Was the Church behaving in an anti-science manner when it placed Galileo under house arrest? It did so not for his improvement to compass and telescope design or his insights on kinematics, but because his theories contradicted scriptural representations of orbital mechanics. Some religions might be primitivist or ascetic, and oppose science broadly on those grounds, but in general large religious institutions have supported or accepted science which does not challenge their authority. Religion is anti-science not because it opposes all science, but because it is at its core unscientific. Religion holds certain beliefs inviolate, at least in the short-term, and makes elaborate assertions about history, geology, and cosmology without evidence. Much of the basic components of modern monotheistic religions are not falsifiable, but occasionally scripture does make statements about things, the validity of which can be measured by models based on falsifiable predictions. Theories may never be strictly provable, but they can be disproved or shown to be incomplete. Theism itself is not testable and need not rest on any concrete predictions. Specific religions, however, include particular creation myths, miracles, and other descriptions of other physical events which are supposed to have happened. If these have doubt cast on them by science, there's no reason to believe in that religion's doctrine and tithe to that religion's organization if what they say has been shown to be incompatible with what is observed. It is usually possible for theologists to revise or reinterpret scripture to work around science or to demand an unattainable degree of certainty from scientists even regarding these assertions regarding physical events, but this is in itself unscientific because it works antithetically to the scientific method.
Intelligent Design is not science at all, it is an amorphous and untestable collection of assertions. Scientific conclusions must come from observations or from theories based on observations which make testable predictions. Believing in things that are clearly indicated against by science can only be the product of a world view which is anti-scientific, even if only selectively. Believing in God is not anti-scientific because no evidence indicates the non-existence of God, nor could it.
Sure, there is "pure science" which underpins virtually all applied science and engineering, and the pure science versus technology dichotomy is very simplistic and not really at the heart of the issue so much as doctrinal conflict is, but there is an important qualitative distinction. "Pure science" is usually taken to mean science which seeks to answer questions which have no apparent utility (though there is often utility) other than the satisfaction of curiosity. When I asked you whether you recognized the distinction, I was talking about the the distinction between the way the two might be perceived by religious leaders, not some philosophical difference between the two. If someone can use physics to make a better wagon wheel or chemistry/alchemy to make harder steel, that discovery could benefit the dominant religious institutions economically and militarily. Science which makes more ontological inquiries can undermine the moral authority of the institutions and must be opposed.
I single out the Byzantine example because you actually acknowledge specific technologies which are obviously extremely useful and totally innocuous as far as doctrine goes, without acknowledging that the Empire's religious leaders might not have embraced Darwin or Hubble so warmly.
Matt Dedinas, I really appreciate the way your knowledge of history allows you to draw so liberally from humanity's past experiences to be wrong in such a colorful and refreshing way. I mean, that Byzantine stuff is incredible. Do you really not see how the development of technology is different from the pure sciences?
just to clarify, the "product of the American education system" was supposed to be a sort of continuation of the scenario in my previous post, implying that you don't know history. I realize now that, especially in light of my last post, it looks like a lame burn.
democratsarefascists put the pieces together one by one, the inappropriate capitalization, flippant disregard for conservative traditions and morality, and blatantly counter-factual assertions...this guy is good, thought democratsarefascists, but I'm better. I'm gonna expose him for what he really is, right here, in this thread! You don't fool ME, gaol oriented.
I smell a product of the American education system.
heres a little known story about THE CONSTITUTION: When Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln sat down to write THE CONSTITUTION they reached an impasse. T.J. wanted most freedom and more Jesus, but A.L. wanted most freedom and most Jesus. "Let us PRAY" they both said. At church they opened up a hymnal and THE CONSTITUTION flew out of it and from then on AMERICA was a CHRISTIAN NATION.
It's like you barely know who Reagan was.
this idea seems vaguely familiar....
