Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Experiencing a concept is completely different from experiencing the real thing. Really, what you're experiencing is yourself, thinking about something. It's the difference between experiencing a fall off a horse and experiencing thinking about falling off a horse. Having done both, I assert they are different.

Correct. If you can experience a fall off a horse, and you can think about the experience, you have either memory or imagination (depending on which came first).

On the other hand, and this is the significant difference, if you can consider a concept which, by definition, cannot be 'real-thing'-experienced (such as infinity), then you are experiencing it as what it is: a concept.

kickfight wrote:

Um, sorry, Tim. I wish I could drop to your level again, but I am going to have to focus on the conversation with the person who does have a level of knowledge and understanding. Ta.

Sounds good to me. I do notice you avoided my basic question, however, and everyone else's questions.  You answer questions with questions or opinions.  Great way to avoid reality (as we know it). Happy holidays. /tim

Tim Baker wrote:
Sounds good to me. I do notice you avoided my basic question, however, and everyone else's questions.  You answer questions with questions or opinions.  Great way to avoid reality (as we know it). Happy holidays. /tim

Nope... I'm keeping my conversation with Marcus going, for reasons of merit. You can infer from that what you will.

Happy Holidays to you too, Tim.

kickfight wrote:

Whoa, son! Don't be shooting that little gun at everyone that walks by! I'm not defending ID at all! So.. since it seems that certain subtle aspects of conversation  (such as irony) elude you, so... I'm gonna give you a li'l time out, and check back witcha later... yikes!

Oh, and get it through your head: PEOPLE AREN'T INTERESTED IN YOUR LINKS. Just let it go already...

Actually, Rich, I enjoyed the Links (as still reading), and appreciate the work you put into bringing this information to us.  Amazing what learning will actually to an individual's way of thinking. Cheers, Tim

kickfight wrote:

Um, sorry, Tim. I wish I could drop to your level again, but I am going to have to focus on the conversation with the person who does have a level of knowledge and understanding. Ta.

Dude.  You may actually be smart.  But the only thing making an impression here is your smart ASS.  Get over yourself.  If this conversation so damn beneth you go some where else!

kickfight wrote:
An animal may know the additive value of having more than one of a certain thing, but that doesn't mean that the animal understands that 1+1=2

I believe your assertion was that "formulas" (as well as telescopes, but that's not as interesting a topic) come from people, and don't exist without them. If I'm arguing the wrong topic, please redirect me.

Proceeding on that assumed battleground, I think you just cut your feet out from underneath yourself. 1+1=2 whether the animal understands it or not. Sure, humans came along and attached names to "1" and "2" and addition, but even bacteria understood division a long time before ModelMayhem came along.

We should move this to PhilosophyMayhem.   Or maybe someone should start a website called "let's argue!"(*)

mjr.
(* PS, did you want just a 5 minute argument, or are you going to pay for the whole 10 minutes?)

tgimaging wrote:
About the only 'thing' that was decided, was to present an incomplete picture to the student. Now isn't that the way to teach? Knowledge is about having ALL of the information.

What was decided was to present the science that is known.  That which is not science must stay out of science classes.

kickfight wrote:
if you can consider a concept which, by definition, cannot be 'real-thing'-experienced (such as infinity), then you are experiencing it as what it is: a concept.

I think we have to part company intellectually on that issue.

I would hold that if you are considering a concept, then what you are experiencing is yourself considering a concept. After all "experience" is "what happens to you." And when you're thinking about infinity, infinity is not happening to you and (I would further argue) your imagination cannot encompass infinity, any more than you, yourself, can.

mjr.

Tim Baker wrote:

Actually, Rich, I enjoyed the Links (as still reading), and appreciate the work you put into bringing this information to us.  Amazing what learning will actually to an individual's way of thinking. Cheers, Tim

Thanks Tim. I'm not even sure what the argument is about anymore. All I know is that science and religion are not the same, and cannot be proven in the same manner. We definately do NOT need to teach our kids both sides of this story (except perhaps as a moral lesson as to what can happen when you let religious nuts excercise too much power in government).

I try to follow as many links as I can in an argument and at least scan them over to gain a basic understanding (or acquire a better understanding).



Oh and Marcus, thank you for pointing out my Bikini bomb error. I completely forgot about the desert tests...not sure why.

Point is this. Evolution theory is good science, and people who claim it should get equal treatment as myth drive me absolutely nuts!

