|
Post by Julian on Jan 7, 2011 2:58:02 GMT -5
Yeh, God was so much more fun when he covered the Earth in a blanket at night time with stars embedded in it,
The God of gaps is getting pretty pointless. Apparently now he stopped being relevant 13.7 billion years ago. Someone should tell the fucking idiot pope that if God caused the big bang, then the shape and form of the universe, including the distribution of super clusters, galaxies and so forth was largely random (in the indiscriminate sense) and the precursors and hypernovae etc and 8+ billion years that had to precede the formation of this solar system, let alone abiogenesis, let alone 3 billion years of evolution, to suddenly pop up and claim a whole pile of toss in a 6,000 yr old geocentric flat world is just another level of being not only pig ignorant about science, but also theology --- or far more likely relying on the fact that the people that they are instructing are pig ignorant of both, and continuing the theft of causation.
God did not make the sun rise despite early religions claims he did, and the God of the babble did not cause the big bang, despite latter claims he did.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 7, 2011 2:50:17 GMT -5
I guess I'm saying I take "evolutionary psychology" with a grain of salt, though things like "x exists to help maintain the social order" aren't really subject to much doubt. The good news is it doesn't need your approval to be right! You may wish to read a little more before you dismiss it as not being worthy of fitting in your particularly shuttered view of the world. Feel free to ignore this advice...
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 7, 2011 2:45:41 GMT -5
Granted, but unfortunately your wish is corrupted by reality. People had a nano second of lucidity and ephiphanies, and can only remember the euphoria, and spend the rest of their lives trying to remember what had occured to them, all the while descending into a an ever thickening cloud of madness. Religion convinces people that it was God, and billions turn into zealots chasing that sweet moment of sanity, which paradoxically was burrowing in entirely the wrong direction. History looks upon our failed civilisation as a bunch of self-conceited, egocentric uppity apes.
I wish Gilliard would get some bloody sleep. The PM should not be criticised for not being omniescient. The PM should not be criticised for being insentivie [Edit: insensitive WTF was that typo] if she's not across every single concurrent boo-hoo of every single insignificant shithead in the country.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 15:43:39 GMT -5
[flame target] hyperbole and hysterics aside, there are perhaps a few grains of truth in what some of those commenters are basing their gibberish on[/flame target] Well since you went to all the effort of playing in the shit with the little piggies, do tell us what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 15:37:07 GMT -5
Yeah, teensy bit more independant than a 93% caucasian, backassed society that still has the queen on their money and who's sense of national identity was forged around dying horribly on the other side of the world at the whim of British high command...
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 15:09:56 GMT -5
Not to mention they're cashing in on / usurping the credibility of astrophysicists. It's like watching a pasty 300lb flabbo politician being photographed with an adored sports star.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 15:02:55 GMT -5
I can't see this as a bad thing. The Pope could have come out and said that the Big Bang was BS and the universe is only 6000 years old. Instead he is trying to match religious beliefs with science, while not arguing that science is wrong. Every time the church is falsified and are losing credibility and hence power over it, they then adapt and say that was their position all along. Consider the evils and ills that they have inflicted and perpetrated this decade alone, so every time they acknowledge scientific fact, but refuse to advance their hideously primitive, sub-moral doctrines, no it's not a good thing - they are merely feeding the collosal beast as best they can.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 13:57:59 GMT -5
OK, a conscience tends to be reactive rather than dependant on forethought.
Also, of course it's an evolved trait. If everyone was a sociopath, it would be impossible to have a nuturing or parenting instinct, let alone form an extended co-operative family unit. It would have been impossible to become an effective gregarious animal, let alone form simple societies. Not only did it precede the most expansive cognition by tens of millions of years at the very least, but it had to be a solid prerequisite for this due to the extreme vulnerability and level of care and nurturing the species required, but additionally the pay-off in the long term for each generation was both obvious and powerful, and that the penalties of ostracisation were so extreme there was not a rival warlike species because there was no next generation. Guilt and shame are far better control mechanisms than fear and strength, for effectiveness, compliance and less resources to activate (why the [xxxx] do you think religions rely on them so heavily). Any animal that forms social bonds and complex networks will be capable of basic emotions like guilt and shame. Some of the triggers will be instinctive and some learned/taught via interaction with others, but the biological response will be similar.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 11:29:02 GMT -5
Tried Viet-nam, they fucked uncle Sam, bomb Iran an an...
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 11:27:23 GMT -5
Read this article yesterday. It's from 2006, and it predates the financial crisis amongst other things, and it's seriously long, but it puts up some extremely cogent arguments why conservatives can't govern for shit! It also puts the tax cuts down to myopia as opposed to a two step process to cut spending. Given that the conservatives had absolutely no desire to balance the budget when they were in office, this is understandable. It's also underestimating how much conservative politics has transformed into regressive politics, and the whole teaparty insanity. Some lovely bites in there though. For instance: As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 10:46:34 GMT -5
The follow up's looking a bit grim too... Protests and funeral mourning aside, but his lawyers pulling shit like showering him with rose petals as he enters the court room is just ghastly, not to mention the prosecution and any residing judge will be hot favourite to become the next target!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 8:55:27 GMT -5
(not to mention he said 10% = 3x, not 20-25% = break even.)
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 8:54:48 GMT -5
Well in VERY rough figures... The US economy is about $14T. Government revenues are about 4T, of which 2T comes from income tax. Roughly 70% of the US economy revolves around consumption, so to recoup that 2T, the tax would need to be 20% extra on absolutely everything, probably compounding up the supply chain, and you hit the problem assuming that people would be able to have 20-30% extra income from the tax elimination to keep even with the massive price hikes in everything, including rent, food and essential services. Most people do not pay anthing close to 20-30% of their gross income in tax, particularly those on benefits or minimum wage or part time or unskilled labour.
Who benefits? The super rich (assuming they're not investing in the US economy which will tank).
It's crass economic stupidity. Anyone under 300K who votes Republican at the moment is an idiot. Anyone over 300K is a prick!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 8:40:18 GMT -5
As for Saddam and Saudi Arabia, even if there was no debate in the hypothetical “Israel is bad” thread, I'm still certain that it would get more posts than a debate free “Saudi Arabia is bad” thread. Then you are displaying poor cognitive bias, because I have never seen this happen, in fact every time on this board there's been an unopposed thread, on either topic, the Islamic state has copped an unmerciful slagging, and rightly so, and it has been longer. Also, your argument smacks of this age old canard! www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/23/african-migrants-held-hostage-egypt-traffickers
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jan 6, 2011 8:34:11 GMT -5
JonathanE - But how are they supposed to solve it? By forcibly removing the settlers? That would be a violation of their right to own property. If they hand control of the settler areas to the Palestinians while the Jewish settlers still live there, then they'd be inviting the massacre of hundreds of Israeli citizens. The only way to do it would be banning new settlements, then trying to buy back the areas that are already owned. Such a process would be very unpopular and very slow, and the government would probably be voted out and the process reversed before any real progress was made. They forcibly remove Palestinians, violating their rights. Inviting the massacre really? Any evidence for that claim? And wouldn't the massacre of a few hundred settlers pale into numerical insignificance when compared to the murder of thousands of civilians by Israel in their incursions into Gaza, completely ignoring the inhumanity of the 40 years of siege and deprivation in the first place, so if the removal of illegal settlements is intrumental in the peace process, wouldn't more lives be saved in the long run this way? No, this isn't a good idea, but kindly get a sense of perspective. it appears that you should also read the Goldstone report!
|
|