The more you're telling him he's wrong, the likelier it is to strengthen his resolve and make him stick to his beliefs. It's one thing for him to be told things which firstly he doesn't know and secondly he thinks he knows but doesn't, and it's another to tell him what you believe and let him come to whatever realization you want him to come to, on his own. Telling someone how something really is without holding a position of authority over them is almost always a lost cause because they'll most likely start to look for, or make up out of whole cloth, reasons and explanations for why you're wrong instead of rationalizing whether or not they themselves have been.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. By the way, why are you defaming someone who died almost 40 years ago? If she was alive today, would you have the courage to say what you're saying if you met her?
2. I'm not imposing anything on anyone, how could I? My philosophy explictly forbids violence, while your philosophy explicitly requires it.
3. Altruism is an ideal which rarely manifests itself in reality. People pretend they are altruistic because they think it is a virtue. It is not. Those who pretend to be good are frauds, and worse than those who are bad but honest. You don't appear to be "altruistic"--you just want to force others to be "altruistic". Selfishness is a good thing. You wouldn't be breathing if your genes (and your ancestors they drove) weren't selfish.
4. I am not concerned with my demeanor because you (and others) will think I am crazed just because of the beliefs I hold, regardless of the manner in which I convey them. Case in point, you consider Ayn Rand to have a psychological imbalance when I am aware of no public instances when she has failed to be articulate and polite. She disagrees with your opinion, and writes entire books explaining why you are wrong, and all you can muster is "she is mentally ill"

This entire argument comes down to the answer to a single question "Do you believe it is moral to initiate violence against another human being" . My answer is no.
Socialism is not possible without the initiation of violence. If thats what you want, fine, but don't pretend you have the moral high ground because you are robbing houses in order to donate to a cancer fund. You aren't altruistic, noble, moral, or good--you are just another tyrant who uses violence as a means to their ends.


1. Debate technique, pure and simple. Pushing your buttons, since you were trying to push mine (and many others'). I'm not sure what I'd say to Rand if I had a chance to meet her, but I think I'd phrase it as a question, whatever it was. "Don't you think it's possible your philosophy is a major psychological reaction to your childhood?", possibly.

2. Perhaps it's a bit of a strawman argument on my part. When you say "fuck democracy" in the context of a general rant about some extreme ideology, it makes me think about people like Timothy McVeigh, not Patrick Henry. To get to where you want to go, you either need to get 1000 times more persuasive and use "majority oppression" to get your ideology implemented, or start a revolution the old-fashioned way, with guns. Otherwise you're just being a pissant.

3. Where does the altruistic desire come from, if not from our genes? That said, you claim that my pushing for more government projects to aid the poor & middle class is not altruistic? Why? Because you see all government action as "force" or "slavery"? It's not my problem you're crazy. That said, I think I'd benefit directly from things like a middle-class tax cut, and government healthcare plans, and indirectly from aid given to the poor. Maybe I'm just appropriately selfish, and insufficiently fundamentalist about market economics for you.

4. Psychological imbalance doesn't necessarily mean she rants and raves and calls people's beliefs shitburgers, or the people themselves cows, though it can manifest itself that way too. I'll confess to being rather psychologically imbalanced myself -- take a look at those posts people have shared about their "Personal top 10" channels. Mine's very different from other people's, and skewed hard towards politics. It doesn't mean I'm incapable of being polite, or stringing together coherent sentences, it just means I'm not very balanced in what I'm interested in. I hope I'll get a little more balanced once this damnned election is finally done, though.

As to your closing argument, you're assuming your premise. It's not about initiation of violence, it's about enforcing a contract.

You are (I assume) a citizen of the United States. You may have been made one automatically by birth, but you can rescind that at any time, and leave. In short, you participate in our government by voluntary contract, and enforcing contracts seems to be a government action you libertarians like, even if violence is necessary.

Socialism is perfectly fine, in your view, if it's done by voluntary contract, right? Or do you espouse a belief that government should regulate economic activity to exclude socialistic communes...like city governments?

I don't use violence any more than you do, I also just speak my mind, and work within the existing system to try to make the things I want happen. You want to destroy the system itself, and that's pretty violent in my mind.

>> ^imstellar28:
NetRunner,
I'm not imposing anything on anyone, how could I? My philosophy explictly forbids violence, while your philosophy explicitly requires it.


Oh dear, I must have missed the last, what is it now, 5 years of war against a country that didn't do anything to your capitalist democratic society.

