt - well don't think they are the ones going bankrupt. Especially if they were smart and abused another countries.

As far as I can tell, history shows that deflation is worse than inflation, so it's safer to err on the side of inflation.

And that's still assuming that inflation is automatically bad...

Neither is good or bad alone. There are times when inflation is good, and there are times when inflation is bad.

Deflation caused the Great Depression, but it was all calculated by the banks. You had the inflation of the markets in the 20's, and then the banks just quit all at once loaning money. This caused the money supply to deflate and there wasn't enough money to accommodate trade. Of course, when war comes about - suddenly lots of money(inflation) and the economy kicks in.

When a loan is created, it creates both inflation and deflation.

It creates an inflation in the money supply, decreasing the value of the dollar and taking from peoples purchasing power. However, since it is a loan, and comes with the costs of interest - which is never created, it in the end causes even more deflation - spread out over the course of years.

Since all the money that is created is loaned out, it means once the banks stop loaning money, the only direction the money is going is back to the banks, aka deflation.

If all the loans and debt is paid off - there is no money in circulation!

But remember, the interest that is due - it's never created. Only the value of the initial loans is created. So if you borrow $100 @ 5%, then you would owe $105. And that would be for one year. Stretch it over 5 years and you owe $125 - but again, only the original $100 is actually created.

So it's impossible that everyone can pay back the loans, and that means that the banks will start taking the collateral, taking large sweeps of land and other assets for pennies on the dollar.

Of course, the bank can still then decide to loan out and give money to those they want to succeed in this competition. And those people will be able to pay their debt and purchase things for cheap while the rest of the population suffers and has their assets basically robbed.

Similiar to the bailouts, where it was decided who would fail and who wouldn't. With popular sound bite excuses of "too big to fail", all the while ignoring their practices were just as bad as the rest, of which were only saved by buying up the assets of those who failed for cheap, and we get a little more consolidated in those who own and have power.

That's the business cycle. A boom of inflation to set the hook of debt in the peoples mouths, as they live up the good life on "easy credit", followed by the stopping of credit and a deflation which becomes impossible for the people as a whole to pay off - people are going to fail and it's by design, the dream is over.

Constant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. And in large part what creates this dog eat dog world we have today. Because if you pay off your loan, it's come at the price of someone else who couldn't. Not to say you should feel guilty personally, but that is the reality of the current system and the only thing people should feel guilty over is supporting it. Gotta make pay that interest back somehow.

It's the mechanism of over-inflating followed by deflating that is bad, rather than 1. You want your currency to inflate and deflate with the markets, as a mechanism to make commerce easier. So that you are not robbing the people of their wealth with the inflation, nor causing deflation to the point where it becomes impossible to carry out business properly.

There is no reason for any country to be in debt to private entities in order to create it's money supply. It's a scam and any country who uses such will never be free or prosperous.

The colonies flourished by creating their own money interest and debt free and in proportion to the amount of trade being done. Then came the Currency Act of 1764, which banned them from doing such, and within a year they were all poor. Gaining freedom from the Central Bank of England was a primary reason for the war.

Those in power who oppose the Central Banks usually end up dead. Andrew Jackson was the only president who was ever able to get rid of the bankers, and his assassination attempt failed.

Lincoln created his own money in the manner I mention. It didn't last long. Kennedy had the Treasury issue money - that didn't last very long. Reagan talked like he was serious about the topic, but abandoned it not long after entering office. Although we did manage to get the Grace Commission Report out of it.

Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism. | August 22, 2011 10:05 AM

badmedia

There is no reason these factories can't contain their pollution and deal with it, nor is their a valid excuse not to. They don't because they do not have too.


I as a human have trash. Now, it would be impossible for me to not have trash. But just because I have trash as a result of my consumption does not mean I shouldn't have properly manage that trash, nor does it give me the right to just throw it around as I please.

Until some technology exists for converting trash directly into energy with no toxic side products there is a very good reason why factories can't contain their pollution, and why you don't either.

