>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.


So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?

I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.

>> ^Deano:

I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.


I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I hope you're not as uncritical when looking for libertarian literature as you are when looking for health information. That page is written by a HuffPo grade misinformer. Unpasteurized milk has no nutritional benefits over pasteurized milk, no matter how much some California hippies bleat about "natural".

Of course, I'm not here to judge those who choose to drink raw milk for some reason. I come after all from a country where half-rotten fish is considered haute cuisine (Although properly made rakfisk has no infectuous risks. And is delicious! And is a great excuse to drink lots of aquavit! Errm, I digress.). If you absolutely want some dysentery with your milk, that's your problem. I just want to warn people that we pasteurize milk for a very good reason.

On a larger scale though, I find it alarming that Ron Paul has to pay lip service to the health and nutrition wackos to garner votes. What will be next? The same type of west coast hippies also campaign actively against childhood vaccination. Will he, if he is elected president, abandon childhood vaccination programs in the name of freedom, when we know for a fact that the disappearance of group immunity in some areas of California has resulted in deadly outbreaks of measles and whooping cough?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

>> ^newtboy:

I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).

I'd say per capita isn't as important as debt/GDP ratios. By that measure, Greece is in terrible shape (148% of GDP), while places like Sweeden and Denmark and Finland are all in the 30-40% range. The US is at about 60%, which isn't great, but it's not terrible, and definitely nothing like Greece.

>> ^newtboy:
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!

It's true. Not every EU nation has given up their own currency, but all of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) have.

>> ^newtboy:
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.

Well, Fed policies can reduce the money supply too. Any time the Fed raises interest rates, that's what it's doing.

>> ^newtboy:
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2.

That's hyperinflation, i.e. a process where inflation doesn't just rise, but starts exponentially increasing. That's why central banks in modern times have explicit, stable inflation targets that they communicate publicly.

Adopting a higher inflation target definitely helps a government's long term fiscal position, at the cost of weakening its exchange rate, without risking any sort of runaway inflation.

Sometimes that's a worthwhile trade to make, especially if the alternative (default) is worse.

>> ^newtboy:
There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing.
...
Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them.

That's the thing, you say it's the programs that "bankrupted them", I'm saying "no it didn't, they went bankrupt because they didn't ask people to pay the taxes to pay for the safety net they had".

You can balance the government budget at 18% of GDP or 50% of GDP. Having paid maternity leave doesn't bankrupt you. It's having paid maternity leave, and then cutting the taxes that pay for it that bankrupts you.

>> ^newtboy:
If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc.,

Well, having the money is a choice we make as a society. Our GDP, even in this crisis, is $14 trillion a year. I suspect maternity leave wouldn't even cost a thousandth of one percent of that.

Again, the size of government has nothing to do with your fiscal discipline. Fiscal discipline is saying that you want to be taxed at a rate that will pay for the government as it exists. Demanding other people sacrifice so that you don't have to pay higher taxes is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Two that came to my mind, even though they are more like hard sci-fi set in modern times:

Primer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)

The Man From Earth - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

Am I arguing with you or Christopher Hitchens? I wonder if you have any original thoughts to share?

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

I've noticed many people whose consciences are seared by their ignorance don't really have any shame.

Conscience seared by ignorance? That sentence kind of makes sense if you say "sin" there or something... but ignorance? Does this apply to children? Or by "ignorance" do you mean something more like "doesn't agree with me"?

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against God and His followers have an agenda that goes far beyond their manufactured outrage... It comes from a heart polluted with sin.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

The bible perfectly describes the human condition. It exposes people as immoral hypocrites who have never once lived up to their own standard, let alone Gods standard. Shame isn't a secret because everyone is found to be guilty. The great lie of the world is that people are generally good. They're not. People are generally sinful and anyone with two eyes can see that.

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

The fact that you think Christianity is some kind of conspiracy to control people is just patently false. It's a matter of history what happened and why. Even Dawkins admits Jesus is a historical figure. That the authors of the gospels willingly martyred themselves for that truth should tell you something.

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

In many ways this is uterly retarded ,

I am all for having traditional barbers as an exsperance to go to just for the fun of it kind of like a musuim or in the same way its cool that you have some stream trains still running or that you can get some types of food and drink that are made in old fationd ways.

but I highly dobt that a cut through razor is as good as a sharp modern blade razor in terms of comfort and quality of shave In all practical ways its not realy a shame that allot of these places have disapeard Its much better in modern times that you now have a choice if u want to shave at home or in publick and how you want to spend your money and time.

Granted there has been a tendency for businesses to go the Macdonalds way where they couldn't give a shit about the customer , but in most towns its not hard to find a barber or restrant thats totally modern but yet does things properly and knows there customer base. ( i bet in the past a huge propotoin of establishments didn't give a shit about the customer ether we have just convenatly forgot about them)


In some ways holding onto the past or past sensabilities with no real logic or reasoin behind it can be like holding onto racism , sexism , inequality , and other attitudes of the past its pritty stupid to have the attitude that because something is traditional or old that its better by defult.

lol better than anything in today's post-modern times

>> ^quantumushroom:

No, I'm not comparing him to all Muslims. Just the jihadists causing thousands of needless deaths.

Why is everyone getting worked up about this guy? Like he is some major player and representative of Christianity? He has the reach of Rhode Island public access television.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.



Dammit he's right...alright everyone shut it down, last one out get the lights.

No, I'm not comparing him to all Muslims. Just the jihadists causing thousands of needless deaths.


Why is everyone getting worked up about this guy? Like he is some major player and representative of Christianity? He has the reach of Rhode Island public access television.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.



Yes, when you compare one douchebag in a suit to an entire religion spanning hundreds of millions, chances are the numbers are going to be a little one sided ya moron... =)

A gay man was beat to death in Uganda yesterday. Quite possibly [edit] for being gay. The Christian Right from America went over there and helped roil up the country against homosexuals.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/27/ugandan-gay-rights-activist-murdered

Yesterday. Yesterday. Repeat after me.

Yesterday.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.


You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.