251. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86438 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 8:17 am

Yes, ADH, please answer Bonzai's question per his comment #215.

252. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86397 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 6:23 am

ADH wrote: Hell will be populated by ex-humans - the ashes, so to speak, of the humanity that they once had and could still have had if they had so chosen. Heaven is a flourishing of our humanity, as it will be restored to its proper submission to God while Hell will be the "self"-inflicted destruction of humanity.
______

WTF is an ex-human? I wish to be a cat, hope your God will oblige.

So you will flourish SUBMITTING yourself to God? Sounds kinky.

I get an image of a weaker animal groveling on their belly in front of another animal with sharper claws and teeth. I watch this kind of submissive behavior when hanging out with my cats, and muse about how us primates have this aspect also. But it takes a theologian to translate this fact of our evolution, that we try to placate the aggressor, with this astoundingly ridiculous scenario that in order to maintain our humanity we need to grovel and submit. You can't make this stuff up--oh, wait a minute, you just have!

253. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86360 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 4:19 am

ADH wrote: ...please remind me of what they are. I'll be happy to answer them as best I can.
________

ADH, yes, please answer this excerpt from my comment #25:

Faith, for me, means belief without evidence. Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?

254. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86345 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 2:46 am

ADH wrote: There have been other times since then when I have seen the transformative love of God bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.
______

And I have experienced times when I have seen the transformative love of a good hot meal, well prepared, bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.

255. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86338 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 2:14 am

ADH, perhaps you might find the following site interesting:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions

You can formulate questions, and a stable of atheist writers will answer, without legions of them challenging you. It is a site where people can learn more about how atheists think. Some of the writers are from here, the Dawkins site.

As for wondering if I am wrong about my atheism, whenever a theist points out a gap in our knowledge, I am filled with excitement and anticipation of us trying to figure out the problem. So, not doubt, just enthusiasm and interest in our continuing efforts to grasp our reality. At this point, unless proven otherwise, religion no longer provides much oompf in that direction--it once did, before science was developed.

And I have never heard God speak to me; and such God speech that others have claimed to have heard, has never been proven. My efforts in praying has only resulted in hilarious laughter on my part.

256. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86328 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 1:51 am

...if it is true that indifference to God has eternal consequences, that it results in eternal separation from God (whether conscious separation or by virtue of ceasing to exist), then I believe that it would be a serious case of child abuse if I did NOT make that very clear.
_______

I have heard this rationalization many times from religious believers. Some say if they knew that a building would be bombed, that they would warn others, etc. Conflation of reality with unreality yet again (rationalizing as fast as you can so you can keep the wheels of your cognitive dissonance oiled enough that you do not become deaf from its clanging).

Buildings, bombs, factual knowledge are certainly the admirable basis for warning folks of danger. Hell, God, there is no proof of their existence, with the improbability of their existence being quite high. Your obsession with warning your children about something that does not exist is similar to a paranoid bloke going on and on about someone following them. Your premise is wonky; you do not focus on that aspect. Who cares if your chosen action makes sense--warning your children of danger--if your premise is founded on no factual knowledge. Sigh.

As previous discussions with religious believers show, ADH will continue to oil his clanging machinery with rationalizations as fast and as repeatedly in a circular oiling frenzy as he can.

257. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86297 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 12:28 am

The only message is going to be [that] they are all of equal value.
________

More like the only message is going to be that they are all of no value at all, and all the good stuff that various religions has claimed to be their own is fully available in a secular sense.

258. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86294 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 12:17 am

But religious groups are worried the new program will undermine parents' efforts to instill the values of their chosen religion in their children.
________

A more accurate phrasing is indoctrinate the dogma.

Religious values are based on non-evidential faith, in other words, just fluff. Brings to mind Hitchens' focus on naming one good thing that a secular person can't do and also Dawkins' focus on not labeling children the religion of their parents (quote above refers to the chosen religion of the parents, exactly, the parent did but the children can't until they are adult).

It is heartening to see advances made, as with this initiative, and the one in a Nordic country where religion can't be taught as if it is true.

259. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86052 by Logicel on November 8, 2007 at 1:44 am

ADH wrote: But that does not belie the fact that human beings are unique.

And? That and a couple of bucks will get you a latte. Human uniqueness does not require the lack of uniqueness of other species. Ah, I see, we suppose to see everything in black and white. How boring. Wanting to save members of our own species at the expense of another gives no credence to the human centered focus of all religions. This fantastic universe with all its other creatures is apparently just a prop to assist us to reach God. Give me a break, for goodness sakes. Such hubris, such self-love, such addiction to self-importance is revolting.