This reason is called conservation of mass. That trash has to go somewhere, and unless you are proposing that all industrial sites also become toxic waste dumps, that means a specific place that has been designated for pollution. Or it means burning the waste and accepting that carbon dioxide and various other (usually more toxic) gasses are going to result. That is still pollution.

To go further, you as a person do this as well. You may not dump your trash on your neighbor's lawn, but you do haul it out to the curb, and from there it is taken by a government employee to a piece of land that the community has collectively decided it will be OK to pollute. There you have it: Government sanctioned pollution for you, a private citizen, in the midst of your own example.

So no, simply outlawing pollution is not going to do the trick unless you want to go back to a pre-industrial revolution model of civilization.

Posted by: Rasmus | August 22, 2011 10:48 AM

It doesn't take an economist to see that the interest money on debt is never created.

Yes it does.

This sort of attitude is the reason why you're so certain about so many things that you know so little about.

I'm not an economist either, but think the mistake you're making is that you're assuming that all loans are ultimately paid back and no loans are ever erased from the books.

Posted by: badmedia | August 22, 2011 11:25 AM

Until some technology exists for converting trash directly into energy with no toxic side products there is a very good reason why factories can't contain their pollution, and why you don't either.

This reason is called conservation of mass. That trash has to go somewhere, and unless you are proposing that all industrial sites also become toxic waste dumps, that means a specific place that has been designated for pollution. Or it means burning the waste and accepting that carbon dioxide and various other (usually more toxic) gasses are going to result. That is still pollution.

To go further, you as a person do this as well. You may not dump your trash on your neighbor's lawn, but you do haul it out to the curb, and from there it is taken by a government employee to a piece of land that the community has collectively decided it will be OK to pollute. There you have it: Government sanctioned pollution for you, a private citizen, in the midst of your own example.

So no, simply outlawing pollution is not going to do the trick unless you want to go back to a pre-industrial revolution model of civilization.

I would personally call disposing of waste properly so that it doesn't have an effect on the environment as not polluting.

Either way they are polluting, and I really don't see how spreading it across the entire environment is better than properly containing and disposing of it.

Also, don't know how it is where you live, but where I live we have very aggressive recycling programs and such. My recycling bin is like twice the size of my trash bin, and gets full before my trash bin. About 80% of my trash.

And we waste alot of energy. All that hot air from factories could be used to turn turbines for energy, it could then be filtered. Filters of different sizes could be used to filter out certain particles for seperation, to then perhaps be recycled.

I realize that pollution can't go away over night, but way more can be done. But regulations isn't even the right attitude because it legalizes amounts of it. The size of the penalty would of course be based on the amount of pollution. Make it illegal and fine people until they figure out a way.

Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2011 8:19 PM

badmedia @263;

Firstly, it is impossible to dispose of any waste in any manner, proper or otherwise, that has no impact on the environment. It is only possible to do it in a manner that reduces the impact on the environment. How much? Well therein lies the rub. Because you see, there's more than one available method, and these methods fall on a spectrum of two axes, impact reduction and cost. And in general, the greater the impact reduction, the greater the cost. So how do you determine how much is enough, and what cost is fair, without regulation?

Secondly, making it completely illegal IS a form of regulation.

Thirdly, this idea you have of making fines proportionate to the amount of pollution? That too is a form of regulation. How, by the way, do you propose to measure the amount of pollution? Monitor the compliance of the polluters? Collect your fines? Devidence on what amounts are fair for fines? Determine the source and responsibility for the pollution when that is not clear? Arbitrate disputes over such determinations?

All of this is also part of the process of regulation.

What you propose (it is interesting) isn't an absence of regulation, just another regime of regulation.

Oh, and what is the fine you propose for each of us to pay for the CO2 we exhale today?

Posted by: UpAgainstTheRopes | August 23, 2011 12:11 AM

The world is the way it is no matter how much we wish it weren't.

