Does anyone else immediately think "cannibalism" when hearing/reading the phrase "modest proposal"?

Thank you for your good will here, I genuinely appreciate it. It's one of the few acts of sincerity I've received on this board. Because of that, you've inspired me to present my defense. I will attempt to show that evolution is every bit as metaphysical as a belief in God. I will also attempt to answer the question you posed about compartmentalization. I should get to it later today. Thank you again.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..
You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.
The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.
For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?
As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feels strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.
Just understand that we also feel strongly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..

You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.

The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.

For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?

As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feel strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.

Just understand that we also feel strongly.

Salman is awesome. He's so modest about his own intelligence...even to the degree of calling himself and others in the room "lucky".

>> ^ghark:

>> ^kceaton1:
>> ^ghark:
man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.
This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.
I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.
Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.
I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.
This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...
small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).

I'm not hating on the music, I really like Linkin Park, I'm just stating that I think your description of the music is taking things too far, adding lots of slow motion shots and screaming less is not growing up. Their new music is a bit knee jerk imo, they copped a lot of criticism and they are trying to overcompensate to please people, instead they should follow their own path, and personally I do not believe that they are doing this. So I guess that is where our opinions differ.


Alright, I see where you're coming from. We can agree to disagree; I think your point is very valid, as their music could have gone in a thousand different directions. I happen to like this direction and you don't; I can deal with that. It was more the attack on the description that irked me. But, I don't blame you as after re-reading it, it comes off as a "you-should-have-this-point-of-view". I appreciate your feedback. I hope you do as well. I like what they've become (I haven't paid much attention to them in the past to be honest, so if their hand "musically" was a forced issue--I'd be on your side most likely).

I'm an artist, drawing wise, and if someone was hating on my artistry I wouldn't change it for them no matter what. As I do it for myself and to express myself how I want. If you sell that out, I'd have to say that you've lost any credibility you had (and if LP did that; it makes me think less of them now). But, more importantly you lose your "heart", which you need badly in any art. You lose that aspect and you'll grow to hate yourself (the downward spiral so to speak).

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^ghark:
man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.
This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.
I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.
Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.
I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.
This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...
small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).


I'm not hating on the music, I really like Linkin Park, I'm just stating that I think your description of the music is taking things too far, adding lots of slow motion shots and screaming less is not growing up. Their new music is a bit knee jerk imo, they copped a lot of criticism and they are trying to overcompensate to please people, instead they should follow their own path, and personally I do not believe that they are doing this. So I guess that is where our opinions differ.

>> ^ghark:

man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.


This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.

I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.

Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.

I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.

This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...

small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).

>> ^bobknight33:
We created this mess we need to fix this mess which means great sacrifice today so our children and grand children wont get shafted.

Have a think about whether that's actually true.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Federally, non-defense discretionary makes up 19% of your federal government expenditures. It comprises things like spending on education, science/technology, and infrastructure. All of these are highly relevant to the skills, innovativeness and capacity for the country's economy to support the next generations. Collectively these 3 aspects make up 8% of expenditure. Education is 3% of the pie. How finely do you have to slice this pie to extract any meaningful budget benefits? Meanwhile Social Security is about 20%, Medicare/aid is 21%, other safety net programs are 14%.

Now yes, we're talking about state spending where the proportion is generally much more substantial (around a quarter), but the point is simple. Politically, it's not about leaving a better quality of life for latter generations. It's about preventing meltdown while riling the least amount of constituent groups. And guess what? Future generations don't have a vote yet and teachers are a manageable target. Making modest reductions to Social Security, Medicare/aid and pensions would not be onerous when shared around and in making the current generation pay back for the excesses of the past few decades, would be the most fair. It's a vote killer though.

The fact is, gutting discretionary spending is the very definition of shafting the problem down the line. When the US economy several decades on is low tax, full of wealthy corporations but with a workforce significantly made up of overseas workers while the domestic workforce struggles in the doldrums of low dead-end service jobs, let me know what you think.

Also, how is government unionisation wrong? Why is it that a group of people can't come together to collectively negotiate, especially where their wages are generally standardised?

Don't get me wrong, from what I've heard there's a multitude of things wrong with the teacher's unions. Resistant to any change, particularly to differentiate talent, endemic bad teachers that are impossible to remove. Exorbitant costs at certain levels with average/below average results. Gutting collective bargaining with the obvious intention of gutting their pay while not addressing any of these issues is not the way to go about it. The focus needs to be on a shift to merit pay, more inter school competition, standardised tests which are actually standardised and not set at the whim of local officials.

When? Right now. They aren't complaining about pay. The teachers are even agreeing to increase their contributions to their health benefits and pension plans, but the state also wants to take away their right to collective bargaining.

Rain and snow moved most protesters at the Wisconsin State Capitol indoors Sunday as rallies continued against a plan that would strip public workers of union bargaining rights.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker calls his plan politically bold, but says he's only asking for modest contributions from public workers on health care and pension benefits. Union leaders said this week they were willing to make those concessions to help balance Wisconsin's budget, but state AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt told a crowd in the Capitol rotunda that taking away bargaining rights is a step too far.

Because the teachers are contributing more to health care and pension costs, it is costing them money. That, in effect, is a pay cut. Yet they agreed to this anyway. But that's not enough for the Republican governor and the Republican-controlled legislature. They want to strip the teachers of their collective bargaining rights, thus making them even more vulnerable to future pay cuts. It's not enough to fuck the teachers now, but also to be able to fuck them down the road too. >> ^blankfist:

When are we going to see a time when public workers and unions aren't complaining about the pay? I don't get paid enough either. Shit.

SS is a Ponzi setup, plain and simple. The government isn't "investing" the money into anything but the government and returning that to their tax investors. It requires a larger working population coming on board to subsidize the older holders. The only reason it hasn't blown up is we have had continual increases in population as well as a mostly growing economy. Throw in a major economic paradigm change where population isn't tripling every century or the economic growth doesn't increase exponentially and the problem hits you in the face. You either have to raise taxes, lower the value of the dollar, reduce distributions, or raise the age cap; there is no other solution. With the baby bloomers finally coming of age, the change of this system to something that doesn't completely implode has to happen sooner than later.

There is no "surplus" in SS. That surplus it in U.S. government bonds which tie their worth to the general perception of the health of the US economy. The surplus owns no real assets in other words. Your 401k invests in actual companies, the SS trust invests in the government. For there to be an actual "trust" like a 401k, then the totality of nation wide spending would have to remain consistent and taxes be the same.

"From an economic standpoint, the question of whether the trust fund is fact or fiction comes down to whether the trust fund contributes to national savings or not. If $1 added to the fund increases national savings by $1, the trust fund is real. If $1 added to the fund increases national savings by $0, the trust fund is not real. A substantial body of economic research argues that the trust funds have led to only a small to modest increase in national savings and that the bulk of the trust fund has been spent."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10953
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=233130

The proof is in tax cuts and increased spending via the Bush/Obama spending packages and tax breaks. This has a net effect of the government spending more. If they are spending more then they are saving, it doesn't matter where, then there effectively is no actual trust via inflation tax. To put it more plainly, the government has spent in 2 years what ss has taken decades to accumulate...there is no savings really.

Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Agree to staunchly disagree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

Agree to staunchly disagree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?