>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So Jim Rogers is a hypocrite, what's your point?
Are you implying/concluding something about Ron Paul's economic policies?

Not so much Paul's policies so much as Paul's supposed knowledge of macroeconomics.

Paul's Austrian economics says that expanding the monetary base the way the Fed has should result in immediate inflation since monetary "stimulus" doesn't do anything but raise the overall price level. According to Paul's prediction, anyone holding a stock of U.S. dollars in cash is a moron, because those dollars are expected to fall in value dramatically any day now. Smart investors would "sell" their dollars and move their wealth to a better investment instrument.

Similarly, Paul's Austrian economics say that running massive government deficits never have a positive effect, and will only lead to inflation and a rise in the government's borrowing costs. In investor terms, that means that you should expect treasury bond prices to fall -- and an investor looking to capitalize on that knowledge can make a profit by shorting bonds.

Jim Rogers is not doing either of those things. Which means one of two things:

1) Jim Rogers is a moron who knows nothing about investments.
2) Jim Rogers thinks Ron Paul's central economic predictions are wrong.

Either way, that means this is not a particularly ringing endorsement of Paul's economic chops. Either he's being praised by a Grade A moron, or his so-called supporter thinks Paul is actually full of shit on the economy, and was stupid enough to make that abundantly clear on TV.

The title I'd probably have sifted this with would be "Paul endorser forced to admit Paul doesn't know jack about economics." Well, at least I would have if titles could be that long...

>> ^Hanover_Phist:

Oh, I don't know Zach... I might start to think the sexual orientation of your parents has had a POSITIVE effect on your character. Maybe more parents could be lesbians.


WHY!? So we can live knowing that there's a bunch of well adjusted good people out there living a good life and being nice to people? That's my idea of fucking hell, whenever I meet a nice person I want to punch them right in the fucking face.

No sarcasm box because I'm serious, good people are all bastards!

@ghark there's a lot of what you're saying that I agree with, but still you've got this false equivalency thing going. Democrats are not winning the fight against corporate plutocracy. That is not the same thing as fighting for corporate plutocracy.

Equating the two doesn't help you get anywhere in changing the political landscape, it just has the effect of demoralizing people sympathetic to your cause, and getting them to drop out of the political process entirely.

Now one can hypothesize that the Democrats aren't winning because they're taking a dive. But that flies in the face of the facts. They passed HCR, bank regulation, repeal of DADT, etc. You seem to be buying into the line that HCR is some victory for the corporations, or that Dodd-Frank made the banks stronger, and that nobody at all in Washington is doing anything worth praising. That's just not true. Those are right-wing talking points. That's what Republicans want people to believe.

I agree that you shouldn't think that voting for Democrats means you can sit back, and they'll just fix everything for you. No, if you want to really make some sweeping changes, you need to form a broad-based political movement that changes the minds and mood of the public. You need a movement that keeps Democrats on the straight and narrow, and puts pressure on Republicans to mend their ways.

I hope Occupy Wall Street will be that kind of movement. I certainly think they've had a positive effect so far.

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

>> ^hpqp:

@SDGundamX
You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.
When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.
As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.
You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.
It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.
Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.

My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.

About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails).

Just one more thing... since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

>> ^Ornthoron:

You are right, there are many decisions parents make that will affect a person for life. Some are good and some are bad. I am for those that are good and against those that are bad. For instance, I am also opposed to parents sending their kids to religious schools that teach the kids only one narrow way to look at the world, because I believe they will suffer for it later in life.
For some decisions it is easy to separate between what's bad for the child long-term and what's good. In other cases it is not so clear cut (no pun intended). It is not easy being a parent, and everyone will make wrong decisions once in a while.
However, when it comes to male (and female) circumcision, where there are miniscule to none positive effects and some very real negative effects, the decision should be easy. We don't allow parents to perform any other type of plastic surgery on infants, so why should this be allowed? Many other religious views can be overruled by the state if it's in the best interest of a person too young to make decisions for themselves.
>> ^VoodooV:
There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.


Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.

and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.

As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

You are right, there are many decisions parents make that will affect a person for life. Some are good and some are bad. I am for those that are good and against those that are bad. For instance, I am also opposed to parents sending their kids to religious schools that teach the kids only one narrow way to look at the world, because I believe they will suffer for it later in life.

For some decisions it is easy to separate between what's bad for the child long-term and what's good. In other cases it is not so clear cut (no pun intended). It is not easy being a parent, and everyone will make wrong decisions once in a while.

However, when it comes to male (and female) circumcision, where there are miniscule to none positive effects and some very real negative effects, the decision should be easy. We don't allow parents to perform any other type of plastic surgery on infants, so why should this be allowed? Many other religious views can be overruled by the state if it's in the best interest of a person too young to make decisions for themselves.

>> ^VoodooV:
There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.
Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.
Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.
There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.


you just demonstrated why a ban is stupid and unnecessary. If circumcision is declining on it's own. Why is it necessary to ban it?

You haven't made ANY case for why gov't should get involved, quite the opposite in fact. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments. It simply not being necessary is not reason enough to ban it. You simply have NOT made your case....at all. This is a perfect example of less is more when it comes to laws.

If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not do it...allow others the same freedom, thank you.

>> ^VoodooV:

splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.


You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.

Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.

Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.