Carve that into a plack and place it between my thumbs as I head feet first into the crematorium.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 23, 2011 7:45 AM

It is, indeed, very unusual that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation.

It is and it isn't. It's a corporation in that it issues stock but the stock can only be held by member banks.* The Fed is independent within government in that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government. However, its authority is derived from Congress and is subject to congressional oversight. Additionally, the members of the Board of Governors, including the chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress. The government also exercises some control over the Fed by appointing and setting the salaries of the system's highest-level employees. Thus the Fed has both private and public aspects.

The US government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Fed made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the Treasury.

*A member bank is a private institution which owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank. All nationally chartered banks hold stock in one of the Federal Reserve Banks. State chartered banks may choose to be members (and hold stock in their regional Federal Reserve bank), upon meeting certain standards. About 38% of US banks are members of their regional Federal Reserve Bank. However, holding stock in a Federal Reserve Bank is not like owning stock in a publicly traded company. These stocks cannot be sold or traded, and member banks do not control the Federal Reserve Bank as a result of owning this stock.

Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2011 1:26 PM

Whatever the amount, there should be some kind of discount inasmuch as the plant kingdom was a beneficiary.

Hardly. Seeing as respiration doesn't actually produce new CO2, it only RESTORES CO2 that had previously been removed by living things and incorporated into organic molecules.

Indeed, CO2 was one of the dominant gases in the atmosphere BEFORE THERE WAS LIFE, and in fact was the ultimate source of ALL the carbon that life uses.

Natural selection made one hell of gaia call when it selected for that diversion, don't you think?

It might have been a gaia call IF aerobic organisms had evolved in anticipation of the oxygenation of atmosphere, instead of the 99% global die-off of the previously dominant anaerobic microbes from oxygen poisoning that actually happened.

Indeed, Peter Ward and other theorists have actually labelled a the global oxygenation a medean event, an example of when life, evolving without foresight or direction, acted to destroy itself. They even argue that the net bioproductivity of the earth (the total mass of all life the biosphere can support) was actually decreased by this event. (Though I am personally somewhat skeptical about that particular claim).

Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2011 1:46 PM

And that meant being able to oxidise their food all the way down to CO2. Not just expectable but, as David says, inevitable.

Inevitable not only by the laws of natural selection, but by the laws of chemistry themselves. Only by using oxygen* as an oxidizer is it even possible to oxidize food all the way down to CO2. And when using oxygen as an oxidizer, you're pretty much forced to go all the way to CO2, eventually.

Respiration evolved long before the oxygenation of the atmosphere, of course, using a wide variety of commonly available, weaker oxidizers, and the same basic chemiosmotic mechanisms. Going from there to using O2 required just a few tweaks. It basically just meant that the cell could keep going with the end waste-products of the older forms of respiration, and continue to extract more energy from them, until those waste products are turned all the way to CO2.

*There are only a few more powerful oxidizers than oxygen in existence, mostly compounds based on Fluorine, but these are much rarer in the universe than Oxygen is. Lacking foresight, evolution settled on what was easily available. Of course, an intelligent designer interested in absolute maximum energy extraction efficiency should have designed life to use Fluorine.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | August 23, 2011 8:03 PM

Did that pimple waaay up at the top actually say that the anti-discrimination law was racist because it was about black people? First he says that discrimination on the basis of race is racist. Then he says that a law that compels business owners to ignore race is racist. Yeah, complete logic spiral--he just disappeared up his own ass.

Oh, and the owner of that bridal shop, "Here Comes the Bride," that wouldn't sell to a gay bride. Apparently she's turned away gay women before and also hates people of other races, immigrants, people who speak other languages, people who marry outside their nationality, and divorced people. And she yells at her staff. She's probably a Libertarian.

Posted by: txpiper | August 23, 2011 11:06 PM

Markita Lynda,

"...she's turned away gay women before and also hates people of other races, immigrants, people who speak other languages, people who marry outside their nationality, and divorced people. And she yells at her staff."

