Science, truth, and language: Communicating with non-science and public audiences

May 30, 2011

How many times do we hear that some scientific view is "only theory" or that it is "not proven"? The hidden implication is that if we have not "proven" the case, then we do not know anything for certain about it, and any idea is as good as any other. A recent and vivid example of this problem is the ongoing argument in the popular media about global warming. Do we need to be absolutely certain before we take action?

These same issues and doubts come up in university for non-science students, and in public lectures with scientific themes. The problem, described by McMaster University William Harris at this week's CASCA 2011 meeting in Ontario, Canada, boils down to a misunderstanding about the way science really works. Contrary to the way it is often portrayed in public, science is not about "proving theories". An effective way to discuss these issues is to imagine a continuous line stretching from "totally right" at the top, to "totally wrong" at the bottom. Any scientific idea, hypothesis, or theory can be located somewhere on that line. If it has a lot of evidence supporting it, it lies near the top (for example, that the Earth is round; or that Newton's are correct; or that DNA is the basis of the ). Old ideas that were disproven sit at the bottom of the line (for example, that dinosaurs coexisted with , or that the Sun revolves around the Earth).

A new scientific idea just beginning to be explored sits somewhere in the middle of the line. As more evidence comes in and our tools for interpretation get better, we might find that the idea is wrong ("disproven") and it immediately drops to the bottom of the line. But with luck, we might find that it agrees with a lot of evidence and so our confidence in the idea grows. Over time, it might move upward into a full-fledged body of knowledge that is much more secure.

Another way to think about this line is to ask how much you would bet that a given scientific idea or theory is right. We literally bet our lives that Newton's laws are right, but we wouldn't be quite that confident in a new and untested statement. The key to understanding science is the role played by constant testing and real-world evidence.

Explore further: Perthites wanted for study on the Aussie lingo

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

Dec 10, 2009

(AP) -- Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

Learning styles debunked

Dec 16, 2009

Are you a verbal learner or a visual learner? Chances are, you've pegged yourself or your children as either one or the other and rely on study techniques that suit your individual learning needs. And you're not alone— ...

Zogby poll on evolution is released

Mar 07, 2006

A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.

American adults flunk basic science

Mar 12, 2009

Are Americans flunking science? A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive reveals that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy ...

Recommended for you

Awarded a Pell Grant? Better double-check

8 hours ago

(AP)—Potentially tens of thousands of students awarded a Pell Grant or other need-based federal aid for the coming school year could find it taken away because of a mistake in filling out the form.

Perthites wanted for study on the Aussie lingo

16 hours ago

We all know that Australians speak English differently from the way it's spoken in the UK or the US, and many of us are aware that Perth people have a slightly different version of the language from, say, Melbournians - but ...

User comments : 197

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.6 / 5 (14) May 30, 2011
How many times do we hear that some scientific view is "only theory" or that it is "not proven"?


No, the problem is not that people do not understand, it is in claims that a theory is a fact or that a theory has been proven.

ennui27
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2011
Non-scientist here .... but I wish the good professor had gone into experiments in more detail. Are not these the happenings that validate or invalidate a theory. Yet even if they do not give positive results about a theory, then something is learned - just that this path is unfruitful is certainly an advance.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (26) May 30, 2011
has a lot of evidence supporting it

That is NOT what scientists state.
THEY make claims their evidence leaves no further room for discussion.
I suggest that the first step is to educate those engaged in science. They need to understand the limits of their evidence and their theory and communicate that clearly.
thales
4.7 / 5 (15) May 30, 2011
THEY make claims their evidence leaves no further room for discussion... They need to understand the limits of their evidence and their theory and communicate that clearly.


So what's your stance on the "fact" that the Earth is a sphere? I hope you understand the limits of what you consider evidence for this "theory".
Na_Reth
2.5 / 5 (16) May 30, 2011
Not even theory, it is hypothesis, big bang, expansion, redshift etc.

Many "scientists" forget there is a difference between reality, observation and interpretation.

The worst part of it, is taking it as absolute truth, like the religious loons on the website think the bible is the absolute truth. The truth is, we do not know the absolute truth, our brains do not store a 1:1 copy of reality, but an interpretation of the observed.
mvg
2.1 / 5 (11) May 30, 2011
One problem that even scientists have: It REALLY IS possible to know 'less than nothing' about a subject when most of what you THINK you know is WRONG. Humility is in order--yet seldom displayed.
SemiNerd
5 / 5 (11) May 30, 2011
has a lot of evidence supporting it

That is NOT what scientists state.
THEY make claims their evidence leaves no further room for discussion.
I suggest that the first step is to educate those engaged in science. They need to understand the limits of their evidence and their theory and communicate that clearly.

Making statements about ALL scientists or, ALL of anything is a sure fire way to be wrong. You need to be educated about how science works. Its too bad that all you got out of this excellent article is the foolishness you posted.

Most scientists well understand the limits of their knowledge and are usually open to alternative explanations. How many scientists have you actually talked to?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) May 30, 2011
I suggest that the first step is to educate those engaged in science. They need to understand the limits of their evidence and their theory and communicate that clearly.
In opposition to what, the limitless stupidity of your beliefs plucked out of thin air?
slaveunit
5 / 5 (10) May 31, 2011
This is a seroius problem and is in my opinion the current greatest threat to western civilisation (not the taliban or the chinese). Our society is built on science rationalism and freedom. The takeover of the media by right wing propagandists the notion that the evidence doesnt matter only whether you can declare your science 'proven' the lack of investment in science and education all of these things will combine to weaken the western democracies to the point where a 3rd world war becomes inevitable, read history burning the credibility of science is the same as burning books in the late 30s. Imagine a christian dictatorship in te US with the technologies of the 21st century the internet makes george orwells vision possible.

Science needs to undertsand that communicating the beauty and excellence of the scientific method the value of it to humanity as a search for truth and a creator of new possibilities. If it fails to do so the mob will rule.
Cin5456
3.8 / 5 (10) May 31, 2011
"That is NOT what scientists state.
THEY make claims their evidence leaves no further room for discussion"

No,they don't. Climatologists discover trends from factual data collected, and discuss the consequences of action or inaction, for or against the perpetuation of those trends. It just so happens that some listeners are prejudiced to factual data that might impact industries or businesses they are dependent upon.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (9) May 31, 2011
"One problem that even scientists have: It REALLY IS possible to know 'less than nothing' about a subject when most of what you THINK you know is WRONG"

How is it that a scientist is wrong when his theory or hypotheses is backed by facts and figures, data collected and verified by other scientists the world over? Knowing "less than nothing" describes the nay-sayers who have never looked at a single piece of scientific data yet claim to know the truth of a scientists study.
Cin5456
3.7 / 5 (3) May 31, 2011
"I wish the good professor had gone into experiments in more detail."

Would you listen and believe if the good professor told you that the flooding in Pakistan during the last monsoon season was caused by water vapor that evaporated from the ocean in the Caribean Sea? The truth of this has been tracked by satelite data showing the accumulation of excessive water vapor that subsequently traveled by jet stream to the Middle East. That excess water vapor caused flooding six times the usual volume of a normal monsoon season. Would facts like that convince you?

Would you be convinced if the professor quoted facts about the drought in Russia that caused over a million acres to be burned becasue they had the warmest year on record?

I'm curious whether you saw anything mentioned in the news about the flooding in Australia. Subsequent flood events occurred because the flood waters evaporated in excessive heat and continued to rain down on the region in one event after another.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (7) May 31, 2011
"Many "scientists" forget there is a difference between reality, observation and interpretation."

I'm curious why you put quotes around the word scientists.
Are you implying that they aere pseudoscientists like the creationsists? Scientists go through incredibly rigorous education, training and examination to become scientists. What have you done that makes you more of an expert than them? Yes, there is a difference between reality, observation, and interpretation. But it is precisely the training they go through that makes them qualified to make those interpretations about observed reality.

Whose reality is in question? I'm assuming that you mean some alternate reality, though, something that is real to a politician perhaps? The politicians who have no clue what has been observed and recorded may have opinions, but they are not based on the reality of the data.
antialias
4.9 / 5 (9) May 31, 2011
Good article. However one part I can't quite agree with:
A new scientific idea just beginning to be explored sits somewhere in the middle of the line.

This would mean that posing a new theory already gives it some 50% credibility (e.g. 'god did it')

A new theory isn't anywhere on the line (yet). It's in some sort of intellectual limbo. It only gets to be on that line once some sort of experiment has been done to confirm or refute it. And on the strength of that experiment it can be placed on the line (i.e. does it describe already known observations, does it describe as of now unexplained observations, does it make good predictions of hitherto unobserved events, ... )

But maybe I'm misinterpreting the 'beginning to be explored'-part here. If that already means 'first tests have been done' then everything is OK.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) May 31, 2011
lol
You are all on that line.

Do we need to be absolutely certain before we take action?


Hmmm. O.k. No. Here's the problem though. I am not very experienced. I have only made a few dozen planets or so in my lifetime. You can see I really f__ked up Mercury, Venus, though, I almost got Mars right. I lucked out with Earth.
:)
Practice makes perfect, you know. :)

Here's the deal. Climate is a one shot deal. If I take the "wrong" action, kiss your asses bye. You see, of all the actions I can take, (there are an infinite number of actions), only one action is right. Shitty odds, I know.
But, hey, who knows, with my experience with my dozen of planets (moons too) and the total luck I have had with Earth...
Why not. It is worth the risk. After all, I can always start over. You can't. Sorry about that.