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Atomic theory is what allowed us to build the atom bomb. When the detonated the first one at Bikini, they weren't ENTIRELY sure what would happen because until that point it was THEORY (which seemed to have proven correct)

Actually the first atomic blast was at Alamagordo, NM. 

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
The theory of gravity was used to send men to the moon and back. It is still a theory.

The theory of electrical energy is what your computer runs on.

And evolutionary theory is what is used to create flu vaccines for newly EVOLVED strains of the influenza virus.

Show me one thing man has created with the (cough cough) "theory" or Intelligent Design. Can it be predicted? Can it be quanitfied?

Don't tell me I'm the one in over my head here, dude. And until you have refuted ANY of the links I posted, don't even bother to pretend to have a grasp on the idea of evolutionary or "big bang" theory.

Or better yet, present me with a creationist or "Intelligent Design" theory that does not rely on myth to back it up.

They'll never back up their position with facts, its far easier for them to remain dishonest and set up strawmen because to actually look at your cites would require them to read something other than the bible.  They seek comfort rather than knowledge.

Tim Baker wrote:
Ben, sorry but you know me ... I just have to.  Let me just do a bit of editing, if it’s ok with you, to better support your argument:

1. If you think the government knows how to borrow-and-spend money better than you (conservative)

Your right.  Did I say Republican?  NO I said Conservative.  There is a difference.  True conservatives would never get elected because they would never vote for a spending increase until every bankrupt social program was tossed.  Don't confuse the Conservative movement with the Republican Party.  We vote republican because they are the closest to our Ideas.

2. If you think the only social programs worth funding are the military industrial complex, oil company welfare programs, pharmaceutical company subsidies, and Hillaburton. (conservative)

Hey!  I am for free unfettered, untampered with markets.  That means no affirmative action.  That means no Amtrak.  That means no money from the government for any business.  I think the dems loose much more on this one because that includes funds for Universities as well.

3. If you think the federal government should not be bothered with matters specifically laid out in the constitution and with infrastructure, but also to help social programs detailed in number 2, above. (Conservative)

????  Sorry I did not get what you are trying to say here?  Probably because it was a stretch?

4. If you think personal responsibility trumps all and children and women eating from dumpsters and living a few weeks in the New Orleans, Astrodome is a good thing...you are a conservative.

Not a good thing.  But a product of an entitlement society.  The thing that most people missed with the New Orleans disaster was that it was a perfect view into the entitlement/handout world.  There is an entire section of the population that feels the government owes them something.  Hell, most of us these days think that.  The government wants us to think that.  I say the government owes me what is specificly spelled out in the constitution.  No more.  People who think that the Government can plan for Cat 4and 5 hurricanes live in la la land and have too little respect for the awesome power of mother nature.  Personal Responsibility 1st!!!!!!!!!!!  Then look to the government for help.  I have NO pitty for the entitlement society.  Because pitty begets more entitlement!

5. If you think the concept of being a good Vice President is leaving the troops in Iraq during Christmas to rush back to possibly have to vote on a budget that includes cuts in Medicaid, college loan programs, and approves drilling for oil on public lands in Alaska is a greater priority. (conservative)  (See:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10547308/)

He is in Pakistan it think.  He left Iraq before today.  Your right.  God forbid the VP fullfil his constitutional duties.  You only want him to do that if it helps out your cause.  Drilling in Anwr is a HUGE priority.  It is and should be for all of us.  Anything that keeps even an ounce of production out of the middle east or Venesuela is a good thing.

6. If you think approving wire tapes on American citizens is alright.  (Conservative)

If those citizens are suspected of ties to terrorism then yes in a time of war I have NO problem with it if it is constitutional.  We will see what turns out to be constitutional and what isn't.  PS...a court ruled in 2002 on this very issue and said it was proper.  Sorry to be the one to tell you.  I do not have a link saw it on Brit Humes program on Fox.  The only Fox show I will watch.  Reporting it might be slanted but they didn't make up the ruling.


Nice try. 

You are still a closet conservative.  Accept for that crazy bleeding heart of yours!!!!  How come there are soooo many mexicans rebuilding new orleans and no other minorities?  Because they prefer handouts to hardwork.  They want it for free instead of earning it.  This entitlement society will be the end of us.  Hell now we have a Global entitlement society telling us how much we need to give/handout to the world.  They think the US owes the world.  What??????