First, if you or anyone else does not like this attitude, you or anyone else can compete against it by starting a business that responds to these customers. You don't need to force and forge anyone else into becoming another you.

Second, I live in a very mixed community. If you think Asians, African immigrants, Indians, Hispanics and white Europeans who come here actually share your views, you are abysmally naive. Immigrants who get here with nothing but a work ethic are sickened by the subclasses the left has manicured into a braindead, reliable electorate. One way or another, the party is over.

Posted by: txpiper | August 24, 2011 12:00 AM

Quel Dommage,

I think an honest appraisal will show that there is very little actual racism involved. What most 'abnormal' people don't like, is cultural failures. It has nothing to do with skin color. I know lots of people, including lots of blacks, who don't appreciate the tolerance of crime, immorality and irresponsible dependence that government policies have sequestered and fostered in the black community. There are predictable social consequences associtated with 70+% illegitimacy rates. Democrats built this city. "Yes we can!"

As to the tired 'homophobe' squeal, lots of folks are sick of this as well. Normal is not all that hard to discern. There is a growing awareness that any rationale that homosexuals use as an excuse/defense can be seized by people whose orientation is towards children, animals or dead bodies. The 'other' paraphiles are waiting in line. At what point are you, the fine liberal, willing to become phobic and intolerant?

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 24, 2011 1:45 AM

txpiper,

Fuck off.

Posted by: Lord Setar | August 24, 2011 3:31 AM

txpiper #279:

...the tolerance of crime, immorality and irresponsible dependence that government policies have sequestered and fostered in the black community.

What government policies have done this, and how have they done this?

There are predictable social consequences associtated with 70+% illegitimacy rates.

What is an "illegitimacy rate", what are these social consequences, and how can you say that these consequences are caused by the "illegitimacy rate"?

As to the tired 'homophobe' squeal, lots of folks are sick of this as well. Normal is not all that hard to discern.

Please define it for us, then.

There is a growing awareness that any rationale that homosexuals use as an excuse/defense can be seized by people whose orientation is towards children, animals or dead bodies. The 'other' paraphiles are waiting in line.

No, they are not, because there are viable legal prohibitions against sexual activity with those three: children and animals cannot consent, and dead bodies are as a rule unsafe (that, and one must respect the wishes of the dead and their next of kin). Unless you can somehow show that adult homosexuals can't consent to have sex with one another, I fail to see your point.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 24, 2011 5:31 AM

(To spell out the obvious... the Medea hypothesis is named in deliberate contrast to the Gaia hypothesis: the biosphere is not a good mother, but the worst mother possible.)

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | August 24, 2011 10:14 AM

children and animals cannot consent

Ironically, libertarians like txpiper usually regard both of these as more or less property of their parents/owners for them to do with as they wish. Libertarians usually support the right of parents to deny their children a reasonable education.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 24, 2011 11:35 AM

the Medea hypothesis is named in deliberate contrast to the Gaia hypothesis: the biosphere is not a good mother, but the worst mother possible.)

I don't know about the worst mother possible, but certainly an indifferent mother.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | August 24, 2011 11:51 AM

There is a growing awareness that any rationale that homosexuals use as an excuse/defense can be seized by people whose orientation is towards children, animals or dead bodies.

There is an instant awareness that you, txpiper, are a sick fuck who knows jack shit about sexuality.

Posted by: amphiox | August 24, 2011 2:52 PM

Of course, Medea gets something of an unfair rap, as all indications were that she was an excellent mother up until her final breakdown, which was precipitated by, among other things, the threat that her children would be taken away from her.

The real villain of that myth is that MRA douchebag, Jason.

And speaking of villains, it is now no longer appropriate to refer to texpip as a creationist, or libertarian, or idiot, or liar, or even bigot, as the comparison is grossly unfair to REAL honest creationists, libertarians, idiots, liars, and bigots.