:)

Paljor
3.6 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
Dozens, try thousands. And we don't need to know every last detail, but it helps to know that there isn't some important detail that we missed. It all comes down to time. Is there enough time to figure out every last detail about our global climate before it is too late to do anything? Well it is currently up in the air, a 50-50 chance. But I don't really want to bet the earth. it is the only one we got right now. if you want to bet your planet, make sure you have a backup...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2011
So what's your stance on the "fact" that the Earth is a sphere?

The earth is not a sphere.
Scientists go through incredibly rigorous education, training and examination to become scientists.

What qualifies them as scientists? MDs and JDs have a rigorous, public, standardized certification process. All one need do for a PhD in other fields is to satisfy you adviser and other PhDs at your university. All quite subjective.

Most scientists well understand the limits of their knowledge

Wouldn't know that from what their public pronouncements.
Now if the writer mis-quoted the scientists, it is the scientists duty to correct the pop-sci writers.
antialias
5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2011
MDs and JDs have a rigorous, public, standardized certification process. All one need do for a PhD in other fields is to satisfy you adviser

That's because MDs and JDs don't do science.

Most other PhDs are expected to advance scientific knowledge in one way or another. How would you devise a test that evaluates stuff that wasn't even invented before that particular PhD student did his work?

Peer review is the best that we can do here.

And the "all one needs to do..." is certainly an understatement. That's a pretty hefty 'all'. PhD students go on to work at other institutions. If a particular professor were to hand out PhDs to any Tom, Dick and Harry then his scientific reputation (and that of his institute) will suffer.

At the grade of specialization which you need to achieve to get a PhD there are - at best - a few hundred others in the world working on similar subjects. And of those you know many (and of the rest you are expected to be aware of their work)
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
This is a seroius problem and is in my opinion the current greatest threat to western civilisation (not the taliban or the chinese). Our society is built on science rationalism and freedom. The takeover of the media by right wing propagandists the notion that the evidence doesnt matter only whether you can declare your science 'proven' the lack of investment in science and education all of these things will combine to weaken the western democracies to the point where a 3rd world war becomes inevitable, read history burning the credibility of science is the same as burning books in the late 30s. Imagine a christian dictatorship in te US with the technologies of the 21st century the internet makes george orwells vision possible.

Science needs to undertsand that communicating the beauty and excellence of the scientific method the value of it to humanity as a search for truth and a creator of new possibilities. If it fails to do so the mob will rule.


My thoughts exactly.
ennui27
5 / 5 (1) May 31, 2011
Would you listen and believe if the good professor told you ......


Not quite sure just what you are talking about here, Cin5456 - the article I read was about explaining scientific endevoures to non-scientists. Not about global warming - which is something I have never questioned.

I wanted more detail of the interaction between the theory, the proposition, and the evidence, either observed or experimentally derived.

when you drive do you find yourself giving 'the bird' to other drivers you think have transgressed? do you get excited and angry with other shoppers while waiting in line? Have trouble sleeping because of slights real or imagined?

Mellow out, dude.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2011
How is it that a scientist is wrong when his theory or hypotheses is backed by facts and figures, data collected and verified by other scientists the world over? Knowing "less than nothing" describes the nay-sayers who have never looked at a single piece of scientific data yet claim to know the truth of a scientists study.

When people believed the world is flat... Well it was an interpretation of their observation. They did not have the technology like we do now to know any better. For them it was logical.
Just because some scientards observe something that could be interpretated as expansion does not make it evidence or make it true, when the human race ever evolves to have real spaceships they would laugh at that hypothesis like we laugh now at people who thought the world is flat. Also what annoys me the most is that the scientist think that they know the truth because their interpretation suggest it, they do not. And no i do not believe in God(s).
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (8) May 31, 2011
Science needs to undertsand that communicating the beauty and excellence of the scientific method the value of it to humanity as a search for truth and a creator of new possibilities. If it fails to do so the mob will rule.

There are limits to the scientific method no matter how excellent and beautiful you think it may be.
How do you propose to find the truth when your beautiful method fails you?
Skultch
5 / 5 (7) May 31, 2011
Just because some scientards observe something that could be interpretated as expansion does not make it evidence


That's exactly what it is. Red shift is evidence for expansion. What else would you call it?

when the human race ever evolves to have real spaceships they would laugh at that hypothesis like we laugh now at people who thought the world is flat.


They would laugh at the THEORY. See, it's a THEORY because there is evidence that supports it. YOU are the reason this article's message is necessary.

Also what annoys me the most is that the scientist think that they know the truth because their interpretation suggest it, they do not.


Nor do they claim to know the 100% truth.

Ya know what annoys me? The attacks on the integrity of the scientific method and our body of knowledge. You don't like science? Give away all your technology (no, you don't get to sell it) and move to the African bush or the Amazon. Until then, show some damn respect!!
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) May 31, 2011
There are limits to the scientific method no matter how excellent and beautiful you think it may be.
How do you propose to find the truth when your beautiful method fails you?


My awesome technology and easy, healthy, long life say that this limited process still has GREAT value.

Ahhh, we're back again to the dichotomy of what's true and what works. It's seems you are putting expectations on the method that most wouldn't. Oh, and before you spout an unsupported claim about scientists going to far: Scientists are human, they're allowed to have opinions, AND do science.

Your suggested replacement for the method is.........
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
That's exactly what it is. Red shift is evidence for expansion. What else would you call it?


I see my point did not get across et all.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
That's exactly what it is. Red shift is evidence for expansion. What else would you call it?


I see my point did not get across et all.


I know what you are getting at. I'm just not playing your game.

Ok then. I'll play. Let's hear your rock solid argument on how the evidence of expansion cannot be reliably extrapolated to a big bang theory. Geniuses around the world are waiting to find out how much time they have wasted.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 31, 2011
Nor do they claim to know the 100% truth.

Some certainly do.
It's seems you are putting expectations on the method that most wouldn't.

I didn't claim its excellence and beauty.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2011
I know what you are getting at. I'm just not playing your game.

It's not a game, but simple logic.

evidence of expansion

What evidence? Oh you mean a wrongfully drawn conclusion of a human designed system. Lets play your game then, no?
All of our data pretty much comes from one enclosed perspective of the universe, a single point of the universe, basically.
That hypothesis holds as much water as the flat world.

cannot be reliably extrapolated to a big bang theory.

You talk about this hypothesis like its the truth. You are no better than religious loons who twist words and data to fit its God hypothesis.

Geniuses around the world are waiting to find out how much time they have wasted.....

Why don't these "geniuses" help build controlled environment farming units across the world to help hungry people? Oh wait maybe they aren't "geniuses" et all.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) May 31, 2011
Nor do they claim to know the 100% truth.

Some certainly do.


And that matters because? How many is some? What's the ratio to those that do and those that don't? Do you see why the answers to these questions are more valuable than your statement?
ennui27
5 / 5 (1) May 31, 2011
speaking of bad hypothesias ...

"That hypothesis holds as much water as the flat world."

Slope on over to a history thread - there is substantial evidence that no one thought the earth was flat. Ditch this off one off into some urban myth gutter.

"Why don't these "geniuses" help build controlled environment farming units across the world to help hungry people? Oh wait maybe they aren't "geniuses" et all."

Now you are off into the realm of politics and away from science .... what a great idea .... so much of science now is controlled by corporations, why not curtail what is left and divert it into utilitarian purposes..... who needs this 'pure' research anyway? (while you are at it, I know some poets you can retrain as carpenters and plumbers - although I understand Eric Hoffer was a longshorman in SF for a while.)
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) May 31, 2011
What evidence? Oh you mean a wrongfully drawn conclusion...


I see you still don't care about the distiction between evidence and theory (still NOT a conclusion). What makes you think I meant to say conclusion, when I actually said evidence?

That hypothesis holds as much water as the flat world.


No, it holds much, much more, because it's practically useful. The combined theories, if they were THAT untrue, would mean that your GPS device would not work. AT ALL.

You talk about this hypothesis like its the truth.


I'd very much like you to explain why you think this. I think this will help us understand each other if you do so.

Oh, and it's A THEORY!!!!! It doesn't matter if you don't like the conclusion of the theory. The evidence supports the hypothesis, therefore it's a theory. You see, the definitions of these things matter, which is EXACTLY what this article is about. Do you really not see the ramifications of this ignorance?

cont....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 31, 2011
Nor do they claim to know the 100% truth.

Some certainly do.


And that matters because? How many is some? What's the ratio to those that do and those that don't? Do you see why the answers to these questions are more valuable than your statement?

The 'some' are those that have the largest voice in the press.
If there only a few 'some', why won't the 'rest' speak up?
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
Slope on over to a history thread - there is substantial evidence that no one thought the earth was flat. Ditch this off one off into some urban myth gutter.

http://en.wikiped...at_Earth

Now you are off into the realm of politics and away from science .... what a great idea ....

How is that politics? Yeah building a better future for everyone... POLITICS... yes... you make sense...

Not.

Oh, and it's A THEORY!!!!!

It is a hypothesis, just because you big-bang religious nut job believe in wrongfully conclusions as evidence does not make it a theory.

Do you really not see the ramifications of this ignorance?

Why do you ignore my perfectly fine argument that debunks expansion?
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
Slope on over to a history thread - there is substantial evidence that no one thought the earth was flat. Ditch this off one off into some urban myth gutter.

http://en.wikiped...at_Earth

Now you are off into the realm of politics and away from science .... what a great idea ....

How is that politics? Yeah building a better future for everyone... POLITICS... yes... you make sense...

Not.

Oh, and it's A THEORY!!!!!

It is a hypothesis, just because you big-bang religious nut job believe in wrongfully drawn conclusions as evidence does not make it a theory.

Do you really not see the ramifications of this ignorance?

Why do you ignore my perfectly fine argument that debunks expansion?
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
The 'some' are those that have the largest voice in the press.
If there only a few 'some', why won't the 'rest' speak up?