It's that damned sexy marketing!! The Dems only win because celebrities command the respect of liberal simps! They just don't share my nuanced understanding of niggers, faggots, and economics 101! I guess it takes a more refined palate to appreciate the Republican platform. What we're doing is like feeding truffles to a baby and being surprised he prefers applesauce. *ignores massive opposition of public to the policies that the Republican brand has associated with itself* Yes, now if we could only get those celebrities.... seriously, Obama was slickly marketed and fawning over him reached ridiculous levels, but you can't deny that people were ready to buy into the propaganda because they were disillusioned with the conduct of the Bush administration and with Republican policies for very obvious reasons. Maybe you should try to address that problem?
Hrmm, yes. Those liberal plebes get all their news from daytime TV, comedy, and celebrities, whereas an enlightened Republican like myself has views which are informed by a broad spectrum of right-wing ideologues, good old-fashioned values, and the bald-faced propaganda of the capitalist class. I hesitate to attempt to match the crudeness of the Democrat party, but our democratic principles demand that even the meanest of intellects must receive a vote, therefore we must undertake the unpleasant task of pandering to the would-be liberal simpletons in the interest of the maintenance of the Republic. DRILL BABY DRILL! RIGHT ON CHUCK NORRIS! *Waves flip flops overhead, throws a bag of Lipton in a pot, yells about the Mexicans, weeps along with Glenn Beck*
Hey, you are getting me sort of worked up. I will pay you $100 to write me a story about this. Make sure it's really sloppy and focus on the sack. Also, Rush's thing should be like as big as your forearm.
wow u guys wrote so much!! I didnt read it. sry.
The Soviet Union did not "pay everyone the same", there was a system of incentives for being especially productive or pursuing jobs which required more education. I don't doubt it was a clunky system, but so is the system of incentives in capitalist systems. I've worked with a person in a non-union factory who sat around looking at pictures of motorcycles on the internet all day and got paid far more than the people actually doing his job. Capitalism incentivizes consumer-oriented technological development far better than socialism, but is terrible at rewarding diligence in the lower echelons of the workforce, as I'm sure the Soviet Union was. Management is a problem that exists in all central planning, whether corporate or state. That cute little saying would ring true coming from nearly any low-level worker in America. It's easy to imagine Soviet proles idling in shops because they won't get paid more for making an extra unit or whatever, but the same problem exists in many capitalist shops without proper programs for incentivization. (Lee Harvey Oswald, though he rightly became disappointed with the Soviet system, believed that Soviets worked as hard as Americans) Realistically, management is not paying close attention to how many burgers you flip or parts that you grind. If you are unskilled, as long as you don't do anything amazing or egregious, you aren't likely to be rewarded in any way commensurate with your effort.
I'm not ignorant of the famines of the 1930s associated with forced collectivization, but they hardly support your previous assertion. Reread what you've wrote if necessary, you seem to have backpedaled. Furthermore, the famines were hardly inherent to socialism, they were a result of particularly poor management and an overly ambitious plan.
"Humans naturally prefer systems..." Do they? What basis do they have for comparison? In the context of modern capitalist society wherein people are not exposed to far leftist perspectives except through the most caricatured portrayals, I don't doubt that people believe they do prefer capitalism. Couched in the terms you have used, it seems a simple choice, but calling capitalism a system in which you can choose to work more and thereby earn more is a dangerously incomplete definition of capitalism. You could just as well say that a fundamental characteristic of human beings is that they want to work in an environment wherein they have democratic control over their workplace and are allowed to share proportionally in the produce of their work. Furthermore, many socialist systems do allow people to earn more by working more. Also, you should be ashamed of yourself for having used that "reduced to the same level of misery" line. I might as well start talking about the chains of the proletariat.
Also, the optimism of the presumed economist you reference is insane, the statistics you cite are dubious, both in their intrinsic validity and in the way you've applied them. You don't come close to demonstrating that it would be net revenue negative to eliminate legal loopholes and pursue wealthy delinquents. You also seem to imply that taxation rates were not actually high in the late 40s-60s because I used marginal rates? Even if collection rates were bad, were they bad enough that effective rates weren't higher? You don't address this, you just repeat all of the stuff you've posted 5 times in this thread alone.
