@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.
To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.


understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).
Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.


Scripture says differently

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

"The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity"-@shinyblurry

Since I only nitpick and I don't plan to really read a response or comment again I'll say just this:

Look up something called the "quantum foam" or "quantum spacetime". Virtual particles, zipping in and out of reality annihilating each other with extreme amounts of energy that we can barely even notice, yet there it is--literally nothing. The math side of things yells, nay, screams at us that it's there. But, they've barely yet scratched the surface of this frontier, until...

About four or five months ago (if you look on my blog I had a post about it) they literally pulled a photon from nothing! You may wish to slightly rephrase your terminology or concede that "virtual" and nothing (in this Universe anyway) are not somehow perhaps connected. Thus negating your statement as they did indeed pull a photon from essentially nothing. It could also be that the terminology of "nothing" is not an exact definition in nature, it being purely an idealogical one.

It may be, not saying it is, but just something interesting to look at and think about. BUT, I know you... ...'This does not mean this so that can not mean that so thus the Bible is correct'... Keep working it that way, it has worked so well for you on here so far. Don't try another path!

>> ^Trancecoach:

seems like Tyson is explaining it in a way that's still a bit over the kid's head... dumb it down, will ya? the kid's 7 years old!

Well, perhaps by introducing the kid to the right terminology and a sense of how complex the question is, he might inpsire the kid to find out what all those words and concepts mean. It sure made me do a bit of googling.

>> ^deathcow:

Awesome find... my telescope made a woman cry once, no, not hitting her with it, she was looking at saturn. It's a real excellent target for scopes, very high contrast with easily perceived colors.


I don't know if this is the right terminology, but what magnification was yours? If I wanted spoil myself one day, what (once again, I don't know the lingo) magnification would give me an impressive view of the great ringed wonder?

I am not sure I like this guy's videos. They are oversimplified at best, when not patently incorrect. At the end of all of his vids, I feel he hasn't left any useful or new information, but rather spattered out some vaguely intelligible terminology which the layman would hopefully find 'interesting'.

I would like to take a moment to fight the good fight. Let's get down to brass tacks: Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Rick Mercer spends his leisure time devising ever more money-grubbing ways to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his vindictive wheelings and dealings. To use some computer terminology, his gang has an "installed base" of hundreds of disorganized renitent-types. The implication is that Rick thinks it would be a great idea to entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of acrasial, gloomy finaglers. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. Although I can no more change the past than see the future, it's safe to say that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, villainous world run by lecherous, obstreperous dissemblers. It should come as no shock to anyone that if you can make any sense out Rick's lackluster mottos then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Darkhand:
I don't do stunts on my motorcycle and I wear more protection than these guys. I'm wondering if maybe I'm being too cautious sometimes!
well, maybe wearing a condom is a bit overdoing it.

No but using an oral jam when I go down on her, then making her put in a diaphragm, then some spermicide, then a female condom, then having me put on my condom IS overdoing it.
^ ^ ^ This is the level of gear I wear. ^ ^ ^ I currently have a full face helmet, race track (almost knee high) boots that are made entirely of metal or reinforced plastics, kevlar pants with reinforced knee armour, a leather jacket with knox armour at all the joint points as well as forearms, AND gloves.
A more fair comparison would to your "condom scenario" would be something more akin to putting on a full face helmet and a protective jacket. Then some regular jeans, gloves, and some reinforced work boots.
For your terminology this guy is riding "bareback".
do you hear that noise up in the sky? that's how far up my joke went over your head.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^Darkhand:
I don't do stunts on my motorcycle and I wear more protection than these guys. I'm wondering if maybe I'm being too cautious sometimes!
well, maybe wearing a condom is a bit overdoing it.


No but using an oral jam when I go down on her, then making her put in a diaphragm, then some spermicide, then a female condom, then having me put on my condom IS overdoing it.

^ ^ ^ This is the level of gear I wear. ^ ^ ^ I currently have a full face helmet, race track (almost knee high) boots that are made entirely of metal or reinforced plastics, kevlar pants with reinforced knee armour, a leather jacket with knox armour at all the joint points as well as forearms, AND gloves.

A more fair comparison would to your "condom scenario" would be something more akin to putting on a full face helmet and a protective jacket. Then some regular jeans, gloves, and some reinforced work boots.

For your terminology this guy is riding "bareback".

usability

what a dipshit sounding word, that seems like a word passed by the dictionary council to lubricate American terminology.

How you doin eh ?

Anti-realism is not a term that is conventionally applied to language. You were employing a metaphor. That's fine; that's how all language works. There would be no words, and no dictionary to look them up in, if we didn't use metaphor.