Who? Name names.

What the press does with it's information is not the responsibility of the scientific community, as long as the information was presented appropriately. There's also some responsibility on the viewer, as well.

I don't get the displaced outrage. It's the journalists that are creating the confusion. On purpose. The outrage should begin and end right there; with a bunch in between for the lobbies and politicians. I guess you disagree with that, so explain how, EXACTLY, is it the scientists fault that theories are given more credence than they ought to.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) May 31, 2011
What I find disturbing about the scientific process as practiced today is their cowardice.
The specific example are ghosts and other paranormal experiences.
A couple of plumbers and other amateurs are doing the work now because 'real' scientists are too afraid of what their peers will say and probably they fear the implications if they do verify the existence of an after life.
And there are many other unpopular threads that could be pulled if no one feared the ridicule of their peers.
But that is how great discoveries and leaps are made, disregarding the status quo.
Skultch
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2011
Why don't these "geniuses" help build controlled environment farming units across the world to help hungry people? Oh wait maybe they aren't "geniuses" et all.


Yes, let's have particle physicists working on agriculture. smh

This is so obviously a POLITICAL obstacle, and not a knowledge or engineering obstacle, that I have concerns about your sanity when you make comments like this.

Why do you not care about the knowledge for knowledge's sake? What's so wrong about pure reasearch? Do you really not know what it has given us? How many starving people it has saved, indirectly?
Skultch
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2011
politics


It's politics, because resources are limited. We can only improve so much at once, and we limit ourselves profoundly by cutting pure research, like theoretical particle physics.

Do you really not see the ramifications of this ignorance?
Why do you ignore my perfectly fine argument that debunks expansion?


Non sequitur. I will not respond to fallacious attacks from you. That's called troll feeding.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (8) May 31, 2011
Yes, let's have particle physicists working on agriculture. smh

Indeed, they would have enough knowledge to lay a foundation for new engineering, think alloys, chemistry etc., to build farming units that can feed a lot of people.

This is so obviously a POLITICAL obstacle, and not a knowledge or engineering obstacle, that I have concerns about your sanity when you make comments like this.

I have concerns for your insanity, calling the big-bang hypothesis a theory.

Why do you not care about the knowledge for knowledge's sake? What's so wrong about pure reasearch? Do you really not know what it has given us? How many starving people it has saved, indirectly?

I care about knowledge actually, your big-bang crap is not knowledge after-all.
Skultch
5 / 5 (7) May 31, 2011
The specific example are ghosts and other paranormal experiences.


How many times must pseudo science be refuted before we can just move on? Ghosts? Really? I feel content not even going there. Good night.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2011
Non sequitur. I will not respond to fallacious attacks from you. That's called troll feeding.


Yes take the easy way out, call your opponent a troll.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) May 31, 2011
When I look back at languages, I am surprise to find one language that needs no evidence to exist: Math.
I am not surprised that conflict ensues from this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 31, 2011
How many times must pseudo science be refuted

How many times has it been refuted?
Refutation implies that every observation has been positively explained. That has not been accomplished.
FrankHerbert
3.5 / 5 (11) May 31, 2011
ryggesogn2 nuttery list:

1. Sovereign citizen
2. Believes in ghosts

LOL, what's next? Hey soggy, why don't you access your secret government bank account, get that $600,000 and go start your own Ghost Busters franchise? Lol you're such a joke.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
My brother's house is haunted.
Where are the scientists rushing to refute his claims or explain his observations?
Modern science intentionally ignores these observations because they have no up side for modern science.
Modern scientists are hypocritical cowards.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2011
hypocritical cowards


You're the one desperately clinging to an afterlife while trying to ruin the lives of as many people as possible through your insane policy views. Also, as far as I'm aware you actually hold elected office which makes you even more culpable.
antialias
5 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2011
My brother's house is haunted.
Where are the scientists rushing to refute his claims or explain his observations?

We have better (and more interesting) things to do than go and have a look every time someone goes "Oooo, I can't be bothered to do some simple checking/thinking on my own - why doesn't a scientist investigate and write me up a full report so I can feel special?"

Well, in all likelyhood you are special...just not the way you may think you are...

If you want it investigated: Grab a camera. Do some tests. Tear up the walls. And if all that doesn't help THEN go and PAY some scientists to come to your brother's house to investigate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
He has already discovered some interesting things.

How many scientists dare to suffer the ridicule of their 'peers' to investigate? Why SHOULD they suffer any ridicule? After all, aren't all scientists engaged in discovering the truth?
Ask Fleichmann and Pons about ridicule.
FrankHerbert
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2011
Comparing low-energy nuclear reactions to ghosts isn't fair to Fleichmann and Pons lol. At least with cold fusion we're still dealing with matter. What could a ghost possibly be made of that would give it the properties ghosts are believed to have?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
What could a ghost possibly be made of that would give it the properties ghosts are believed to have?

Good question.
Modern science seems to have no interest in exploring such questions as it doesn't fit their world view.
FrankHerbert
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2011
You have no interest in reality as it doesn't fit your world view.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
Comparing low-energy nuclear reactions to ghosts isn't fair to Fleichmann and Pons

I didn't do that.
But the ridicule of their 'peers' left them quite bitter.
When scientists fear pulling on the threads of anomalous observations, progress suffers.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2011
You have no interest in reality as it doesn't fit your world view.

That is the socialist POV is it not?
Creating Utopia via state power keeps failing but socialists keep trying.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
Fleichmann and Pons were victims of the scientific establishment. You and your brother are not.

That is the socialist POV is it not?

No, it's your point of view. Stop projecting.

Creating Utopia via state power keeps failing but socialists keep trying.

How many have died at the hands of the "free market"? I'll give you a hint: a lot of them died in the USSR and China.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2011
No, it's your point of view. Stop projecting.

It's just my POV.
"For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma."
http://plato.stan.../popper/
lot of them died in the USSR and China.

Stalin and Mao murdered millions. They were socialists.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2011
Na Reth,

Your example of people thinking the Earth was flat is actually an argument for science, not against it.

In terms of the scientific method:

Observation: The ground is flat. People disappear over the horizon.
Hypothesis: The Earth is flat.
Prediction: Walking to the horizon should show you the edge of the world.
Results: Walking to the horizon is not possible. Disappearing over the horizon to an observer does not send you over the edge of the world.

Hypothesis rejected.

If the earth was believed flat, it wasn't by people invoking the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method is what was used to determine that the earth is not flat but round.
Thrasymachus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2011
My brother's house is haunted.

Hmm, sounds like a genetic predisposition towards cognitive impairment to me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
My brother's house is haunted.

Hmm, sounds like a genetic predisposition towards cognitive impairment to me.

Typical response.
If humans are so cognitively impaired why do you trust what anyone claims unless you see it for yourself? And even then, how can you trust your own senses? Maybe you can see into the UV or IR a bit further than everyone else or your hearing is better or...?
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
Stalin and Mao murdered millions. They were socialists.

Capitalism is the ultimate cause of most of those deaths. Cut off a part of the world from trade and watch it wither.

Hmm, sounds like a genetic predisposition towards cognitive impairment to me.

LOL
Thrasymachus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2011
I didn't claim all humans are cognitively impaired. But the evidence suggests males in your family are.
Skultch
4.7 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2011
I take my long commute home, relax my broken ribs (responsible for my attitude yesterday. Sorry) and I come back to another political economic debate. ....sigh....

I'd like to get to the bottom of this extreme misology, because I just don't get the motivation for it. It seems more and more, that the problem isn't the method OR even the message; it's people's unrealistic expectations of science. When an observation "proves" a theory, most educated people understand that anything can only be proven to a degree. There is no 100%. Ever. I understand this. Most lay people versed in the hard sciences understand the limitations of knowledge. Some, sadly, expect the language of science to pander to THEM and their ignorance. This is unreasonable. Individuals join groups, not the other way around. Adapt; don't expect everyone else to adapt to you. Have a little, just a little, bit of understanding when you disagree with how things are presented. Perspective is everything there.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2011
If the earth was believed flat, it wasn't by people invoking the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method is what was used to determine that the earth is not flat but round.

Wow genius... You got my point, bravo! Well you got it half-way.

Simple logic as i have stated and i will state it again. Just because people interpreted that the world is flat from their observations DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Am not saying that it is WRONG to come to that conclusion. They came to that conclusion because they are in a "single point" of space, like we are now, making interpretations of observations HIGHLY LIKELY to be UNTRUE, it is by NO MEANS evidence that there is expansion.

Do you get my point now? Reading comprehension failure...

-retard mentor signing off.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2011
Stalin and Mao murdered millions. They were socialists.

Capitalism is the ultimate cause of most of those deaths. Cut off a part of the world from trade and watch it wither.

Hmm, sounds like a genetic predisposition towards cognitive impairment to me.

LOL

So people who believe in free trade should trade with those who do not?
Doesn't sound quite 'fair'.
When socialists like Chavez nationalize a companies, it puts quite a damper on free trade.
Na_Reth
4 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2011
We dont want free trade. We want healthy trade.

There is no place for anarchy in a modern civ.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2011
So people who believe in free trade should trade with those who do not?
Doesn't sound quite 'fair'.


So you would let tens of millions of people starve for "fairness"? You have more in common with Stalin and Mao than you could ever hope to comprehend.

Do you get my point now?

Na_Reth, yes and I think most of us do. Our point is that there are very good reasons for believing expansion occurs which is supported by evidence. If a better explanation comes along that is a better fit to the observations, I'll support it. That's science.
Na_Reth
1.2 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2011
Na_Reth, yes and I think most of us do. Our point is that there are very good reasons for believing expansion occurs which is supported by evidence. If a better explanation comes along that is a better fit to the observations, I'll support it. That's science.