The standard of living took 50 years to reach 1915 levels in the USSR? By what metric? Certainly not purely economic ones (which are not very good anyway). Care to clarify?
Human nature is multi-faceted and malleable. Altruism and a desire to cooperate are as much a part of it as greed and competitiveness. People exploit those that they view as part of an "other". In a culture that accepts and even encourages viewing people as "others", it is unsurprising that people will be unwilling to subsidize or trust other members of that culture.
The fastest period of economic growth in America occurred during the 50s, when there the top marginal income tax rate was 60 or 70%.
Guys, I really want to make a suggestion but I am out of votes, so please respond as if the content of this post were the suggestion itself, ok?
KILL THE BOURGEOISIE
As this comment section amply demonstrates, the bourgeoisie is a reactionary and very dumb force that acts against its own class interest and that of its working brothers. Therefore, we must send the bourgeoisie to the wall so that the glorious revolution may proceed. I propose that we plate a skull pyramid in gold in memorial of those who must be sacrificed to bring about the righteous and inevitable conclusion of the class war.
I'm not really here to convince anybody of the virtues of socialism, but I should point out that socialism was quite effective in the Soviet Union for nearly half a century (I know the USSR was around longer than that). The Soviet Union developed from a backwards, largely agrarian country to become one of two global superpowers in only 30 years, and it did this in spite of the opposition of most of the developed world and being twice devastated by war. Socialist governments built the infrastructure that has paved the way for the rapid economic growth of China and India. I'm not saying it would have been pleasant to live in either the USSR or China during the forced collectivization or Cultural Revolution or at many other times. You must consider that these nations would not have been capitalistic liberal democracies with a diverse economic base and a healthy middle class if they had not become socialist. They would have been dumping grounds for low value added industry without strong technology sectors and without strong internal consumer goods markets. In the first world, social-democratic governments have created some of the highest standards of living in the world in Scandanavia and Western Europe. This is obviously a very incomplete treatment, but like someone pointed out, I'm here to troll anyway. You are retarded and know nothing about history if you think that socialism categorically "does not work", though.
let me summarize: taxes are not fair, ergo the Fair Tax and Flat Tax are not fair (they're also not flat). The author actually suggests everyone pay the same amount, independent of income. "the wealthy don't use the streets any more than the poor" Haha, the chairman of Macy's Inc. is only rich because everyone else can use the streets to go and make him so.
I think I agree with you. The workers should seize control of the means of production and no longer allow the capitalist class and their government hirelings to steal the value that their labor adds to goods. Finally, I meet a fellow traveler on the glorious path to anarchic socialism.
oops, typo. I am just kidding, buddy. Seriously though, you're barking up the wrong tree with this fair tax business...I hate to say it because you seem pretty emotionally invested. If you'll actually listen MAYBE I'll explain myself. What we need is something that starts with S and ends in OCIALISM (SOCIALISM)
hey pete, if you love the free tax so much why don't you marry it? I know why. It's because you're a bigot.
I think the GOP needs to embrace the following principle: NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR. I think the youth could really get behind the idea of NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR. All true patriots know that there can be NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR. The fair tax will be smashed by the righteous fist of socialism once we realize there is NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR.
I agree, our tax system shouldn't punish hard workers. I'm for low taxes across the board, but how about a special "sin" tax? I'm thinking of a group that starts with "q" and rhymes with beers. HA. If you don't get it, post and I will let you in on it. ;).
Maybe the 747th "small government" suggestion will really be the one that drives the idea home.
Do you consider yourself a Nationalist, duanej? More specifically, a White Nationalist? Your title has little to do with the substance of your suggestion, all you want to do is talk about how much more rational the white man is. I guess what I am trying to get at is....STEP IN FRONT OF A BUS YOU RACIST.
Do you really believe that it is impossible to create a society in which there is a moral prohibition against murder without couching it in religion? People will only accept that it is wrong to kill people if you say a Creator said not to? How many irreligious are there in America? How many of them think it is acceptable to murder people? Hmmm, it's almost as if morality can have a cultural basis rather than a religious one. You're creating ridiculous false dichotomies all over the place and to top it off, you display a pretty schizoid level of incoherence.