I hesitate even to call him scum, as that would be unfair to scum.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 24, 2011 8:43 PM

And furniture! Don't forget furniture!

Won't somebody think of the sofa?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | August 24, 2011 9:40 PM

Also, I'm not sure the 'informed consent' deal is really cut and dried.

Sounds like a future rapists. Consent is the basis of an acceptable relationship. Not that you care since your Bible lets you take as many people without their consent (and underage!) as you can.

Posted by: amphiox | August 24, 2011 10:49 PM

If that is the case, how should people who are attracted to the improper things be dealt with?

"Attraction" is not a behavior.

Right now I am attracted to the notion of brutally assaulting you with a porcupine. And if I acted on that attraction I would be justifiably sanctioned.

Do you think they should be expected to resist impulses that may seem 'natural' to them?

Yes. At the moment I am having an impulse, that seems perfectly natural, to beat you to a bloody pulp with a rusty pipe. I am expected to resist that impulse.

Do you think they could be rehabilitated or 'cured'?

As having the impulse is not a problem, there is nothing to rehabilitate and nothing to cure. Acting on the impulse would be a crime and should be punished appropriately. However, it would still not be a disease or illness, so there would still be nothing to 'cure.'

Also, I'm not sure the 'informed consent' deal is really cut and dried.

Yes it is.

All kinds of things can be involved in that, starting with sobriety.

Not sober? Not informed. Cut and dried. End of story.

Adulthood is also a rather fleeting concept.

True but irrelevant. Informed consent is about individuals on a case by case basis. All labels of all kinds are meaningless.

I think you folks, along with an endless parade of democrat charlatans, have overused the racist charge.

Frankly we have underused it, giving assholes like you more of a forum than you deserve.

It rings very hollow these days.

Not to any honest, decent human being who is not a bigot, like you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 24, 2011 10:59 PM

I think you folks, along with an endless parade of democrat charlatans, have overused the racist charge. It rings very hollow these days.

Translation: Just because I follow a racist ideology and am shown to be personally racist by my writings is no reason to call me a racist. WAAAH!

Posted by: txpiper | August 24, 2011 11:50 PM

amphiox,

"The informed consent criterion is an absolute condition that separates spectra absolutely."

You are really gifted at composing and declaring your own truth as you go along. Need a barrier? Issue a proclamation. Need an exit? Imagine an easy one and the door opens. Hyper-complex problem? Simplicity is just a fantasy away. Need to feel like a Ninja champion? Become Walter Mitty on steroids.

Dude, your worldview and your personal phychology are houses of cards.

Posted by: amphiox | August 25, 2011 2:04 AM

You are really gifted at composing and declaring your own truth as you go along.

It's very nice to see you showing at least a tiny modicum of self-awareness, at long last, texpip, seeing as the above has been exactly what you've been doing from your very first post on Pharyngula onwards, on every single topic you have ever farted your despicable vileness over.

Except that you were never particularly gifted at it, what with your recurrent habit of having your right brain refute everything your left brain attempts to argue, often in the same breath.

Posted by: Lord Setar | August 25, 2011 5:19 AM

txpiper #296:

It sounds like you guys just draw the phobic line at a different point in the orientation spectrum,

Orientation spectrum? Is that like the autism spectrum? See, I've spent quite a lot of time reading on GLBT issues and I've not once come across anything like this. Could you please define this spectrum, or give us a source that does so?

and I guess I'm a little surprised that you would leave so many people frustrated, disenfranchised and alienated.

Uhh. Why is it at all surprising that we think it is wrong to have sex with someone or something that cannot give informed consent?

And where did anyone advocate disenfranchisement, which is the removal of a group's right to vote?

But I'm curious about a couple of things.

You seem willing to call certain behaviors 'wrong'. If that is the case, how should people who are attracted to the improper things be dealt with?