So show me the human made experiment that proves expansion, instead of some data that could be interpreted in a million ways?
There is NO PROOF only a hypothesis.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2011
Do you know what the Doppler Effect is? List the million ways redshift can be interpreted, and I'll get you that experiment.
Javinator
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2011
Reading comprehension failure?

You said:

When people believed the world is flat... Well it was an interpretation of their observation. They did not have the technology like we do now to know any better. For them it was logical.


I showed you how that world is flat hypothesis could be debunked with a simple test involving no technology whatsoever. People who held those beliefs obviously did not attempt to test their hypotheses whatsoever (ie. no scientific method).

So you were using this as an example of how scientists today believe in expansion based on observations.

The difference is that scientists today are trying to verify their theories based on other evidence that they're actively trying to find and interpret. Sure we might not have the technology to perform every experiment that we'd like to to verify expansion, but there are lots of scientists out there actively trying to disprove current hypotheses.

Long story short, your example is crap.
Na_Reth
1.2 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2011
I showed you how that world is flat hypothesis could be debunked with a simple test involving no technology whatsoever.

Every test involves technology.

People who held those beliefs obviously did not attempt to test their hypotheses whatsoever (ie. no scientific method).

They interpreted their observations, i do not care about scientific method and i have never mentioned it.

So you were using this as an example of how scientists today believe in expansion based on observations.

Yes the keyword is believe, and no i did not use the example as to why anyone would believe in expansion but that there is no proof only a hypothesis that is most likely to be wrong, taken as the truth. Much like any bible.

The difference is that scientists today are trying to verify their theories based on other evidence that they're actively trying to find and interpret.

Logic fail. Observations are not directly proof, as said in my flat earth example.
ennui27
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2011
"When socialists like Chavez nationalize a companies, it puts quite a damper on free trade."

It did not seem to bother anyone when those notorious socialists, the House of Saudi nationalized ARAMCO in Arabia. Is it okay when medieval monarchs exercize their ownership over everything in their fiefdoms?

Methinks your indignation is rather tunnel visioned.
Na_Reth
1 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2011
Sure we might not have the technology to perform every experiment that we'd like to to verify expansion,

So we agree there is no proof. In scientific method as you have said, data is not verified multiple times in different tests before it is taken as theory? Hrm definitly does NOT sound like the expansion hypothesis.
but there are lots of scientists out there actively trying to disprove current hypotheses.

That is insane, trying to disprove something that is not proven.

Long story short, your example is crap.

My example is genius. It is not my fault you can not put your brain into different scopes or perspectives.(something you will learn when you learn about logic)
FrankHerbert
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2011
I'm serious. Do you know what the Doppler effect is?

My example is genius.

No.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2011
"When socialists like Chavez nationalize a companies, it puts quite a damper on free trade."

It did not seem to bother anyone when those notorious socialists, the House of Saudi nationalized ARAMCO in Arabia. Is it okay when medieval monarchs exercize their ownership over everything in their fiefdoms?

Methinks your indignation is rather tunnel visioned.

It certainly did bother a lot of people.
Socialism is state control of private property. The arbitrary rule of kings is no different than the arbitrary rule of an elected dictator or president or parliament.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2011
So you would let tens of millions of people starve for "fairness"?

USSR and DPRK were dependent upon US aide. Why couldn't they feed themselves? Can you say s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m?

It was damn nice of the USA to feed nations that point nuclear weapons at them.
ennui27
5 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2011

Methinks your indignation is rather tunnel visioned.

It certainly did bother a lot of people.
Socialism is state control of private property. The arbitrary rule of kings is no different than the arbitrary rule of an elected dictator or president or parliament.

OXY "arbitrary rule"
MORON "an elected didtator"

If someone is elected then they are responsible to the electors.

State control, not matter how it is manifest is socialism?? Louis XVI would have been interested to hear that - and Charles of England would be even more so - he lost his head claiming otherwise.

I fear your vision of political SCIENCE is as fuzzy aa your views of physical SCIENCES.

Oh yes, EXXON/Mobil was not all that bothered - they helped it happen - your State Dept did not raise a hoot or a holler -
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2011
If someone is elected then they are responsible to the electors.

Says who?
Sadam Huesien, Fidel Castro and most other socialist dictators are elected. How responsible are they to their 'electors'?
Bastiat calls socialism legal plunder.
Why does it matter who controls the state power if the state takes private property?
What I have noticed is the 'progressives' don't complain about too much govt power. They complain THEY are not in control of that power.
I complain about the govt having too much power.
ennui27
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2011
If someone is elected then they are responsible to the electors.

Says Saddamdam Huesien, Fidel Castro and most other socialist dictators are elected. How responsible are they to their 'electors'?
Bastiat calls socialism legal plunder.
Why does it matter who controls the state power if the state takes private property?
What I have noticed is the 'progressives' don't complain about too much govt power. They complain THEY are not in control of that power.
I complain about the govt having too much power.


Saddam was elected by no one ... a phantom constituency that he created to legitimize' his rule. There was noboyd actually voting? You believed he won with 99.8% of the vote? If so, there is sea front property in Japan I can get you for a song.

Castro, to the chagrin of US authorities, is incredibly popular in Cuba - he does indeed win every election - with considerable support. Dictator, not likely.

(cont'd)
ennui27
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2011
No the idea of too much state power is a real concern. The 'lefties' I know would rather have the power of government constrained by various other mechinisms .... constitutions, bill of rights and a flexable legal system.

One of the biggest problems with your President Bush was his disreguard of your Constitution - and the big complaint against Obama is that he continues Bush's vile practices.

As for private property - if single ownership is harming the populace - if someone, for instance, owns a swamp that is breeding deseases that sicken the surrounding populartion - private property be damned!

(speel checker is acting up - sorry for any odd constructions it may have generated)
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2011
Non sequitur. I will not respond to fallacious attacks from you. That's called troll feeding.


Yes take the easy way out, call your opponent a troll.


I'd really like to know how you would have responded, if you were me. How could one possibly have a reasoned response to that? This is how I see what happened:

You did understand the importance of adhering to the definitions of the words, but you wanted a different argument. My apparent condescension seems to have annoyed you, so you then refused to acknowledge that you understood my question, and then re-ask a specifically irrelevant question. This is not an appropriate response. Had I then attempted a response, it would not have helped anyone understand anything. That sounds like feeding trollish behavior to me.

Does that explain why I don't think I was dodging your question? (btw, I was planning on addressing it, but I couldn't get around to it until today, and it's been addressed better than I would have)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2011
if single ownership is harming the populace - if someone, for instance, owns a swamp that is breeding deseases that sicken the surrounding populartion - private property be damned!

No, that is not the correct response. The proper, rule of law response is to sue the offending property owner for damages.
This worked quite well in the old US west keeping rivers clean. Then govts got involved legalizing pollution without regard for downstream property owners.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
You'd be bitching about tort reform and activist judges unless those mosquitoes personally gave you malaria.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2011
You'd be bitching about tort reform and activist judges unless those mosquitoes personally gave you malaria.

I am all for tort reform.
I would demand any lawsuit filed in any public court would be public record. No secret 'out of court' settlements.
I would promote expanding free market courts like Judge Judy that put the case on TV for all to watch and listen.
FrankHerbert
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2011
That was what I meant, though I see why you took it the other way. Instead of saying "bitch about" I should have said "screaming for".

Judge Judy isn't real you stupid person. It's a gameshow. If the plaintiff wins the studio will give the plaintiff money. The defendants never pay. It's essentially Jerry Springer except you get a chance to win up to $5000. I can't believe you are seriously suggesting replacing our court system with Judge Judy. Seriously, I know you are just going to skim past this, probably not read it, and never respond to how incredibly dumb this is so I'm just going to copy and paste the next sentence until I run out of space.

Ryggesogn2 wants to replace the US Justice system with "free market courts like Judge Judy."

Ryggesogn2 wants to replace the US Justice system with "free market courts like Judge Judy."

Ryggesogn2 wants to replace the US Justice system with "free market courts like Judge Judy."
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
That is insane, trying to disprove something that is not proven.


If something's actually been proven true then it cannot be disproved... I don't think you know what proof actually is.

Experiments are often designed to disprove hypotheses. If the experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, the experiment is evidence supporting the hypothesis, not proof of it.
ennui27
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2011
That is insane, trying to disprove something that is not proven.


If something's actually been proven true then it cannot be disproved... I don't think you know what proof actually is.

Experiments are often designed to disprove hypotheses. If the experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, the experiment is evidence supporting the hypothesis, not proof of it.


Good comment, Javinator, Yet that happens all the time. Newton certainly and at least, improved on the hypothesis that things happen 'because God wants it'. But still did not over ride the belief in a prime mover;

Einstein revolutionized Newton - he put him and his laws into a different perspective.

Heisenberg did show that "God DOES play dice with the universe' yet Einstein's formulations stand.

Maybe the initial positions are left unchanged - but looking at the same things from a different point of view often shows their incompleteness.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2011
Judge Judy is a free market small claims court. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with binding arbitration by a free market arbiter?
Our current 'civil' court system is anything but civil.
A solid civil court system could replace most of the the Regulatory State. Of course that is why the 'progressives' oppose it.
FrankHerbert
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2011
Judge Judy is not a court you turd. It is a television show, not a court that happens to be televised. The defendants DO NOT PAY when they lose.

Let's say you turn a REAL court into some binding form of Judge Judy. How do you plan to televise every trial? Seriously, do you think at all before you blurt out this drivel?

There is nothing wrong with binding arbitration and arbitration IS LEGAL. No one is preventing you from seeking arbitration in private matters.

We know you don't respect any laws under any circumstances Marjon, so why are you philosophizing about courts? You would refuse to acknowledge any court that tried to challenge your sovereignty.