On the other side there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth". But that is NOT physical torture. It is metaphorical and refers, I believe, to the devastating confrontation with the truth which those who allow themselves to be ... wait for it "deluded" by the lie that there is no Reality beyond ourselves, no God to whom we will have to give account, have evaded and wilfully suppressed.
_________

What a breathtaking rationalization!

There is no Reality beyond ourselves? There is no proof that there is, and yet you are willing to suspend reason and fact and embrace the nebulous and declare it is real? And that people who do not are the ones who are deluded?!!!?!!!!? And then feel warm and cozy that you are doing something virtuous? You are like a sock turned inside out--you have decided to wear your inside on the outside, and apparently you desire deeply for your children to adopt said unattractive fashion. Your mental/emotional need/desire not to accept reality because you refuse to is resulting in such twisted cognitive distortions, that you are parading your personal beliefs as the friggin' absolute truth!!! You have so many cognitive eggs in the God basket you are not even noticing that the eggs are long past their due date and are simply rotten.

coretemprising, thanks for giving us permission not to tiptoe around religites! We are not doing them any favors if we lapse back to our not challenging the inanity and unreality of their beliefs just because they are religious.

260. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #85980 by Logicel on November 7, 2007 at 4:49 pm

This is focused action and will achieve results.

Kudos, Ms Brown!

261. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #85752 by Logicel on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 am

Good article; Russell provides a pragmatic handle for the separation of state and religion, using that handle to open the door to why the new atheists are useful to such an important endeavor.

262. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85726 by Logicel on November 7, 2007 at 12:26 am

Teratornis wrote: And yet I have never met a person from any faith who could point to one thing they knew about their God (or whatever) that they did not learn from men. That alone should be enough to give any religious person serious pause.
_______

When only just a tot, growing up in a Catholic milieu, I could not identify one single person who could prove to me that their revelation, their meeting with God could be collaborated by others as having taking place in reality and not just in their heads. As a child, I saw no difference between biblical stories (which I could not enjoy since I was commanded to believe they were true when obviously they were not) and Grimm Fairy tales (which my imagination embraced wholeheartedly and whose metaphorical language delighted me), and it dismayed me to be surrounded by adults who could not tell the difference--adults to whom I needed to defer on a daily basis (for food, shelter), and who would not be swayed by my observations.

Years went by, and personal revelation remained that, only personal, nothing that can be collaborated by others. I lost respect for those that meander in such a way, and then I came to feel sorry for them. I watched how they embrace rationalizations full throttle to quiet down the clanging of their cognitive dissonance.

Coming across CS Lewis writings drove me almost to despair, that such an intelligent guy was unable to grab his cognitive dissonance by its slippery throat and still it for good. He succumbed to it, very depressing to me, and not a very good role model at all--what he has done, no way would I do something like that. So Lewis did cement my atheism. It was shocking to me reading his apologetics.

We need to be taught how to hold two opposing thoughts in our head at the same time, and realize that we can just observe them, watch them dance in our heads, without having to choose one until we have amassed enough information to do so; if not, we need to be able to entertain being in such a state without distress. As critical thinking is often encouraged by us, we also need to teach people how to just relax with conflicting information and signals, until they are informed enough to choose a particular bit of info and act on it.

We can transcend our evolutionary development, we just don't focus on it; we slop along, doing much worse than our big brains could do. We were not born with an operation manual, and we remain committed to outsourcing it to the make believe via religion. Sigh.

263. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85528 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 4:18 am

Sorry Diacanu, when reading a long ass ramble of apologetics kind of glaze out, I usually get so bored I nod over my keyboard, running a risk of concussing myself, so I usually keep a small pillow close by, and prop it over the keyboard when commencing such a read, and when finished I take a short nap on said pillow. Works for me. Keeps me sain and sauf.

264. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85521 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 3:57 am

epeeist wrote: DG crosses two camps, he is obviously reasonably educated but is as closed minded as the second set. He uses different tactics though, while the likes of devolved drop a post then cut and run DG just keeps on posting. And as steve99 has said, he has a reset button which just starts him at the same point over and over again.
______

Since there is not an ignore button at this site, I have trained my eyes to skip over any post written by the prolific DG, because after reading many posts by him, my conclusion is that he is a narcissist of frightening proportions, with said narcissism held together by astounding hypocrisy (Christianity, the particular brand of religion he embraces, though he distorts it beyond recognition via his customized idealistic theism--just to fit him and his needs--espouses selflessness, and as DG is a mind-boggling narcissist who regards himself as the center of the universe, he has no business in regarding himself as one). He reminds me of a rhum baba, he is just as soaked with the religious interpretation of his choice, as the baba is with rhum.

265. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85497 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:56 am

ADH wrote: But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics.
_______

Your taking so seriously their possible fate of being separated from God for eternity is why you are so wise as not to coerce them. I am taking coerce to mean forcing them to be Christians, eg., not letting them even question your faith, insisting that they guard themselves from criticism of Christian faith, etc. You want them to choose faith because you take it so seriously. Very commendable.

All well and good. However, is not fear a part of faith, is that not a reason for embracing it, you want to be with God for eternity and if you do not embrace the faith, you will not be with God for eternity? I regard that as 'circular' fear or faith with a built-in fear factor.

I know if other threads with dialog with Christians are any indication, you will be inundated with challenges. Keeping that in mind, when you do have the time, please inform me what faith means to you (if you have already done that, refer me to those comments).

Faith, for me, means belief without evidence. Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?

266. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85491 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:35 am

BT Murtagh wrote: I thought Kelly did a fine job. She wrote clearly and engagingly in her own voice.
_____

Absolutely. And with practice, as she plans to do, she will get better and better.

267. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85482 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:10 am

ADH wrote: We do try to redress the balance when we are aware that the Christian faith has been misrepresented to them.
________

You mean when your interpretation of the Christian faith was not stated as the true version? In that case, hopefully you prefaced your elucidation with that reality, that you are giving them your version of the faith and be honest that there are various interpretations.

And yes, per eric.malitz comment, how do you handle Christ's focus on eternal punishment? Do you interpret that focus in such a way that it does not disturb you that your children, if they reject Christianity, will be at the very least separated from God for all eternity (if not actually languishing in flames)?

268. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85480 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:04 am

Nicely focused speech, thanks RD!

Especially enjoyed:

Thorealogy
Scratch that Hitch

269. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85329 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm

In addition, there is a new vehicle for getting out those old atheist arguments, the Net!!! With online debate/discussion/commenting, people can get a tighter grasp on these ideas with more and more people being exposed to them via videos, cartoons, etc.

270. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85238 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 10:48 am

It's a pity we don't have the 14-year-old Dalrymple to reckon with. Then we all might have learned something.
________

Oooh, such delicious snark, I want more.

271. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85136 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 4:57 am

RascoHeldall wrote: ...All they care about is getting another death-bed conversion. Animals.
______

But that's the cognitive dissonance rub of which Christians manage to soothe any resulting friction by intoning to themselves, that they are doing such crucially needed behavior as an act of mercy, to give the unbeliever one last chance before they are doomed for all eternity. They are not meddling, causing anguish to a dying person in their last moments of living, instead they are doing the most merciful, gracious act imaginable. Humans in the throes of cognitive dissonance are not a nice sight to behold.

272. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85128 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 4:18 am

pholt, thanks for the link to the wiki for rational folks. In addition, we can access the debate points on the upper left corner of this site, and this site, which has a stable of contributors, many who are from the Dawkins site like Russell Blackford, etc. (asktheatheists has a searching function to zero in on the desired topic):

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

273. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85116 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 2:53 am

Thanks guys, for the info, I had no idea, just noted her absence.

274. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85109 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 2:24 am

Is it known why Doc B was absent for the last week or too? Missed him dearly and am looking forward to reading his wise and funny comments.

275. AAI 07

Comment #85018 by Logicel on November 4, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Regarding economics of abundance, we unearthed this link:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml

276. You big, fat pile of bacteria

Comment #84871 by Logicel on November 4, 2007 at 1:43 am

Welcome, Wonderer!

277. AAI 07

Comment #84863 by Logicel on November 4, 2007 at 1:39 am

NMcCwrote: My main point however, is that I don't understand why supporters of capitalism (as I suspect the 3 or 4 contributors to this thread that I alluded to could be described) even bother discussing the ins and outs of which taxes and at what levels these taxes should be imposed since the obvious and simple answer to this 'problem' for a supporter of capitalism is: as little as possible if you want to encourage capital to expand and invest.

__________


We are not discussing the raising of taxes but the decision-making of how to allocate government revenues. Even if taxes are as low as possible, decisions still need to made as to how to spend them.