Uhh. Thoughts are behaviours? Since when? The behaviour we are opposed to is having sex with someone or something that cannot consent, but that's an action, not a thought. I don't see where attraction, which is a thought, plays into this -- being attracted to someone doesn't harm them, last time I checked.

Do you think they should be expected to resist impulses that may seem 'natural' to them?

Of course, because we are all expected to resist such impulses -- such as, say, the impulse to assault or kill someone whom we do not like, or that stands between us and a given goal, or the impulse to simply take food and leave the store without paying for it first.

Do you think they could be rehabilitated or 'cured'?

If they could be trusted to suppress those urges (obviously, they would have to be under some sort of supervision, and less trust would be given if they reoffend) then they could be considered fit to participate in society at large. The term 'cured', however, is nonsensical as there is nothing inherently wrong with their attraction -- what is wrong is if they act on said attraction.

Also, I'm not sure the 'informed consent' deal is really cut and dried. All kinds of things can be involved in that, starting with sobriety.

Then it's simple: if you are visibly intoxicated (and don't tell me you don't understand this, because I highly doubt that you would be unable to point out someone who is visibly drunk), you cannot give informed consent and any consent you do give is null and void.

That being said, a question: would you consider it rape if the victim was visibly intoxicated at the time?

Adulthood is also a rather fleeting concept.

Seems pretty robustly defined to me, and really it seems that the only thing separating the legal definition of adulthood from the actual time that the brain finishes developing (~24-25 years of age) is that legal adulthood is defined as the age where most people finish public schooling. I am an advocate of extending public school to include undergraduate university studies (which would allow us to raise the 'adult' age to about 22, which is when one would graduate from a four-year university program), but I would assume that you are not in favor of such.

I think you folks, along with an endless parade of democrat

1) Commenters here are not only from the United States; please do not attempt to divide us into U.S. political demographics either by statement or by implication.

2) I cannot think of any regular here that supports the Democratic Party as anything other than a barrier to prevent the nuts in the Republican Party from getting into power, as the Democrats have shown -- especially as of late -- a strong tendency to make big promises and a show of force come election time, only to fade into mumblings about 'compromise' and 'bipartisanship' that are really just excuses to hand the Republicans pound after pound of flesh even though every time they are given one pound they demand two, and when they are given two they demand five.

charlatans, have overused the racist charge. It rings very hollow these days.

I understand that you may feel the charge is levied quite a lot, but saying you are not a racist does not mean that you are not a racist. I am not a racist, but I have said things that are racist and considered arguments that are racist*, and it doesn't have to be overtly racist in order to be racist -- racism is heavily institutionalized in North American society (moreso in the US than in Canada, but both have problematic levels of institutionalized racism, not to mention sexism) and given the stigma against overt racism that has arisen in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement this racism is much more likely to be implied than it is to be overt. Careful examination is required in any case to ensure that racism is stamped out.

* -- When I said these things, and considered these arguments, I was rightfully told that they were racist and by voicing them seriously I was being racist (or, rather, expressing white privilege). Being that I hold equality as paramount, I like you was offended by such accusations, but once I was able to take a breather and let my emotions die down I realized that yes, I had been racist, but this did not make me a bad person as I realized it, accepted it, apologized for it, and made a commitment in the future to check my privilege and take such accusations seriously in the future. It's not an accusation or insinuation of moral character, but merely a reminder, like someone telling you that your fly is down -- but many people have been adversely affected by racism and as such they may have a strong reaction to it, and this must also be respected.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 25, 2011 3:32 PM

Would you fuck someone who only wanted you when she's drunk?

I could take this beautiful straight line and use it to make rude, crude and lewd comments at txpiper's expense. But I'll be good. This time.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 25, 2011 9:03 PM

If the situation involved people who were not familiar with each other, probably so, at least in some sense of the word.

What part of "sex without informed consent is rape" do you fail to understand?

Posted by: amphiox | August 25, 2011 9:20 PM

But what I was getting at is that "informed" can cover a lot of ground.