Did you hear about the sovereign citizen that shot at a store with an ak47 because they ran out of crawfish? Guess his freemarket crawfish solutions weren't working for him ;-)

http://tpmmuckrak...it_r.php

Sovereign citizens need to be monitored at the least
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
The defendants DO NOT PAY when they lose.

But the plaintiff is paid by the show if he wins. Which is why they agree to participate on the show.
Both parties on the show sign an agreement accepting Judy's decision, binding arbitration.

From the US Declaration of Independence:
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
This implies that we are all sovereign individuals who CONSENT to form a govt to protect those rights.
Why do 'progressives' fear this so much?
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2011
If it quacks, it's a duck. Sovereign citizens are crazy.

"A 'sovereign citizen' in Pensacola, Florida allegedly opened fire at a seafood market after learning that they had run out of crawfish.

42 year-old Larry Wayne Kelly allegedly fired upon the L&T Seafood Market with an AK-47 from the window of his pickup truck, after he was told they had sold out of crawfish on Sunday.

Employees found 11 bullet holes in the front of the store the next morning.

When law enforcement tracked him down and tried to arrest him on foot, Kelly allegedly attempted to hit them with his car.

According to the Sheriffs Department, four loaded guns were found in Kelly's car, including a 12-gauge shotgun, a pistol, and a revolver. The book "The Sociopath Next Door" was also found. Kelly told law enforcement that he is a sovereign citizen (someone who believes that almost all forms of government in the U.S. are illegitimate), and that he doesn't have to follow the law."
Thrasymachus
3.6 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
Your idea of "just powers" and "consent of the governed" are severely narrow, and you fail to realize that there are rules that govern the derivation of consent and the precepts of justice. You hold the belief that you are free to consent that government has no just powers, and that your ruling should hold for all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2011
Your idea of "just powers" and "consent of the governed" are severely narrow,

Well, yes, that was the intent. That's why they wrote a Constitution than enumerated those 'just powers'.

What do sovereign states do when they are attacked? They defend themselves.
A sovereign individual that attacks another risks his life. Fortunately in FL people can defend themselves from attacks.

ennui27
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2011
"Fortunately in FL people can defend themselves from attacks."

You mean unlike a Congresscritter in Arizona who along with 18 others (6 dead) could defend herself?

Maybe John Lenon should have left the Dakota and moved to Orlando? and what was Pres. Reagon doing in Washington when he could have been safe in Palm Beach?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2011
ennui27, do you want the govt to lock up people for being crazy? The USA used to do that and then the 'liberals' forced the govt to let them out.
Pima Community College students and instructors reported his behavior and yet the 'liberal' sheriff did nothing.
How do you propose to keep crazy people from hurting others?
There was an armed civialian in the nearby drug store that heard the shots, rushed out and was prepared to stop the shooter with his weapon. But the nut had already been subdued by civilians, not the police.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
I dunno... ban guns maybe?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
I dunno... ban guns maybe?

Hitler did that.
Then only criminals will have guns like they do in UK and many other places. DC banned handguns and their crime rate soared.
Hey, did you know heroin is illegal?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2011
All you 'liberals' believe in evolution, survival of the fittest. Stupid people who attack others should face the risk of dying themselves. In an armed society, stupid people will either stop attacking others or they will not survive.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2011
Whatever, if you shoot me, I'll take you to Judge Judy's court.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2011
Not socialist?
"Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents released by his organization suggest "nothing less than the Obama administration's attempt to stage a government takeover of the Internet under the guise of Net Neutrality. So it should come as no surprise that Free Press, the hard-left organization with socialist ties, is improperly driving the so-called Net Neutrality agenda from inside the Obama administration.""
http://washington...-outside

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2011
Frank wants to ban firearms but provides no data to support the efficacy of his plan. He can't because there are no data so he must want to ban firearms for some other reason.
What might that reason be except to increase the power of the state over the individual?
ennui27
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2011
"....do you want the govt to lock up people for being crazy? The USA used to do that and then the 'liberals' forced the govt to let them out."

What I saw happen is some sensible people finally realized that you do not lock people up because they are sick. Mental illness is a sickness. I DID see some right wing anal retentive bots cut funding for the treatment of these people - below what it had been.

"...There was an armed civialian in the nearby drug store that heard the shots, rushed out and was prepared to stop the shooter with his weapon."

Do you believe in gun fights in crowded shopping malls? Do you have any other good ideas?? From the interivew I saw he was not seriously prepared to begin shooting anyway.


"Then only criminals will have guns like they do in UK and many other places."

Do you get all your political 'theories' off bunper stickers?

ps. The violent crime rate, using guns, in GB is a fraction of that in the US.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
"The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them."
"The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. "
http://re
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
"Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. "
http://reason.com...-outcome

"The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailym...OFUIF6hW
"
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
Wow, Mongo. Wow. Did you really just cite gun stats from a few years at the turn of the **** 19th **** century? Then, a couple isolated cases? Do you have ANY ability to understand scope and statistical significance? Are your few logical successes mere accidents?

Well, at least you only failed to support your argument, instead of self-defeating it, which you often do.
ennui27
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2011
"The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. "

Terrific idea, IMHO.

and with all the incidents you name ---- it sounds like LA on a warm Saturday evening.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
OCT 2009
"Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal. "
"It emerged last week that armed police are to carry out regular street patrols for the first time to help combat gun crime in London. "
"There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99. "
"Some 1,760 gun related injuries or deaths were provisionally recorded for 2008/09, compared with 864 in 1998/99.

Last week, the Metropolitan Police announced officers armed with submachine guns are to patrol the streets for the first time.

A hand-picked team from CO19, the Met's elite firearms unit, will walk the beat in gun crime hot spots in London where armed gangs have turned estates into "no-go zones". "
http://www.telegr...ade.html
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
Wait a second, Mongo. Your point was that their ban on firearms back in the late 1800s was infective. Sooooo, it took over 100 years to manifest, then?

What the heck is your point, anyway?

btw, I am in no way against gun ownership. I'm a veteran, and a gun owner. I think the US is presently pretty darn close to having the proper policies, in general. I just feel the need to cover for Skeptic_Heretic's apparent absence. Vacation?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
Your point was that their ban on firearms back in the late 1800s was infective.

There was no ban on firearms in UK in the late 1800s.

"few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even BEFORE guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world."
http://reason.com...-outcome
Thrasymachus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2011
The ability to own and use a firearm ought to be regulated to the same extent now as it was during the Old West. In other words, it ought to be up to the individual communities to determine to what extent private gun possession and usage is allowed. Remember that the towns of Abilene and Dodge, and many others, outlawed the carrying of firearms within the township. Cities and communities ought to have the same right to regulate now that they did then.
ennui27
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2011
Agreed from here, Thras .... but I would make it whole states rather than just municipalities.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
Agreed from here, Thras .... but I would make it whole states rather than just municipalities.

Why not just make it a national ban?
The 2nd Amendment applies to states as well, you know.
ennui27
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2011
Agreed from here, Thras .... but I would make it whole states rather than just municipalities.

Why not just make it a national ban?
The 2nd Amendment applies to states as well, you know.


donno - I do know that the citizens of many countries have guns .. but I know of none that run around babbling about holy rights to tote heat, endowed by the founders.

Oh, I see a couple of good responsible gun owners, in the time we have been texting, managed to kill off 6-8 other citizens for the sin of minding their own business. One in Yuma (again) and another in Hawii.
cyberCMDR
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
Science proves nothing. Instead, it makes hypotheses and tests them. The ones that get disproven are dropped, and the ones that survive testing get tested more with experimentation and observations. Theories are hypotheses that have withstood MANY tests to disprove them. Science is not about proving anything, but weeding out the ideas that don't agree with the data. Just as it takes one black swan to prove all swans are not white, any theory or hypothesis can be dropped or revised if solid evidence is found against it. Theories are not proven, they are the survivors of a rigorous process to disprove them.
hush1
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
Science is not about proving anything, but weeding out the ideas that don't agree with the data.


I agree to your faith. In science.
I disagree that science is not done by humans.

Nonhuman is:

.1)Bias free. The process of rigor as well
.2)Zero susceptibility to data suppression or manipulation.
.3)Free of external, ulterior motivation.

The uninformed will use the word "alterior" motivation.
Clarification:

Explanation: Ulterior, in this context, means hidden. Alterior, on the other hand, is not a word. If it were, however, it probably would mean something like alternate. Which is probably where the confusion comes from people thinking that saying someone has an alterior motive means they have a different motive from the one they claim.

("Alterior" is a word used mistakenly because it sounds like the correct word.)

Your welcome. Anytime.
hush1
1.5 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
R2
Psychoanalytically:
A game.

.1)Super ego state:
"There is nothing one can do."
(Fatalism in the face of perceived helplessness.)

.2)Ego state:
"There is consistency to being inconsistent."
(This insures continued dishonest discourse.)

3.)Id state:
"What wrong? What wrong?"
(Genuine empathy to what is perceived as incomprehensible.)

Your welcome. Anytime.

ennui27
not rated yet Jun 04, 2011
this is a test.


Still testing.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
I do know that the citizens of many countries have guns ..but I know of none that run around babbling about holy rights to tote heat, endowed by the founders.