This belief that a word can have only one narrow and arbitrary meaning, which its enforcers have memorised and to which they will allow no opposition, is dangerous and stifling to discourse. It's particularly bizarre in the context of this discussion since I'm sure, if we could be bothered to check, we would find many examples in dictionaries and other scholarly instruments of the term 'fascist' applied much more loosely than I've proposed here. It's often used, legitimately, as a simple synonym for 'bully'.

You'll notice that far from insisting on my own, I allow your meaning, and Webster's and mine all together. I only say that mine is better, being a pruned and perfected incarnation of its relatives. If we didn't prefer our own ideas to those of others there would be no point to independent thought at all.

I think you ought to read my posts more carefully and assume, for the sake of scientific inquiry, that I might be as smart as you are.>> ^Kofi:

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.
I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.
Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.

I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.

Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

GM - You appeal to convention to convey a message then reject what that convention is in favour of your own definition.

If you feel so strongly about Obama that you feel the need to co-opt the ill sentiment behind a historical political movement without adhering to the content of that phenomenon then it is futile to try to communicate with you in any meaningful way.

Internal violence directed against dissent and political adversaries is an essential element of fascism. Militarism is ubiquitous throughout developed nations and as such it is a comparative term. Is the USA more militaristic that other nations? Externally it is but internally it is not. The civilian police force maintain law and order. Is it authoritarian? Hardly. The US's fetishisation of liberty makes that near impossible. Social unity? You are way off there.

You need to read your history more in order to understand why things are the way they are and why terminology is the way it is. You can't just use words to convey a meaning without knowing what it will mean to other people.

Small tangent...

As far as terminology goes, I never got on board the "African-American" train because it was silly and it stank of white guilt. I don't feel guilty in the slightest so, yes, black people are still called black people around my place.

I'm not sure about pluralizing it with "the blacks," however. That might be going a bit too far. That's like say "the jews."

White people. Jewish people. Black people. That's how I roll.

@quantumushroom If facts are so important to you, then why is it that you never employ them while making implausible comments like liberalism causes black people to have babies out of wedlock, or that gays don't want equal marriage rights, or that California is broke because of liberalism.

You proudly admit to getting your media from questionable, corporate funded sources that a) carry no credibility outside of hardcore sympathetic ideologues, and b) have been shown to be less effective at keeping you informed than no media at all. This should be a big red flag.

http://www.good.is/post/poll-finds-fox-news-is-worse-than-no-news-at-all/

Beyond all this, you support a political ideology that has been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to women's rights to civil rights, to labor rights, and continuing with campaigns against gays, Muslims and Mexicans, as well as a continuation of the prejudices of old.

Do you ever wonder how regular German citizens got sucked into supporting fascism? Well wonder no more.

Let's take a look at the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and see how you do....

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

CHECK

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

CHECK

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

CHECK

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

CHECK

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

CHECK

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

CHECK

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

CHECK

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

CHECK

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

CHECK

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

CHECK

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

CHECK

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

CHECK

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I've seen nothing to suggest you support fraudulent elections.

13 out of 14. NOT GOOD DUDE. NOT GOOD AT ALL. You are free to dispute which ever ones you like, but you've got years of incriminating comments on this site to back this up.

But of course if you could see it, then the Germans would have been able to see it too, and we wouldn't have had to fight that war.



In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
My problem is only with intellectual dishonesty, whether it's via curable ignorance or deliberate deception is almost irrelevant.

I've been where you are now politically, only LONG ago. I worked my way UP from liberalism, wiped the slate clean with anarchism, aimed toward libertarianism and am now floating in the undefined, invisible world of 'conservatarianism'. I do not agree with liberal policies based on liberals' good intentions. As a taxpayer and citizen, I demand positive RESULTS, and anyone foisting social experiments on society better be ready to defend them when they fail. Do you know the stats on Black crime and births out of wedlock? "Racism" did not cause a 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, LIBERALISM did. Crazy Johnson's "Great Society" garbage. The results of holding Blacks to lower standards--including standards of behavior--is self-evident.

There is even a fair argument for gay marriage, but the gay "lifestyle" generally is a sad one, with rampant promiscuity and diseases. It's not established that most gays even want legal marriage. And though no one else cares to acknowledge it, AIDS is a behaviorally spread disease. Remember that the billions politically steered towards AIDS research could also have been spent on cancer research, and cancer affects FAR more people.

California is broke. It got that way due to liberalism. RESULTS. Not good intentions, RESULTS.

You have a right to your opinions, but no one has the right to their own facts. If I had to judge you, I would say you're highly intelligent but misguided, not because your political views don't mirror mine, but because you refuse to step back and view the entire picture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The bottom line is that your problem with gays, blacks and other minorities is just that: your problem. It's not their fault that they have ended up on the wrong side of your emotional development. It's something you need to come to terms with on your own.