Build something and and sell it too us.  For god's sake we are the biggest market in the world.  My girlfriend buys random crap all the time.  She could single handedly support a small nation with the crap she buys!!!!  India is figuring it out.  China already figured it out.

PS...your early post about the mathmatics and scientific brain drain is THE most important thing I have seen you post!  It deserves its own thread.  GOD...we agree again!  Damn it.

tgimaging wrote:
Knowledge is about having ALL of the information.

The entirety of creationist information:

*point to sky* He did it.

bencook2 wrote:

Tim Baker wrote:
Ben, sorry but you know me ... I just have to.  Let me just do a bit of editing, if it’s ok with you, to better support your argument:

1. If you think the government knows how to borrow-and-spend money better than you (conservative)

Your right.  Did I say Republican?  NO I said Conservative.  There is a difference.  True conservatives would never get elected because they would never vote for a spending increase until every bankrupt social program was tossed.  Don't confuse the Conservative movement with the Republican Party.  We vote republican because they are the closest to our Ideas.

2. If you think the only social programs worth funding are the military industrial complex, oil company welfare programs, pharmaceutical company subsidies, and Hillaburton. (conservative)

Hey!  I am for free unfettered, untampered with markets.  That means no affirmative action.  That means no Amtrak.  That means no money from the government for any business.  I think the dems loose much more on this one because that includes funds for Universities as well.

3. If you think the federal government should not be bothered with matters specifically laid out in the constitution and with infrastructure, but also to help social programs detailed in number 2, above. (Conservative)

????  Sorry I did not get what you are trying to say here?  Probably because it was a stretch?

4. If you think personal responsibility trumps all and children and women eating from dumpsters and living a few weeks in the New Orleans, Astrodome is a good thing...you are a conservative.

Not a good thing.  But a product of an entitlement society.  The thing that most people missed with the New Orleans disaster was that it was a perfect view into the entitlement/handout world.  There is an entire section of the population that feels the government owes them something.  Hell, most of us these days think that.  The government wants us to think that.  I say the government owes me what is specificly spelled out in the constitution.  No more.  People who think that the Government can plan for Cat 4and 5 hurricanes live in la la land and have too little respect for the awesome power of mother nature.  Personal Responsibility 1st!!!!!!!!!!!  Then look to the government for help.  I have NO pitty for the entitlement society.  Because pitty begets more entitlement!

He is in Pakistan it think.  He left Iraq before today.  Your right.  God forbid the VP fullfil his constitutional duties.  You only want him to do that if it helps out your cause.  Drilling in Anwr is a HUGE priority.  It is and should be for all of us.  Anything that keeps even an ounce of production out of the middle east or Venesuela is a good thing.

If those citizens are suspected of ties to terrorism then yes in a time of war I have NO problem with it if it is constitutional.  We will see what turns out to be constitutional and what isn't.  PS...a court ruled in 2002 on this very issue and said it was proper.  Sorry to be the one to tell you.  I do not have a link saw it on Brit Humes program on Fox.  The only Fox show I will watch.  Reporting it might be slanted but they didn't make up the ruling.


Nice try. 

You are still a closet conservative.  Accept for that crazy bleeding heart of yours!!!!  How come there are soooo many mexicans rebuilding new orleans and no other minorities?  Because they prefer handouts to hardwork.  They want it for free instead of earning it.  This entitlement society will be the end of us.  Hell now we have a Global entitlement society telling us how much we need to give/handout to the world.  They think the US owes the world.  What??????

Build something and and sell it too us.  For god's sake we are the biggest market in the world.  My girlfriend buys random crap all the time.  She could single handedly support a small nation with the crap she buys!!!!  India is figuring it out.  China already figured it out.

PS...your early post about the mathmatics and scientific brain drain is THE most important thing I have seen you post!  It deserves its own thread.  GOD...we agree again!  Damn it.

LOL ... come over to the Dark Side .... come over (we have cookies and free food stamps ... Come over, Ben).  Oh, the Entitlement Society?  Are you talking about Halliburon, the oil, the Pharmaceutical companies?

I now there are moderate Republicans.  By definition, there cannot be moderate conservatives.  /Tim

Tim Baker wrote:
Actually, infinity is not a concept – it’s a mathematical theory.

I am on weak ground here; I ought to ask for help from my crazy mathematician buddy who's a differential topologist and wrote his dissertation about some weird proof that some kind of infinities are larger than others. Rrrrrgggh... whatever.