So what? ALL that ground that is covered is acceptable.

ALL the ground that is NOT covered is NOT acceptable.

Posted by: txpiper | August 25, 2011 9:44 PM

amphiox,

"I am not personally aware of any at all."

I could not possibly be less surprised.

"ALL that ground that is covered is acceptable....ALL the ground that is NOT covered is NOT acceptable."

Right. Very good. I'm sure that is the universally accepted and practiced norm, especially in the beautifully crime-ridden, government-manufactured slums you haven't noticed. Family history, marital status, genetic predispositions, current addictions, financial statements, credit reports, employment history, arrest records, drug screens, previous relationships, unattended children, child support obligations, etc. Lots of things people are not informed about could qualify as "NOT acceptable".

Posted by: amphiox | August 25, 2011 10:31 PM

in the beautifully crime-ridden, government-manufactured slums you haven't noticed.

Names and addresses, please, with EVIDENCE that demonstrates that they were, indeed government-manufactured, and that the policies responsible were liberal ones, or you're just a liar.

Family history, marital status, genetic predispositions, current addictions, financial statements, credit reports, employment history, arrest records, drug screens, previous relationships, unattended children, child support obligations, etc. Lots of things people are not informed about could qualify as "NOT acceptable".

And THIS isn't even coherent.

Posted by: amphiox | August 25, 2011 10:36 PM

If any government policies could be said to be responsible for creating the majority of the slums in North American cities, it would be conservative ones, such as the denial of easy access to birth control, and the breaking of unions.

Posted by: Kseniya | August 25, 2011 11:52 PM

Tex:

And now, some 50 years later, after liberal massah gubmint has literally taxed, sold treasury instruments and spent the economy into the toilet, the glaring results are more poverty, slums, urban crime and social inequality.

That's a pretty narrow (not to mention incomplete) view of where our money goes, and what has contributed to the economic decline.

What about our astronomical Defense budgets? What's behind the ever-increasing polarization of wealth? What policies contribute to these phenomenon, and who advocates for those policies?

And, oh yeah: Are you aware that US crime rates are around the lowest they've been in, oh, thirty-five years?

Or I could just make stuff up and call it good like you do.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black!

Some of your points are worth discussing, but you tend to undermine yourself with just that kind of self-contradiction and hypocrisy.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 26, 2011 6:55 AM

I quit worrying about it years ago, preferring to deal with people as human beings one at a time. I don't mind telling you that my fantastic family looks like the daycare center at the UN.

I bet you even let your family use your bathroom, possibly even without paying.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 26, 2011 6:41 PM

*chomps popcornz and swills grog while watching txpiper being intellectually eviscerated, typical result for liberaturds and creationists*

Posted by: txpiper | August 26, 2011 8:05 PM

Lord Setar,

“Having friends or family members of another race is not "get out of racism, free" card”

Well shoot. I was so hoping for absolution, but it looks like it is just out of reach. I’m just sick about that.

“What policies?... What social experiments, and how can you deem them to be failures?”

This might help you get started. It also notices the ideological dishonesty and pretense that has perpetuated the problem for decades. (Maybe you should get acquainted with people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Alfonzo Rachel. They might be more palatable in helping you notice that there is something wrong.)

On bad policies, I think none other than Bill Clinton, in an amazing moment of candor, acknowledged that misguided reactions can have ugly results. Granted, this was about unintended consequences in Haiti. But lots of typical, simple-minded government programs are similarly destructive.

“The State Department and USAID are pushing the same old dogma which turned Haiti into the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere (and America’s 4th largest rice export market): Invest only in the cities; subsidize the textile industry; and let the countryside collapse, providing a flood of cheap labor for urban industry (and an epic buildup of slums). All this despite former President Bill Clinton’s groundbreaking admission of failure and need for new policies:

“It was a mistake. I have to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10, 2010."The country has the best chance in my lifetime to achieve this objective: to build a modern self-sustaining state. But what it means is that we have to think about our roles in a different way, and how we will play them in this reconstruction process.”