Your philosophy is deluded...

ps. Australia is a left of center democratic-socialist nation. The only wars we get involved in were WW1&2, Vietnam (at America's behest), Iraq/Kuwait (at America's behest), Afghanistan (at America's behest).

This is the thing I love about the anti-socialist movement in the US, you are all still terrified of the red fucking menace coming out from under the beds that you've convinced yourself that anything vaguely associated with the left/communism = bad.


3. Altruism is an ideal which rarely manifests itself in reality. People pretend they are altruistic because they think it is a virtue. It is not. Those who pretend to be good are frauds, and worse than those who are bad but honest. You don't appear to be "altruistic"--you just want to force others to be "altruistic". Selfishness is a good thing. You wouldn't be breathing if your genes (and your ancestors they drove) weren't selfish.


Yes yes, black is white, up is down, we get it. Everything "noble" about humans is evil, yadda yadda.

Does anyone still actually believe in this crock of shit?


4. I am not concerned with my demeanor because you (and others) will think I am crazed just because of the beliefs I hold, regardless of the manner in which I convey them. Case in point, you consider Ayn Rand to have a psychological imbalance when I am aware of no public instances when she has failed to be articulate and polite. She disagrees with your opinion, and writes entire books explaining why you are wrong, and all you can muster is "she is mentally ill"


No, I don't think your crazed because of your beliefs, I think you're crazed because you can't manage to be "articulate and polite"...


This entire argument comes down to the answer to a single question "Do you believe it is moral to initiate violence against another human being" . My answer is no.


So you're telling me African's were brought to America by socialists? That the Native American's were dispossessed of their land and murdered by socialists? That the planet is being raped of it's natural resources to supply the all consuming might of the socialist nation of the USA..?

You are wrong. That is all... =)



Socialism is not possible without the initiation of violence. If thats what you want, fine, but don't pretend you have the moral high ground because you are robbing houses in order to donate to a cancer fund. You aren't altruistic, noble, moral, or good--you are just another tyrant who uses violence as a means to their ends.


el oh el.

You're like the morons who believed the world was flat. You haven't lived under socialism, you have no idea whether it works in theory, and you're terrified of it because, like it or not, it's coming.

Oh hang on, the US has had socialism for years.. =P Subsidies and tariff protections for US wheat and sugar, oil subsidies so you can fuel up at under 4USD per gallon while in Britan, for example, they pay over 10USD a gallon. Any "incentive", grant or other shot of public money squirted in to private concerns = socialism.

So roll over and smell the red mate, because you're balls deep in it with the rest of the country, you're just too blind and stupid to realise it...

NetRunner,

1. By the way, why are you defaming someone who died almost 40 years ago? If she was alive today, would you have the courage to say what you're saying if you met her?

2. I'm not imposing anything on anyone, how could I? My philosophy explictly forbids violence, while your philosophy explicitly requires it.

3. Altruism is an ideal which rarely manifests itself in reality. People pretend they are altruistic because they think it is a virtue. It is not. Those who pretend to be good are frauds, and worse than those who are bad but honest. You don't appear to be "altruistic"--you just want to force others to be "altruistic". Selfishness is a good thing. You wouldn't be breathing if your genes (and your ancestors they drove) weren't selfish.

4. I am not concerned with my demeanor because you (and others) will think I am crazed just because of the beliefs I hold, regardless of the manner in which I convey them. Case in point, you consider Ayn Rand to have a psychological imbalance when I am aware of no public instances when she has failed to be articulate and polite. She disagrees with your opinion, and writes entire books explaining why you are wrong, and all you can muster is "she is mentally ill"


This entire argument comes down to the answer to a single question "Do you believe it is moral to initiate violence against another human being" . My answer is no.

Socialism is not possible without the initiation of violence. If thats what you want, fine, but don't pretend you have the moral high ground because you are robbing houses in order to donate to a cancer fund. You aren't altruistic, noble, moral, or good--you are just another tyrant who uses violence as a means to their ends.

As good a strawman as any atheist has Q.

What the hell is this sentence supposed to express?`oh yeah, another fallacy. Someone points out HOW and WHY you are WRONG, and all you can do is report back with "You are wrong too" without giving ANY arguments to support your claim.. Do you even know what "strawman" means in this context? If you do, give one example of a strawman set up by "any atheist"

Wise call. Don't feed the troll.