278. AAI 07

Comment #84765 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

A tax payer choosing what tax to pay was a idea gotten from an Analog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact) short story back in the Nineties (there about). The only google hit I got was this small scrap of board chat:

http://ask.metafilter.com/57490/Who-proposed-this-novel-proportional-tax-idea

279. Rome playing politics

Comment #84757 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Typically, learning nothing from this history, the Catholic church is trying its same tricks again, though beatifying Franco fascists as a way of rousing opposition to Zapatero's liberal policies is an uncharacteristically crude way of doing it.
______

Desperate people do stupid things.

and

The Catholic nun who is the church's liaison to the education ministry in Madrid told the press that the new civics course is "a frontal assault on the Catholic religion"
____

Poor baby, Bill Donahue go to her rescue!!!

280. You big, fat pile of bacteria

Comment #84754 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Entire islands and towns built and owned and operated by the Walt Disney Company.
_____

gagorama.

and

we are all essentially made of — you guessed it — great heaping gobs of bacteria, massive hordes of them, all manner of wacky bugs and parasites and wondrous horrible-looking microorganisms all munching happily on the same air and blood and burrito that you do, trillions of toothy things working in some sort of bizarre harmony to keep you alive,...
__

Oh my, don't tell Monk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Monk

281. You big, fat pile of bacteria

Comment #84750 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

My four siblings and I had a cousin, who unlike the raggle taggle band that we were, was kept in pretty little dresses and her hair in curls. Upon staying the weekend with us, my mom took one look at her and said, take those off and put on these overalls. She then proceeded to crawl all over the nook and crannies of our little domain, properly besmirching herself with soot, goo, and a few minor scraps. When picking our cousin up, our Aunt almost passed out, and she scolded my mom for such irresponsible behavior to which my mom replied, so what, she looks like a bum, but she had the time of her life.

282. Jesus Rides the Number 7 Train

Comment #84747 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Last paragraph had me squealing with laughter.

283. AAI 07

Comment #84736 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 11:36 am

661. Comment #84720 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 10:27 am
______

excellent post and points well taken.

284. AAI 07

Comment #84730 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 11:12 am

NMcC wrote: In such a society gold would have no value except as a useful metal.
_____

Some can't vision a world where we live just about forever, and some can't imagine a world where beauty would be defined only by utility--I am in the latter group.

and

I can already hear the numerous objections, so I'll only list them here and comment further on them if anyone thinks it worthwhile...
_____

Yup, you listed all my objections, please, if possible, wash them away!!!

and

It (Capitalism) has built up massive means of production, distribution and communication so as to make a society of general abundance possible.
______

Veronique and I, a ways back, had researched a bit on economy of abundance, and then I forgot about it. My hunch is that our scientific, technological, and capitalist base of operations can be use as a launching pad from which to form such an economy. But, other than that, I don't know what I am talking about. So any info on that angle would be much appreciated.

and

...a solution if we, as a society (not the state), owned and democratically controlled all the means of production, distribution, and communication that capitalism has built up and if we use these solely to meet our self-defined needs.

_____

You need to make your listed objections go away before I can grasp any possibility of your above described scenario.

and

The reason why these resources are not used to eliminate the problems society faces, however, is because the market doesn't allow them to be.

______

Capitalism in itself can bring us just so far in our societal development? After a while, it causes more problems than it solves? Like a run down car that needs to be scrapped? Or even more radical, replacing the car as a mode of transportation with something else extremely different?

285. AAI 07

Comment #84719 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 10:22 am

windweaver quoted Chomsky:

Both of the political parties are far to the right of the public on a host of general issues. In fact, people had to make guesses about the positions of the parties, because they weren't really articulated in any comprehensible form. Most people, it turns out, seriously misunderstood the positions of the candidates.

and phil rimmer writing:

A statistically devastating poll, open to the entire electorate, of scrupulous integrity and longevity, with fleshed out geographical detail would give politicians proper insight into voters minds for the first time, and also be the beginning of an educational process for the electorate as the economic facts of life are better laid bare for them by politicians and pundits.

_______

Sorry, phil, just saw that comment now. Your suggestion could pave the way of resolving the problem delineated by Chomsky and concerns voiced by epeeist and steve99.

286. AAI 07

Comment #84715 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 9:58 am

Rtambree wrote: Here in London, the city traffic congestion charge was extended westwards to the rich western areas, and the amount of traffic went up again (as those in the zone are exempt). So, you're right, tax can have all sorts of unintended consequences which can't be predicted from any ideological text.
________

Thanks for the info; it was like the traffic wardens were saying to wealthy people with big gas guzzlers, come on down to this nice big beach, the water is just fine and dandy, so they obliged. Too funny.