There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^chilaxe:
"Not all cultures are equal."
Isn't it kind of anti-intellectual to be offended by that? What kind of metrics are we referring to that every metric somehow comes out equal across cultures?

If you can say "not all cultures are equal" then it's obvious you are measure how good a culture is. And obviously our culture is better than theirs.


Isn't the strongest case probably that cultures that have a positive effect on the world are more positive than cultures that have a negative effect on the world?

If that's not true, than any future claims on the sift that anti-gay culture or fascism are less desirable should be ridiculed, since fascist culture is of equal value to liberal culture.

The challenge is in finding the right measurements to determine positive and negative effects on the world.

Guys, you're missing the point of this video. She's not comparing herself to anyone else, so neither should you. If all you get out of this video is a bad feeling about yourself, then I would say to you, don't fall for the tricks of the ego, which is to make us compare ourselves to others, which in turn makes us feel separate and bad about ourselves somehow. Instead, go into your heart, realise that you too have the courage to seek your passion and be the biggest version of yourself possible. Because when you are the biggest version of yourself, it can only be good for the rest of the world, by the positive effect you will have on everyone you meet.

I'm confused. You say that your definition of "corruption" is literal "not working that way it's supposed to" but then link me to a definition that matches what I think corruption means -- actual, well, corruption.

We're not going to get far if we can't agree on the meaning of corruption. Heck, we can't even get started.

I just don't agree with any of your base assumptions, honey bunny.

I don't agree with this: "Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed. i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering"

And I REALLY don't agree with this: "the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason i.e. dancing in protest." Those activists didn't suffer, they aren't innocent, there was a good reason. They are so thrilled they got thrown to the ground -- they set out to be thrown to the ground. They couldn't be more pleased. They won.

I'm sorry, I just don't even want to answer the two questions you posed. I can't get past the first one. "Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)" Google it. I don't think anything different than anyone who has had a problem and called the police for help.

I'm sorry, Genji, I just don't have the energy for this conversation if that is the question you have to ask me. I know you think that is a serious question, however for me it is proof of too big a divide between us.

I suspect we agree on many things. Citizens United, for example. I'll bet you hate that Supreme Court ruling as much as I do. The war of drugs. I'll bet you think that is a huge waste of money and human lives, just as I do. Legalization of Marijuana? I'm with you, babe.

I am more interested in concrete conversations, rather than your esoteric bent. The divide is too big for email exchanges -- perhaps if we lived in the same town, we could haggle for months over endless cups of coffee. These dueling monologues that email conversations digress into? I'd rather watch a cat fart video. And I don't much like cats.

Here's my philosophy of humans and life: "Everyone is doing the best they can in every given moment. Their best may stink, but it is the best they can do." Some people's best is so horrendous, you have to keep those people out of your life -- angry, abusive people, for example. That's their best -- I believe those folks are deeply damaged and are acting out of their pain. And I walk away from them.

But most people are just normally damaged. They have bad moments. I try not to define folks by their worst moments, but by their best. And that includes police officers.

I don't think that we can agree that police officers are human. If we can't start there, we got nowhere to go.

Sometimes I bore myself, as a good friend of mine says.... Blah blah blah

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
That's a really great video. It's proof of a hypothesis I had too. = D

Tho with that framing, I can understand how you may have interpreted my & that activist's cynical statements considering how.. philosophical? your definition of corruption seems to be.

For many, I think they think plain old literal "not working the way it's s'pposed to" a good definition for corruption.

More specifically - Political, Police, & Corporate were the types of corruption I was alluding to.

Now if we're discussing that video & incident from a literal view.
Literally, Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed.
i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering

So with that shallower, pragmatic framing of corruption; you should probably see how my intemperate idealism could make me so passionate about the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason
i.e. dancing in protest

~~~
Okay, I'll stop the wall of text here in a second.

Tho I would like to inquire about a few more things.

Your & @Shepppard's admiration for the positive effects of police officers seem to be based off the concept of The Correlation of Allegiance and Protection

"Since the police do provide some protection they obviously deserve my allegience"

I'd like to ask:

Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)

Does the sheer willingness to protect that who or what, justify the means by which that protection is accomplished?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted.

If this is supposed to be about Obama committing some sort of a crime, the burden of proof is on you. He's innocent until proven guilty.

>> ^blankfist:
How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly?

It's easy, put your hands in the air and say "I surrender." At that point, killing him really would've been a war crime. There's no evidence that indicates he did anything of the sort.

As for the rest of your comment, I could go and respond to each of your points in a big thread, but you usually don't bother to read those. Without stipulating that you said anything even remotely true, I'll say that there are certainly quite a few non-Osama bin Laden killings that are on much weaker legal and moral grounds than killing OBL was.

But that's why I think you should explain your fixation with OBL's death. There are much better examples to use to advance the cause of civil liberties.

The use of this one makes me just think you're trying to blunt its positive effect on Obama's poll numbers.

Oh, I don't know Zach... I might start to think the sexual orientation of your parents has had a POSITIVE effect on your character. Maybe more parents could be lesbians.

@blankfist you know, there once was a time when you actually responded to things I actually said, rather than unloading whatever feelings you generically have about the left in my direction.

What I'm saying is that there's never a bad time to start doing the right thing. If you think the right thing to do is to cheer on people who make ever more thinly veiled threats of violence against their political opponents, you really should just make your case for the positive effect you think it has on society rather than just casting aspersions on all calls for civility.