That's because the US Constitution is unique. The second amendment is a check on state power.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
Haven't heard the 'progressives' proclaim outrage at this shooting in Tucson:
"more than two weeks after SWAT officers shot him 60 times, is that Guerena was a Marine who served in Iraq and had no criminal record. We know he worked the night shift at the Asarco Mission Mine, and he was a father and husband."
"Could Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik have bungled the explanation for this shooting any worse? His department first said Guerena fired at the SWAT officers. Then it said he didn't. The officers now say he raised his gun with the safety on and pointed it at them. Since the correction, Dupnik has refused to comment on what went down."
http://azstarnet....286.html
This is the same Dupnik that blamed the shooting of a member of Congress on conservatives.
Deesky
4 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
America's love of guns is a joke amongst the developed international community. America is fading into irrelevance faster than its economy, unemployment rate, debt and credit rating. Wake up and halt the puerile political oneupmenship!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Any fading of the USA is not because it is following its Constitution.
Its weakening is due to giving in to the world's socialism and disregarding its Constitution.
FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
Blame it on everyone else soggy. The US is only the world's most powerful nation. I don't think any mean socialists are bullying it.
ennui27
not rated yet Jun 04, 2011
Blame it on everyone else soggy. The US is only the world's most powerful nation. I don't think any mean socialists are bullying it.


I fear her American exceptionalism is closer to "Everybody is out of step but Johnny" kind.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Blame it on everyone else soggy. The US is only the world's most powerful nation. I don't think any mean socialists are bullying it.

Socialists are destroying the Constitution from within.
FrankHerbert
Jun 04, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2011
Oh a conspiracy theory. Convincing.

What conspiracy? It is blatant and out in the open. The current regime is staffed by socialists and if you haven't noticed, the US economy is being destroyed and more people are being made dependent upon the state.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2011
It is blatant and out in the open.


Yeah if your definition of 'socialist' is anyone who doesn't look like you, you might see it that way.
ennui27
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2011
Blame it on everyone else soggy. The US is only the world's most powerful nation. I don't think any mean socialists are bullying it.

Socialists are destroying the Constitution from within.


George (it is okay to torture) Bush was a socialist? Donald (who shall I invade today) Rumsfield is a socialist? Yoo, Cheney and Bradbury are scoialists?

No socialist party in the world would have these criminals as members.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2011
I don't care what the look like. Are you playing a race card Frank?

Socialist have criminals like these as members: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro,....
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
It's amazing what dictators are capable of when they are isolated from the rest of the world. Who isolated them?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
It's amazing what dictators are capable of when they are isolated from the rest of the world. Who isolated them?

So Frank blames Stalin's murders on being isolated?
Any dictator has a choice to join the free world and stop being a dictator.
But in Frank's world, they are just misunderstood tyrants. Free people should accept and support the subjugation of their fellow human beings for the socialist cause.
ennui27
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2011
I don't care what the look like. Are you playing a race card Frank?

Socialist have criminals like these as members: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro,....


You seem to be fixated that anyone that does not love 'Merica is obviously a socialist. Stalin did that in the 3rd International - pushed through that the USSR was the home of the proletariat, and so made all communist parties in the world subservient to himself. It took until the advent of the 'new left' for the USA to come out of it.

As for Castro .... I do not recall him providing support and succor to terrorists that blow up airplanes - or try to assassinate leaders of foreign countries ... as the CIA did with him, even trying 'exploding cigars'.

He id still amazingly popular in Cuba - where the US is still seen as (as it is) the major oppressor in the world.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
If Castro is so popular why won't he let his people leave?

Castro allied with the USSR and almost allowed nuclear missiles into the country that would threaten the USA.

Castro provided soldiers and aid to all sorts of communists revolutionary movements around the world.

Millions do love the USA as evidenced by the long lines of people outside US embassies trying to emigrate legally and by the number of illegal immigrants who are now working in the USA.
ennui27
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2011
"If Castro is so popular why won't he let his people leave?"

Million have left Cuba ... it is a poor country and spends a lot of money training people -- naturally the best trained get the highest $$ elsewhere - did you know that for a while artisansns were not allowed to leave Britain?

"Castro allied with the USSR and almost allowed nuclear missiles into the country that would threaten the USA."

Oh my goodness ... threaten the USA - you mean like the missiles in Turkey threatened the USSR?

"Castro provided soldiers and aid to all sorts of communists revolutionary movements around the world."

Tell ya what - for every country that Cuba has invaded - I will name you three the US has.

Millions wait in line to get into the US for $$, or are you back to bumper sticker thoughts: they love us for our freedoms - at one time it was London - at one time Beijing. The US has so empoverished Mexico no wonder half the country wants to move.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
Mexican corruption is the fault of the USA?

How many millions were allowed to leave Cuba AFTER Castro seized power and nationalized all businesses?
ennui27
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2011
when was the last time you were in south Miami?

The first company he nationalized was teh telephone company - the next, very sensibly, was the Bacardi corp. Drink up!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
It is illegal for most Cubans to leave their country.
How many Cubans in Miami had permission from Castro to leave?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
Oh a conspiracy theory. Convincing.

What conspiracy? It is blatant and out in the open. The current regime is staffed by socialists and if you haven't noticed, the US economy is being destroyed and more people are being made dependent upon the state.
Socialism is the future marjon face it. Capitalism cannot survive without new and growing markets. As world pops reach equilibrium and there are are no new markets left to conquer, capitalism (on-planet at least) will evaporate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
no new markets

Human needs and wants are infinite. Markets will always exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
no new markets

Human needs and wants are infinite. Markets will always exist.
No they're not. How many homes do you think you need? How many maseratis do you need? (none) You're only commenting on the effects of Madison ave. Reassess your desires and try again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Human needs and wants are infinite. Markets must exist to meet those needs and wants in the most efficient manner. Socialism fails as planners will never be able to determine the value of the needs and wants and allocate the resources.
Socialism has failed and continues to fail, even in Scandinavia.
I have bought, lived in and sold fours houses since I started working. I don't want a Maserati but a Lotus would be fun for a while. I want to live and work in space or on the moon or Mars sometime. I want to take a submarine and explore the oceans and dive all over the world.
There are needs and wants I don't even know that exist yet.
If Auto is happy with what he has and wants nothing else, he must be a monk in a monastery and taken a vow of poverty.
ennui27
5 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
Isn't it odd that materialist do not seem to judge their happyness by material standards as you seem to do. Like a scientist who sees the universe in a grain of sand.

Through with this thread, now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
"Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of the pursuit of happiness, they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. "
http://www.hnn.us...460.html

27, if you are talking to me I don't know why you raised the issue of happiness.
Are scientists happy to stop exploring, to stop searching for the truth? A scientists needs and wants are never satisfied are they?
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jun 05, 2011
Maserati but a Lotus would be fun for a while. I want to live and work in space or on the moon or Mars sometime. I want to take a submarine and explore the oceans and dive all over the world.
And do you dwell on these things in the hopes that markets will appear to provide them for you?

I want a ray gun and I want to give Scarlett johansson many babies. Oh and I want to live forever in a place where everything I could ever want, exists. Can we draw similarities between your wants and mine?
Are scientists happy to stop exploring, to stop searching for the truth? A scientists needs and wants are never satisfied are they?
Can the kind of markets you prefer provide scientists these sorts of things?

Your markets promise you these things and care little whether you get them or not. They only care that you participate. Does that make you happy?
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2011
I agree to your faith. In science.


We need a new word for having faith in science. It's not the same as religious faith, and this problem causes more problems. I would use the word trust instead of faith in most situations, but not all. Those wishing to attack the credibility of science itself (out of fear) use the word faith very often to even the playing field in an illogical, and usually disingenuous way.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2011
Human needs and wants are infinite.


Our resources are not.

Markets must exist to meet those needs and wants in the most efficient manner. Socialism fails as planners will never be able to determine the value of the needs and wants and allocate the resources.


Computer systems will very soon be capable of this.

I don't want a Maserati but a Lotus would be fun for a while. I want to live and work in space or on the moon or Mars sometime. I want to take a submarine and explore the oceans and dive all over the world.


You should have continued with: "And every time I try to erode the integrity of scientific endeavor, I am shooting myself in the foot." You don't trust the scientific method, so since you think it's so worthless, how can we accomplish what you want?

Oh, and the Moon/Mars thing.... You're most likely way too old. Do you support embryonic stem cell research? You're probably gonna need it to live long enough.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2011
Our resources are not.

Economies are systems designed to allocate those scarce resources.

Faith is needed in AGW as non-validated GCMs are 'the theory'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
Computer systems will very soon be capable of this.

Capable of understanding how people make subjective choices on value?

This is interesting:

http://www.youtub...OsHFXZFA

Wanting to visit the moon and Mars is an example of a want not available now but possibly in future and is a small example of how needs/wants are infinite.

My grandmother grew up reading Buck Rogers and was able to watch the moon landings. Imagine what could have been accomplished if an Apollo type program and continued for 40 years.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2011
Wants and needs are not infinite because we are not infinite in number, NOR are we infinite in imagination. Quit being lazy and say what you actually mean.

Capable of understanding how people make subjective choices on value?


It doesn't need to know "how," it only needs to know the probabilities of a large population. I never said it would do this perfectly. I do happen to think that it can be good enough. Eventually.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
Wants and needs are not infinite because we are not infinite in number, NOR are we infinite in imagination. Quit being lazy and say what you actually mean.

That's exactly what I mean.
Your imagination may be limited, but for most, it is quite unlimited.
Infinite diversity, infinite combinations.

Maybe you should say what you mean. You and your fellow 'progressives' believe you all so smart and can plan the needs and wants of billions of people, whether they like it or not.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
That's exactly what I mean.
Your imagination may be limited, but for most, it is quite unlimited.
Infinite diversity, infinite combinations.

Maybe you should say what you mean. You and your fellow 'progressives' believe you all so smart and can plan the needs and wants of billions of people, whether they like it or not.


You have no clue what infinity is, do you? I thought you theists were supposed to be better at that.

How many neurons are in a brain? People? Any number you can come up with, if you multiply it by itself, it's still NOT INFINITY!!! What don't you get about that? If you understood computation and a little neurology, you would see what I'm talking about.