Of course, what Mr. Clinton didn’t mention is that "we have to think about our roles" from the standpoint of another by-product of liberalism: We’re broke. Actually much worse than merely broke.

Posted by: txpiper | August 26, 2011 8:26 PM

I left out the link to Clinton's perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v;=XtTeDv5FbNw#!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 26, 2011 9:47 PM

Maybe you should get acquainted with people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Alfonzo Rachel. They might be more palatable in helping you notice that there is something wrong.

What do these three men have in common? They're all Black. Two of them, Sowell and Rachel, are conservatives and Williams is a looneytarian. Sowell and Williams are economists and Rachel is a comedian.

Back in post #200 I gave a quick review of Sowell's book Basic Economics:

Go read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. He's a conservative, anti-government type so he probably won't upset you too much. My major objections to Sowell are he tends to be superficial and writes in an angry tone, often accusing others of economic ignorance, as if that is the only possible explanation for disagreement with his views.

Sowell and Williams are competent economists whose economic views I'm not particularly impressed by, particularly Williams'. I know little about Rachel.

Posted by: txpiper | August 27, 2011 12:21 AM

Quel Dommage,

"What do these three men have in common? They're all Black. Two of them, Sowell and Rachel, are conservatives and Williams is a looneytarian. Sowell and Williams are economists and Rachel is a comedian."

They have more than that in common. They are despised by the left, who favor soaring intellectuals like Sharpton and the CBC lunatics. Zo Rachel is a comedian among other things. Bill Maher wouldn't make a stain in his shorts.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 27, 2011 9:27 PM

I know almost nothing about Rachel so it's difficult for me to despise him. I previously said that Sowell and Williams were competent economists who don't impress me much. Neither of them are Austrian School economists so I don't despise their economics.

Are you impressed with the economy?

As Kseniya said, non sequitur.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 27, 2011 10:57 PM

Yawn, still nothing cogent or unknown from txpiper, just more jingoism. Liburturds speak in jingoes, not from evidence or cogency. What a wasted post, just like all his others. One might think he is preaching a theology for all the good it does him...

Posted by: igb | September 2, 2011 10:38 PM

I feel sorry for you badmedia. You have been remarkably polite and civil during this all out assault on your character. I commend you for that, though I think you should have stopped digging a long time ago.

I come from a family of people that believe in a wide range of baseless ideas such as fate, God, spirits, and some sort of energy field that apparently flows through all people. I am alone in the group in that I am an atheist and biologist and it drives me crazy when people disregard logic when interpreting the world. As you can imagine my opinions (actually facts) are usually ridiculed. This intensely frustrating for me as I know I am right, but everything I say is dismissed as stupidity.

No doubt this is how you feel now badmedia.

I have learned from this and encounters with other people whose beliefs I find to be cripplingly stupid. The fact is that these people are, for whatever reason, just as deeply confident in their convictions as we are in ours. However we can change their minds.

Unfortunately for most of the people in this discussion, the best way to convince or teach other people is not to assault them verbally, insult their characters, and patronize them. Rather use respect and well constructed arguments to turn someone to appreciate your ideas. Calling someone an asshole doesn't fall into this category. Believe it or not this actually works.

badmedia, I think you need to become educated in genetics before you start arguing evolution. The problem with the entire mainstream evolution debate is that people who argue against it really have no understanding of it. Most of the evidence that makes evolution a very beautiful and irrefutable theory can only be understood at a high technical level. I think this angers a lot of people who believe the intelligent design theory because biologists can come off being condescending about their knowledge.

The rest of you. You remind me of that arrogant cunt history student from Good Will Hunting. If we 'educated folk' ever have a chance of making Americans understand science, modern medicine, and reality, all of us have to quit the arrogant, egoistic, fucking asshole act. Start being civil for fuck sake. No wonder everyone hates us.