In reply to this comment by haggis:
cool video, but when will people learn to leave Moby in the 90s where he belongs? I cringe every time I hear that bloody song.

jdlongmire -

actually, sod it. i was going to explain why you're wrong and why natural selection happens ALL THE TIME but I just can't be arsed. There's no reasoning with you lot, so I won't waste the effort.

cool video, but when will people learn to leave Moby in the 90s where he belongs? I cringe every time I hear that bloody song.

jdlongmire -

actually, sod it. i was going to explain why you're wrong and why natural selection happens ALL THE TIME but I just can't be arsed. There's no reasoning with you lot, so I won't waste the effort.

Here's to you, Chaucer.

Wikipedia's summarization of "Theory"

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Dictionary.com's definition of "Theory"

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation —the·o·ret·i·cal

What a scientific theory is NOT:
Guessing
Conjecture
Speculation

Wikipedia's summarization is more than enough to get the point across, but there are those who do not accept the validity of Wikipedia as a source material. For that reason and that I don't like to just grab stuff off the internet and submit it as my own idea, I wrote this.

Intelligent Designers argue that Evolution is just a 'Theory', not a fact. This is true. The fact that beings evolve is not under debate; the process by which they evolve is the question. It has been scientifically proven that evolution occurs. As xxovercastxx rightly pointed out, new strains of influenza appear all the time. The thing is, There is no ladder from observing to fact. This is not a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. What you have is a failure to understand the terms that are used to describe evolution, as well as other theories. A fact is a data, some quantitative or qualitative expression of something that is true. A theory is a description of an idea that interprets and explains those facts.

I shall further explain via example.

In layman's terms, gravity is a physical interaction through which all masses attract each other. Gravity can be observed and tested. In fact, go ahead and test it right now. Stand up and jump. You should find that you return to the ground at a rate of acceleration roughly equal to 9.8 m/s/s. You have just proven a fact: You are attracted to the Earth upon which you rest by an attractive force we call gravity. How does that work, you might ask? Well, Issac Newton's description of gravity went something like this: “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”

That means every single point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line combining the two. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.

Thus,
F=G(m1m2/r2)
Where
F= the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses
G= the gravitational constant
m1= the mass of the first point mass
m2= the mass of the second point mass
r2= the distance between the two point masses
One could plug in the numbers and actually find the magnitude of gravitational force of your jump.

What I have just described is a Theory explaining the fact that when you jumped, you returned to the Earth (It might be wise to add at this point that newton's theory was later found to be inadequate to describe more than simple interactions between masses, such as the experiment you just performed, as well as interactions at great distances, such as more than 1 or so astronomical unit. More complex interactions require The Theory of General Relativity).

It is with this relatively brief comment that I hope to clear up any confusion for further viewers. Hah, and you though YOU were long-winded, xxovercastxx! If anyone wishes to argue with me, go ahead and shoot me an e-mail at RSRegisterPass@Gmail.com, and I'll be happy to shoot you back a compilation of reasons why you're wrong. Have a nice day!

"You've proven why you are wrong in one sentence. Sounds like apartheid to me. Anyways, how are Palestinians not Israelis?"

You know what, i cant even begin to argue with you when modern history gets so distorted. So I am not going to try. Its so easy to argue against Israel. Just make up tons of accusations, throw in human rights violations, compare them to the nazis, justify terrorism, distort history, and you've won every argument.

If you want to argue that Israel is an apartheid nation then prove it by showing how it discriminates and racially segregates its OWN citizens. And if you want to argue that palestinians are victims of apartheid then you have to convince me that Israelis don't have any security threat to fear from them. Segregation for security reasons is not Apartheid especially when its an entity that is known for unleashing endless terror.

So far according to the definition of Apartheid Israel is no more guilty than any other nation especially the arab ones including palestinians themselves.

I'm not sure how anyone can accuse israel of apartheid while palestinian christians, homosexuals and women are either tortured, abused, or mistreated on a daily basis.

What I see here is typical anti-Israel bias.

If Israel were to mistreat Israeli Arabs and christians and prevent them from certain rights, not allow them on certain roads for racial reasons then that would be apartheid.

Wow, game, set and match. You've proven why you are wrong in one sentence. Sounds like apartheid to me. Anyways, how are Palestinians not Israelis? What are they then? Are they Palestinians? Sorry, there is no nation or nationality for Palestine. When a group occupies a country and treats former residents as inhuman.. well, was South Africa an apartheid country? How is Israel any different?