I am NOT saying that a human could program a computer to take enough macroeconomic factors into consideration to be good enough. I'm saying that, in the future, computers will be powerful enough to program it themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the path we are on. Will we stay on it
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2011
If you tally up the needs and wants of all humans from now until the end of time, someone can add one more to the list. For all practical purposes that number will approach infinity as long as time and humans exist.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
If you tally up the needs and wants of all humans from now until the end of time, someone can add one more to the list. For all practical purposes that number will approach infinity as long as time and humans exist.


Even if the population exponentially grew, yes it would /approach/ infinity, but that's not the same as being infinite, is it? How far is it from infinity? Does it ever get closer? The answer is no.

To predict economies, a system only has to look so far into the future. Even if it needs to predict 1,000 years, that's still not infinite. You need a different word here.

The fact remains; computation will have unpredictable affects on our economy. To think you know how it /should/ play out shows that you possess extreme hubris. I may be wrong about Moore's law continuing for 100 more years, but I am NOT so arrogant that I think **I** know what's best for the world economy. When I argue against you, that doesn't necessarily mean I hold the opposite opinion
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2011
To think you know how it /should/ play out shows that you possess extreme hubris.

I agree, that's why I support free markets.
Seven billion people making hundreds of independent and interactive economic decisions every day can't be predicted by state controlled economies.
Many who post here DO have such hubris.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
We need a new word for having faith in science.


Oh. In Science we Trust? Scratch that.

Sciences really do have more fun.
Sweden Stockholm Syndrome.

....scratch that too. This isn't working. That new vocabulary.


Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
To think you know how it /should/ play out shows that you possess extreme hubris.

I agree, that's why I support free markets.
Seven billion people making hundreds of independent and interactive economic decisions every day can't be predicted by state controlled economies.
Many who post here DO have such hubris.


Many. Not most. You either misunderstand many people, or simply don't care to make the distinction between some control and total control. Most people who argue with you regularly, merely want /some/ state control. You routinely go the hyperbole route and claim they secretly want total state control. Few actually argue for this. Maybe you think they are naive and the state will /take/ total control as an inherent property of any govt. That's a valid argument to make. I happen to disagree, but I'm not 100 percent on that. I have enough faith in regular elections that this would be curbed. I'm unconvinced pure capitalism isn't capable of the same.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
the distinction between some control and total control.

I have stated I do support legitimate functions of a limited govt.
Bastiat described those functions quite will in The Law.

faith in regular elections

How much faith do you have that those who want more control don't support fraudulent elections?
'Progressives' oppose every law to ensure voter integrity. The chair of the democrat party equates showing a photo ID to vote to Jim Crow laws.
Why are democrats opposed to a trusted voting system? Because the only way they can be elected is with fraud. That's been demonstrated many times across the country.
I'll follow Reagan's advice, trust but verify.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2011
Oh. In Science we Trust? Scratch that.


More like With Science we Test
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
I have stated I do support legitimate functions of a limited govt.


So, why do you use hyperbole and straw men so often? Your methods of argumentation often alienate you and prevent your message from working.

faith in regular elections

How much faith do you have that those who want more control don't support fraudulent elections?
'Progressives' oppose every law to ensure voter integrity. The chair of the democrat party equates showing a photo ID to vote to Jim Crow laws.
Why are democrats opposed to a trusted voting system? ....


This is merely political back and forth. There is no truth to be learned from the actions of political operatives. People who do not devote their lives to following the ebbs and flows of political struggle, have nothing to do with this. These actions are never a logical support of an ideology. All sides make the same claims you make. You have picked a side and react to perceived unfairness. Ideology is irrelevant here.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
This is merely political back and forth.

You don't believe voter fraud occurs in spite of evidence?
Why do only democrats oppose voter ID laws?
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2011
More like With Science we Test


lol
I have to answer the phone...it's ring...oh dear.. it's...

ASPCA The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Did you report me? I don't have any human subjects anymore!
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
This is merely political back and forth.

You don't believe voter fraud occurs in spite of evidence?
Why do only democrats oppose voter ID laws?


Of course voter fraud occurs. My point is that selfish people on all sides do it.

Watch. I can play that game, too.

Why do only conservatives support proprietary computer system voting booths? Ya know, the ones made by companies that are run by conservatives.

Every knock on Dems or Cons has an equally opposite and equally valid retort. I really don't see the validity of picking a side of corruptable /people/. It seems that you allow the corruptibility of PEOPLE to affect your choice in ideology. Notice I didn't say "cause your choice." You have an ideology based on a specific world view. Why do you allow people you disagree with to strengthen your confidence in your world view? That doesn't make sense to me. I may allow the fans of my sports team's rival to affect my fandom, but it's not logical.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
Why do only conservatives support proprietary computer system voting booths?

Where is the data?
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2011
Why do only conservatives support proprietary computer system voting booths?

Where is the data?


That's all you got? I succinctly lay out reasons for you to doubt the certitude of your entire ideology, thus calling into question the need for countless hours of online arguments, and that's your response? If you comprehended my last post, you might thank me for allowing you to save hours of free time every day. Is that the problem? Too much free time? If you didn't have this mission of anarchistic evangelism, what would you do?

The data is irrelevant to my main point. Care to address it? Not that it matters, but where were you in November 2004? I was in Ohio. Look it up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2011
You make an assertion, back it up.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
You make an assertion, back it up.


Google diebold ohio 2004.

Wiki Premier_Election_Solutions#Controversy

I don't have to prove actual specific fraud to support my point that ALL SIDES have EQUAL claims. So your retorts on this singular incident will be ignored by me. YOU do not get to unilaterally decide the course of a conversation.

I will not allow you to derail this away from your ideological motivations. I will not respond to you until YOU have answered MY questions above.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2011
All sides have equal claims?
Let's start with the fraud in JFKs election.
Then just about every Chicago election is fraudulent. Then there were ballot boxes found floating in SF harbor. Then there were all the homeless voting in Seattle for the liberal governor. Then there is all the fraud on SD Indian reservations that kept Daschle in office for quite some time.
Then then there was the MN Franken fraud. See the common denominator? Democrats are the experts at voter fraud. They have to be to stay in power.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
All sides have equal claims?


Yes, and I don't have to link anything to support it. Ya know why? It's because this website you are on right now has a search function. You can simply re-read the responses to your posts.

You are simply naive to think that republicans are immune to wrongdoing. Even if that weren't true, how does the actions of strangers strengthen your ideology?

Why are you so confident in the face of such uncertainty?

Economics is the WORST on this. It's an impossibly complex area of study. There are highly respected geniuses who have devoted their lives to studying economics. These people fundamentally disagree with each other ALL THE TIME. So, why is it that you are so confident in /your/ economic theory?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2011
Democrats are the experts at voter fraud. They have to be to stay in power.
You might want to refresh that selective memory of yours. Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, and a multitude of other states have recorded voter fraud from the GOP. Many have several convictions attached to the cases as well.

The GOP also employs a nifty little bit of fraud called "Roll fraud" where they send nasty little pieces of email threatening to remove people from voter rolls due to foreclosure or debt defaults.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2011
So, why is it that you are so confident in /your/ economic theory?

1. It promotes individual liberty.
2. It results in prosperity.
3. Data supports 1&2.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2011
Data:
"this paper finds new empirical evidence supporting the idea
that economic freedom and civil and political liberties are
the root causes of why some countries achieve and sustain
better economic outcomes."
"no evidence was found that the
initial level of entitlement rights or their change over
time had any significant effects on long-term per capita
income, except for a negative effect in some specifications
of the model. These results tend to support earlier
findings that beyond core functions of government
responsibilityincluding the protection of liberty
itselfthe expansion of the state to provide for various
entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and
cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long
run and may even make them poorer."
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2011
More data:
"This is a failure of philosophy, not just a personal failure of Obamas. The whole concept of a centrally-planned economy becomes absurd after two years of unexpected news and developments we dont understand, coupled with blips that last forever. It is painfully obvious that the central planners dont know what theyre doing, and dont understand why their plans are failing."
"Individuals process economic feedback without the arrogance of a government that can use trillions of tax and deficit dollars to insist it never makes a mistake. They find opportunity, and abandon mistakes, far more quickly than any bureaucracy. They have a far better understanding of how many people they need to hire than any official. The success of individuals cannot be conjured by manipulating statistics, and their failures cannot be argued away in a blizzard of insults and empty promises."
http://www.humane...id=43995
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
I love the smell the smell of RightWingNutRetainerClip Feces in the morning.
That bullshit smell.
It smells like like

Utter nonsense.

I love the way Marjon posts OPINION and lies by calling them facts.

Opinions are NOT facts. Lies are NOT truth.

So when are you and your lies moving to Somalia?

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2011
The facts are Obama's socialist polices are creating a poorly performing economy.
Defend the policies Ethel.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
The facts are Obama's socialist polices are creating a poorly performing economy.
Defend the policies Ethel.

You'll have to tell us which policies are socialist first. As so far I haven't seen a single one that doesn't have profit motive or cost reduction motive, both of which are capitalist paradigms.
Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
So, why is it that you are so confident in /your/ economic theory?

1. It promotes individual liberty.
2. It results in prosperity.
3. Data supports 1&2.


So, liberty is a value to be put above all others? Above security? Funny, I thought the bill of rights promoted liberty and that the primary purpose of economic systems was prosperity. Why should our liberty be subjected to the whims of inevitable oligarchs?

1-3. The current US economy can be described by your post.