Anyhow, I hate to seem randomly argumentative, but infinity's not really a "theory" (i.e.: it's not a logical or scientific proposition that can be proved or disproved) - nor is it a hypothesis or a fact. For what it's worth, Wikipedia's entry on Infinity refers to it as (among other things) a concept of increase beyond bounds. The Wikipedia entry is really interesting - I just had a delightful time rummaging through it - and points out, rightly, that "infinity" is used to completely different purpose in math, theology, philosophy, etc. So I guess we should have defined our battleground more clearly.

Tim Baker wrote:
It follows the basic laws of mathematics.

1/1 = 1
1/.1 = 10
1/.01 =.100
1/.001 = 1000

Keep multiplying 1 by a smaller and smaller denominator:

1/.00001 = 100,000
1//.000001 = 1,000,000

Finally, multiply 1 by the smallest denominator we know - zero - and the answer must be a very large number, which would suggest it is infinity.

But that's just a fancy way of describing division by zero. If you take any number, and see how many times zero can fit in it - infinity. And, according to my whacko mathematician buddy:
"My infinity is bigger than yours. How? Easy: I added 1 to it."
No joke. Mathematicians spend 5 years writing dissertations about stuff like that...  And you thought we were bad on ModelMayhem!

mjr.

Tim Baker wrote:

LOL ... come over to the Dark Side .... come over (we have cookies and free food stamps ... Come over, Ben).  Oh, the Entitlement Society?  Are you talking about Halliburon, the oil, the Pharmaceutical companies?

I now there are moderate Republicans.  By definition, there cannot be moderate conservatives.  /Tim

Every GD one of them that has there hand out.

  Get rid of all of them.

Start with the Pharma's and end with minorities.  NO...check that.  Start with minority owned companies. (the best of both worlds) 

AS a conservative It does not pain me to be consistant.  How about as a liberal?  Can you hand out to the poor but not to Oil companies?  What have you taught the poor by giving them something they have not earned?  Sweep a street for your food stamps.  That is all I ask.  It is basic psychology.  You appreciate less what you don't earn.

I going to come visit your side if you let me drive my Hummer.  The immigrant minorites should have the third coat of wax done by tomorrow.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

I am on weak ground here; I ought to ask for help from my crazy mathematician buddy who's a differential topologist and wrote his dissertation about some weird proof that some kind of infinities are larger than others. Rrrrrgggh... whatever.

Anyhow, I hate to seem randomly argumentative, but infinity's not really a "theory" (i.e.: it's not a logical or scientific proposition that can be proved or disproved) - nor is it a hypothesis or a fact. For what it's worth, Wikipedia's entry on Infinity refers to it as (among other things) a concept of increase beyond bounds. The Wikipedia entry is really interesting - I just had a delightful time rummaging through it - and points out, rightly, that "infinity" is used to completely different purpose in math, theology, philosophy, etc. So I guess we should have defined our battleground more clearly.


But that's just a fancy way of describing division by zero. If you take any number, and see how many times zero can fit in it - infinity. And, according to my whacko mathematician buddy:
"My infinity is bigger than yours. How? Easy: I added 1 to it."
No joke. Mathematicians spend 5 years writing dissertations about stuff like that...  And you thought we were bad on ModelMayhem!

mjr.

I just wrote a response and my cat (who is reminding me that he has no food) walked on my keyboard and it all went to blank. I'll reply when I get back feeding this animal who rules the home, he thinks.

XtremeArtists wrote:
What's the question?

The answer is 42...

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

I am on weak ground here; I ought to ask for help from my crazy mathematician buddy who's a differential topologist and wrote his dissertation about some weird proof that some kind of infinities are larger than others. Rrrrrgggh... whatever.

Anyhow, I hate to seem randomly argumentative, but infinity's not really a "theory" (i.e.: it's not a logical or scientific proposition that can be proved or disproved) - nor is it a hypothesis or a fact. For what it's worth, Wikipedia's entry on Infinity refers to it as (among other things) a concept of increase beyond bounds. The Wikipedia entry is really interesting - I just had a delightful time rummaging through it - and points out, rightly, that "infinity" is used to completely different purpose in math, theology, philosophy, etc. So I guess we should have defined our battleground more clearly.


But that's just a fancy way of describing division by zero. If you take any number, and see how many times zero can fit in it - infinity. And, according to my whacko mathematician buddy:
"My infinity is bigger than yours. How? Easy: I added 1 to it."
No joke. Mathematicians spend 5 years writing dissertations about stuff like that...  And you thought we were bad on ModelMayhem!

mjr.