287. AAI 07

Comment #84714 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 9:49 am

epeeist wrote: The least efficient are large and with a CEO who is there to get his golden hello, pension and stock options and a golden handshake (known to me as seagull management - flies in, pecks about a bit, drops a load of shit and flies out).

______

C'est parfait!

288. AAI 07

Comment #84713 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 9:47 am

epeeist wrote: The places that have been the most efficient are small with a management that has a commitment.

___________

Yup, right on target, and that frame would theoretically work in both the private and public sectors.

However, governmental spending naturally grows because it does not have any restraints on its potential spending. An inefficient private enterprise will shrivel, while its government counterpart will grow (because if it is ineffective, it is obviously because it has insufficient resources.)

289. AAI 07

Comment #84709 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 9:31 am

626. Comment #84664 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 6:49 am
Direct voter influence of taxation levels and governmental spending would be catastrophic.

______

The government would have a percentage of tax money for discretionary spending, and the representatives would set the tax rates.

I do like your voting topic opinion poll suggestion; though your suggested set up has some added accountability punch then the present opinion polls, I still regard it more like what we got at present than we don't have.

290. AAI 07

Comment #84703 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 9:02 am

622. Comment #84660 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 6:39 am
619. Comment #84656 by Bonzai

>You are always the optimist. :) I think the other way is more likely for the U.S.

I think you'll find most polls conducted in the USA show that Americans are more normal than you give them credit for. They want universal public health care, signing up to the Kyoto protocol, greater UN involvement in the international affairs, more fuel efficient cars, and I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted the trillions of dollars that go into "Defense" redirected to benefit the wider population.

It's a weird phenomenon of USA politics that both the Repubicrats and Democans are way to the right of the general population.

_________


Technology needs to tap the wisdom of the crowd.

Ancient Greek democracy was a direct, and not representational one. Once population exploded, direct democracy was impossible. Now, with technology, we can make democracy direct, or at least a mixture of direct and representational.

For the direct choosing of how we want our taxes to be spent, one way is to gradually introduce it: the first year, we can directly select 10% of how our taxes are to spent, each following year, it is upped, and/or you can start with broad categories and leave the fine tuning to the representatives.

An important aspect of this approach, is to limit the power of politicians which is generated by their ability to spend our money. With political power lessened, then the real rabid control freaks would be less encouraged to run for office. Politicians need to be turned into administrators, administrating the will of the people.

291. AAI 07

Comment #84701 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 8:47 am

phil rimmer, is this the sort of person you would like to meet?

http://www.indianpad.com/story/109086

EDIT: First link has gone dead, so here's the Wikipedia article on Feeney:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

292. AAI 07

Comment #84699 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 8:28 am

scooter, Thanks for letting us know about your loss. Take care, grieve fully, and keep on truckin'.

293. AAI 07

Comment #84698 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 8:22 am

Rtambree, here are some links pertaining to my yacht tax comment (it was the yacht industry which was adversely affected, and this yacht tax was part of a luxury tax which included the taxing of yachts):

google hit list:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=luxury+taxes+yacht+industry&btnG=Google+Search

A decent, concise description of the controversy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819936/posts

The point that I did not make clearly was that passing legislation often has unintended perverse effects no matter how careful you are. As soon as there is legislation, people start to figure out how to get around it via loopholes, professional accountants, moving locations, buying elsewhere, etc.

I support a flat tax (with a deductible high enough so the low earners are not taxed at all).

294. AAI 07

Comment #84641 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 3:17 am

Also, think it was either Rtambree or Bonzai who said that he/she could imagine a time in the future when having gold taps/faucets would be regarded with such disdain, resulting in such obscene displays of wealth being obliterated by peer pressure (sorta like wearing fur today is in some countries); well, when and how do you decide that wearing of gold jewelry is an obscene display, why stop at gold taps?. Use instead consumer/user taxes, the price of stuff is often underpriced, and does not include the real costs engendered by the product during its full life/death cycle. Focus on pricing, what the market can bear, and not censoring what people can buy.

Eg. years ago, a thriving yacht building enterprise was destroyed or severely crippled when a law was passed to tax so prohibitively the wealthy for yacht buying, that the wealthy simply stopped buying yachts. The law put out good hardworking folks out of business, and the rich escaped from being taxed.