You are just a naive anarchist. I don't see how your system wouldn't evolve into feudalism. The world is not ready for you, yet. Sorry. Maybe after 1,000s of yrs of evolution your ideas would work. Who knows?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
Skultch, the problem is, Mr. Libertarian only listens to talking heads and doesn't use reason. His "supporting points" when turned to another aspect of his argument utterly destroy his argument, leaving him with a defense of "no, it's different because I said so."

Effectively he can't logically see the shortcommings of his argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
So, liberty is a value to be put above all others? Above security?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
http://michellema...ranklin/
A prison is quite secure.
Why should our liberty be subjected to the whims of inevitable oligarchs?

Ask Obama and the 'progressives' or SH and his Regulatory State.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
The facts are Obama's socialist polices are creating a poorly performing economy.
That is an OPINION and your opinions are rubbish except by accident.

Defend the policies Ethel.
Why? I am only on this thread to point out your idiocy.

So when ARE you moving to Somalia where freedom from government has a produced a level of literacy that might allow you get away with that sort of nonsense.

I a not going to pretend that debate is possible with an idiot that doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion.

I am only interested in deriding the idiot.

who would give up essential Liberty,
Countless Republicans have pointed out that Franklyn never said that when they were trying to defend President Dumbass.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
What opinion?
Obama wants to take over health care. He wants to shut down oil, gas and coal companies in the USA. He gives special treatment to GE and other favored businesses.
Unemployment is NOT decreasing.
US debt is exploding. Govt spending is exploding.
Obama has many socialist and communist advisers on staff.
The Regulatory State is gaining power.

Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
HAHAHA What's entrepreneurial liberty going to give you when you can't afford to leave the company controlled town you were born in, because your company credits aren't recognized anywhere else? Nice try, though. Some one might not have caught you trying to blur the line between economic liberty and practical liberty. Total liberty is much more than just being upwardly mobile. Give it a think.

OK. I think I have reached my quarterly limit in dealing with Mongo. My blood pressure can only handle so many crazy pills he forces me to swallow. PTSD and reacting to unreasonable behavior don't mix well, apparently.

A million thank yous (5s) to SH and Ethelred (and the others) for doing the good work.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
What opinion?
Since it was clearly labeled I take it you have begun to reply without bothering to parse what you are replying to.

Not surprising that someone that can't tell the difference between fact and opinion would have to ask which is an opinion.

I thank you for making it oh so very clear that you really don't know which is which.

Now again when are you going to get of politics in a country you hate and move to the wonderful AnnRandLand of Somalia? A nation where you can be free to sail the wide accountantSea on a pirate skiff doing Manly things with other Manly Men like taking slaves and selling them at market prices with no Evil Gummint revenours to deal with.

I a not going to pretend that debate is possible with an idiot that doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion.

I am only interested in deriding the idiot.
Learn how how read. Your intentional ignorance is no excuse for your level of reading disability.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
company credits

Free people solved this centuries ago. It is called gold.
But anything people will accept in trade can be used.
Here is an example of free market money:
"New age town embraces dollar alternative"
"U.S. law prevents states from issuing their own currency but allows private groups to print paper scrip, though not coins, said Lewis Solomon, a professor of law at George Washington University, who studies local currencies."
http://www.reuter...20070619
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
Ethel then agrees Obama is a socialist, like his father.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
Keep on being an idiot if you want but but putting words in my mouth gets you reported as the abuser you are.

I a not going to pretend that debate is possible with an idiot that doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion.

I am only interested in deriding the idiot.


And do learn how to read. Or move to Somalia since you think it is so AnnRandWonderLandFul.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2011
Abuse?
Instead of attempting to ridicule why don't you try to explain or defend your position?
Defend socialism. Defend the Regulatory State. Show how socialism has created liberty and prosperity for people.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2011
What opinion?
Obama wants to take over health care.
Through having you get private insurance?
He wants to shut down oil, gas and coal companies in the USA.
Well that's certainly bullshit.
He gives special treatment to GE and other favored businesses.
Uh, how so? By allowing the Bush policies on energy to continue?
Unemployment is NOT decreasing.
It has been steadily decreasing, as has underemployment.

US debt is exploding.
No, it isn't.
Govt spending is exploding.
We spend less now than during Reagan.

Obama has many socialist and communist advisers on staff.
The majority of his advisors are former Bush advisors.

The Regulatory State is gaining power.
No, it's maintaining power that Bush and Reagan gave it.

You just keep spewing those conservative talk radio points, it won't get you too far.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2011
Clearly Marjon is WAY too stupid to read but I will repost this anyway to make it clear to anyone that actually a has a functioning brain.

I a not going to pretend that debate is possible with an idiot that doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion.

I am only interested in deriding the idiot.


There is nothing to defend nor anything that can be debated with a person that is so cut of from reality that he

Conflates
Progressives
Nazis
Liberals
Communists
Non Idiots
As all being the same exact thing

Can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.
Hates politicians but is one
Thinks piracy on the high seas is OK
Thinks Somalia is a wonderful place but doesn't move there.

If you won't move how about your get a brain transplant Marjon. May I recommend Kevin's as he isn't using his.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2011
Through having you get private insurance?

For FORCING everyone to 'buy' a product to live in the USA.

Obama wants to kill coal:
"Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data."
http://www.usnews...gy-bills

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2011
For FORCING everyone to 'buy' a product to live in the USA.
You don't have to buy it. If you don't buy it you simply have to contribute to the general services fund. Don't like it? You're welcome to move out of the US. After all, it is the social contract. You're a big contract guy, aren't you?
Obama wants to kill coal:
And again you provide a source that is clearly a blog.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
"Obama keeps issuing statements that he is opening drilling or permitting or exploration here and there, only to have it shut down by his bureaucracy soon thereafter. All of this will only raise energy prices higher and higher through to 2013, squelching the economy still further."
http://spectator....f-2013/1
"Never before, they argue, has Congress used its commerce power to require that an individual engage in a certain economic activity with a private industry.

This is really where the fight over the commerce clause will be. Congress' power to regulate is pretty vast, albeit with some minor limitations. However, using the commerce clause to require people to buy private insurance or pay a penalty is new. As Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett stated in the Washington Post last March, "the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity ..."
http://health.new...s/2010/h
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
Well seeing as the commerce clause was used to provide for the war efforts in WW1 and WW2 I'd say your blog post is entirely incorrect, or just ignorant as all hell.

As for oil exploration and drilling, let's say you opened drilling country wide. You'dd only add 3% to world oil production, none of which could be used for gasoline to any significant extent. Beyond that, once the oil is drilled out, the US doesn't own it. It is a wholly owned resource of the oil industry, which is the only party controlling the oil energy industry abundance, while bank speculators control the pricing. You're blaming the wrong people and supporting those who do perform the very actions you're angry about.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2011
In SH's Regulatory State, if the govt can force you to spend on products you don't want, then certainly that money is not yours and you are just another serf for the state.
And that is exactly why SH is a socialist as much as he claims not to be.
He does not support individual property rights. State uber alles.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
once the oil is drilled out, the US doesn't own it.

What good is oil in the ground that will never be used?
If speculators knew the USA was planning to extract as much energy as it could from domestic oil, gas and coal, do you think they would speculate that the energy prices would rise or fall?
BTW, oil prices now are more the fault of a weak dollar, aka inflation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
In SH's Regulatory State, if the govt can force you to spend on products you don't want, then certainly that money is not yours and you are just another serf for the state.
In ryggesogn2's free market economy, you can depend on everyone to take from you, everything you have. Why not open an organ harvesting shop, after all, if you have the money, you should be able to do anything you can afford to other people.
And that is exactly why SH is a socialist as much as he claims not to be.
I don't cling to any particular economic model. I use what works best for the particular situation based on average outcome. If anything, that's more supportive of individual liberty and overall prosperity.
He does not support individual property rights.
Go ahead and tell me where that has been said.
State uber alles.
You don't even know what that means. Silly boy.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2011
What good is oil in the ground that will never be used?
What good is oil in the ocean or soaked into the ground due to corporate mismanagement?
If speculators knew the USA was planning to extract as much energy as it could from domestic oil, gas and coal, do you think they would speculate that the energy prices would rise or fall?
They'd speculate that the demand is high enough for extreme measures, and the price would skyrocket.
BTW, oil prices now are more the fault of a weak dollar, aka inflation.
Oil prices are a fault of market forces on the whole. If you think the dollar is weak, I encourage you to go on vacation in another country and see how far your dollar goes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
You don't even know what that means. Silly boy.
Uh it means 'above all' in your gutter language. Otto knows all the words. Aufs Deutsch.
http://www.youtub...a_player
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
You don't even know what that means. Silly boy.
Uh it means 'above all' in your gutter language. Otto knows all the words. Aufs Deutsch.
http://www.youtub...a_player

If you'll notice, Marjon used the term, and I was replying to him. Don't get your leiderhosen in a bunch.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jun 09, 2011
You don't even know what that means. Silly boy.
Uh it means 'above all' in your gutter language. Otto knows all the words. Aufs Deutsch.
http://www.youtub...a_player

If you'll notice, Marjon used the term, and I was replying to him. Don't get your leiderhosen in a bunch.
Right you are. Please- continue with the smackfest.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2011
lol
I thank God I don't understand a word of English.
Hey, look here:
3,201 likes, 349 dislikes

And that's just for the Anthem! Wow.
Wait till we all go greenie on all R2s meenies.

If I were you, try to keep a few token R2s around....als Mahnmal....as a memorial...and most memorials are simultaneously warnings to future generations.
Capitalism. Never again. Never forget. lol

Who knows? If the Italian cold fusion shenanigans in Greece is not a scam, then oil and nuclear will be gone by the time Germany turns off the switch to it's last plant.

Which reminds us. Are you still in the market? For cheap rods?
We guarantee the castor casings. Made in Germany, you know?

:)