I think the department of education should be expanded to include a "re-education" branch for those who have been corrupted by bourgeois ideology and need to be reminded of the virtues of Socialist Labor.
"ACCEPTANCE" IS JUST THE FIRST STEP DOWN THE ROAD TO MANDATORY GAY MARRIAGES TO INANIMATE OBJECTS. YESTERDAY I SAW A BLACK MAN ON MY GOLF COURSE. WHEN I YELLED AND WAVED MY CLUB AT HIM HE TRIED TO***RAPE MY LIBERAL GRANDDAUGHTER*** SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT OF COURSE BUT STILL ***NO MIXING!!***
I hope you get gay raped by an investment banker. In fact, I would betray my convictions and cheer as the entire financial industry ran train on your ass then lit their post coital cigars with TARP money.
hahaha, this one is a pretty good joke
Hrmm, yes, a sound strategy. No wait, isn't there some issue that's really important to American conservatives that might get in the way? I think it starts with an 'I'.......Indignation?...No, Immolation?.....I know it ends in "-ation".
"we love you guys, you're a great asset to our party, we just don't want any more of you in the country, you know what I mean?"
I'm sorry to see you're not sick and tired of platitudes.
No, the Israelis can send helicopter gunships and APCs to kill Arab civilians. That's something we can relate to as Americans. Wait, where are Jews afraid of being cast out of? I would say support for Israel is more about "rooting for their team" than fear of persecution in the West.
I just masturbated to this. (twice)
Maybe we could focus on humanity instead?
Oh wow, you are not a good at internet fighting. I feel like I just punched a kid with glasses. I'm so sorry.
fricker, are you an engineer? the only people I know who would spend the time absorbing all of the information that you seem to and assembling it all into the elaborate collection of opinions you have yet remain capable of so astonishingly little insight as you are are engineers. It's just kind of a pattern I've noticed.
How can we run as run as conservatives when the gays are running wild? Once they knew their place but then there was this Brokeback Mountain nonsense and then my son is like "dad, we need to talk" and with an inhuman roar I staved in his head with the butt of my revolver and dragged him out back. Then I realized he might've been about to say something else, but oh well, water under the bridge.gaol oriented supported this idea ·
"I love Freedom! Freedom before life!" *lives in a first world nation, has never known true privation*
Hmm, you may want to read up on a fascinating new development in philosophy. It's called "logic", and maybe it will help you to see why a right to abortion does not allow one to "do anything".
"Aren't you coming to bed?"
"Shhh baby, I'm trolling."
"But I'm wearing your favorite lingerie and I thought we could..."
"Yeah, hold on just let me finish typing this wicked burn..."
"But I'm ready NOOWW."
"Wait a second, I just got an idea. I'm gonna write this nonsensical story like I have dementia or something and the republicans will read it and be all WTF? haha"
Hmm, yes. Just let me prepare my 1600 word long reply full of platitudes and references to things I know next to nothing about then post it in four installments on this website full of trolls and idiots.
Alexander Hamilton was quite astute in recognizing the benefits of protectionism for developing nations, but he should have also embraced the principle that there should be NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR. If he had recognized that there could be NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR, the United States would be a much more equitable and responsible nation today.
you disgust me you punk. Alexander Hamilton is one of the FATHERS of THIS NATION and here you accusing him of ABORTING HIS BABY like he was one of those filthy Marxist-abortionist welfare wh*res. I thought you were a good conservative, but this cannot stand. Pistols at dawn....this time I will be the Aaron Burr....and this time the Aaron Burr will be on the same side as Hamilton.
I think our Conservatism needs more capitalization, not less. For example "conservative" this looks WEAK. "CONSERVATIVE!!!" THIS IS FORCEFUL, POTENT, and AGGRESSIVE. THIS IS THE PARTY WE NEED TO BE. Say goodbye to conservatism and Conservatism, this is the age of the CONSERVATIVES!.