295. AAI 07

Comment #84640 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 3:00 am

After reading (most of) this thread, other than to say that it has often lapsed to name-calling instead of discussion of ideas, here are some ideas:

As religion was concocted in the infancy of our species when we lacked significant scientific knowledge, various ways of governing (as humanity developed from small hunter and gathering groups, to tribes, to nations) were created to handle decision making, execution of said decisions, etc. before any significant technological advancement. We seem to be stuck with both of them!

Technology can be used to make governing to be based more on individual choice (welcome any brainstorming on this front--some ideas: choosing how you want your taxes to be spent via check boxes on income tax returns, hooking up with people who want to donate to or want donations like the Prosper.com site does for people who want to lend/borrow money), while at the same time, standardizing basic procedures. A global government would 'standardize' laws, eg., regardless of the culture involved, certain acts are criminal, whether it is the knifing of a love rival in a Western bar, or a stoning of an adulterer in a Mideastern street.

As far as the dumping of agricultural crops goes, it is done when it deemed cost-effective to do so, i.e., it costs less to dump it then to sell it at the price the market is willing to pay for it. Communication technology can be used to try to get a cost-effective price for it (ex., an NGO might be able to bear some of the costs of transportation, etc. and pay a price that would deter the produce from being dumped).

I think it was epeeist saying he did not give a f*ck that the company which was connected to the Bhopal disaster went out of business; I could be wrong, but I think that (notsobad?) was saying that such a failure shown other companies what would happen if they were negligent, not that he/she was sorry for the company going bankrupt. Preventing the next disaster can be a combination of standardizing regulations (one reason why the European nuclear industry is so accident-free) and setting examples by taking to task by suing the daylights out of the companies that slip through the cracks and act negligently.

Regarding a government as a negotiating agent because of their bargaining power (Brian's idea) has its advantages and disadvantages, just like a global government would have. Again, I think that technology needs to be used more cleverly in order to answer such challenges.

Though I can see the point of keeping discussion threads on topic, I have often mused that when someone reminds me of that, that they are really saying, yeah, you can discuss this topic, but not in my back yard! Which is OK, because having a discussion with someone who does not want to have it, is fairly useless for both parties.

scooter's handle of individual responsibility needs to be balanced out with a handle that shows how such a stance can be carried on within a society, and that aspect is enlightened self-interest. One aspect of living with a freethinker (my husband who though may have common grounds with some libertarian principles is too much of a free thinker to label himself thusly) who consistently acts per his world view is to see that such freethinking does not isolate him from society, but actually re-enforces and clarifies his functioning within society as an individual.

296. The truth in religion

Comment #84446 by Logicel on November 2, 2007 at 4:02 am

ADH wrote: Keep it up chaps, it's just what we expect of you.
______

We will, thanks for noticing!

297. The truth in religion

Comment #84238 by Logicel on November 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Corylus wrote: Uncharitable translation:
I believe it cos I want to. So there.
_______

Here's mine: I am too fully clothed, my draperies are heavy with reason, my feathered cap weighted with truth, and my buttons gleam with sophistication. I AM TOO FULLY CLOTHED!!!! I AM, I AM, I AM TELLIN' YA I AM ROOTED IN THE HABERDASHERY OF ELEGANT, FINELY HONED TRUTH! I AM NOT NAKED!!!

298. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #84154 by Logicel on November 1, 2007 at 10:01 am

There are several good youtube vids on The Pale Blue Dot, but my fave is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc

Great editing and original music; dont miss Sagan's melodic voice at the end.

299. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #84077 by Logicel on November 1, 2007 at 5:47 am

NASA's "Beyond Einstein" initiative was approved by Congress several years ago to speed development of space-based observatories and probes designed to tell us more about the early universe and the forces that ruled it.

But tight agency budgets have slowed the initiative, and most of the Beyond Einstein probes won't be launched for years, if at all.

This has black hole researchers concerned, especially since the field has turned so productive.
________

coretemprising, here's a case in point for your cleverly coined reverse collateral damage.

Fascinating info, but all I could do via my puny earth-bound knowledge base was to translate the descriptions of black hole characteristics into the following: quagmires, vortexes, recycling units, volcanic eruptions, and ecosystems.

300. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84058 by Logicel on November 1, 2007 at 4:58 am

Russell Blackford wrote: I should add that it is often the "saintly" writings of Augustine and Aquinas that are actually worst of all in promoting a horrible, miserable picture of humanity, morality, and our place in the world. Their books could also do with a bit of mockery.
________

I second that motion!