EDIT: LOL ... but I provided 'proof' in the mathematical sense and the logic follows the rules of mathematics.  Actually, I'm playing a bit here.  Mathematicians generally will say it's "infinity" - without a clear definition of what that is; or "as the demoninator approaches zero, the answer approaches infinity" without going that next step.

If you use the definition of 'theory' that is "A set of observations that explains current behavior and predicts that under the same set of circumstances predicts that the same behavior will occur" ... than the simple multiplication example is a theory ... or a theorum as most mathematicians prefer to call it.  It is interesting, though.

For a long time, the concept of Zero didn't exist.  If you consider Zero degrees Celcius, for example, it isn't the lack of temperature, it is just a number in the temperature scale. If you consider money, zero mean you have none. 

Interesting discussion.  Happy holidays, Tim

PS Need to do a food run.

XtremeArtists wrote:

The answer is 42...

ROTFWL

Tim Baker wrote:
Mathematicians generally will say it's "infinity" - without a clear definition of what that is; or "as the demoninator approaches zero, the answer approaches zero" without going that next step.

I think the term is "infinitely close".  You can't ever reach it.  (1,1]

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
I think we have to part company intellectually on that issue.

I would hold that if you are considering a concept, then what you are experiencing is yourself considering a concept. After all "experience" is "what happens to you." And when you're thinking about infinity, infinity is not happening to you and (I would further argue) your imagination cannot encompass infinity, any more than you, yourself, can.

mjr.

Well, you're assuming that the experience of yourself considering a concept is a non-experience. Considering infinity is certainly something that 'happens to you', but it can be something you make happen as well. As I've stated, from what we've discussed of infinity, it cannot be happening to anything, so the only way we can consider infinity is by thinking about it.

I don't make the assumption that I can 'encompass' infinity, but I can experience the concept of infinity by considering it, by thinking about it. That, in fact, is the only purpose for the concept of infinity. Without the act of experiencing it through its only avenue (thought), it is rather pointless.

bencook2 wrote:
Dude.  You may actually be smart.  But the only thing making an impression here is your smart ASS.  Get over yourself.  If this conversation so damn beneth you go some where else!

OK, you caught me. I was being condescending to Tim in the same way that he condescends to others, and that was taking 'the low road'. So noted, and my bad. I don't have an overinflated ego that prevents me from being called out when I take the low road.

kickfight wrote:

OK, you caught me. I was being condescending to Tim in the same way that he condescends to others, and that was taking 'the low road'. So noted, and my bad. I don't have an overinflated ego that prevents me from being called out when I take the low road.

Wait!

What just happened here?

Maybe If I refresh it will change?....Nope still there.

Yep...that is what it looks like.  Honesty.  I thought would never see it again on the internet.  But there it is!

Don't be hard on Tim.  He is my favorite sparring partner.  Give it time and he will be yours as well.  That is if he doesn't leave the country!

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
I believe your assertion was that "formulas" (as well as telescopes, but that's not as interesting a topic) come from people, and don't exist without them. If I'm arguing the wrong topic, please redirect me.

No, you're on the right track.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Proceeding on that assumed battleground, I think you just cut your feet out from underneath yourself. 1+1=2 whether the animal understands it or not. Sure, humans came along and attached names to "1" and "2" and addition, but even bacteria understood division a long time before ModelMayhem came along.

Whoops! Nope, there's our old friend hubris again. Bacteria do not 'understand' division, and, unless you have a secret communication with Bacteria (dude! Your Nobel Prize is getting cold! ), then you are superimposing a human construct onto an event that does not know of numbers or their interaction.

Not to put too fine a point, but bacteria do not 'know' division... they (wait for it) experience division. It is we humans who give these processes their names and re-apply them in creative new ways. However, the naming of division certainly hasn't affected the experience of division in bacteria over time.

As I mentioned, an animal instictively 'knows' that a group of somethings is better than a single something, and bacteria do experience parthenogenesis. But that this evidences that math was something that has always existed, and which humans 'discovered', then we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Because that is hyperextending theory to the snapping point.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
We should move this to PhilosophyMayhem.   Or maybe someone should start a website called "let's argue!"(*)

Ah, now THERE's an idea!

bencook2 wrote:

AS a conservative It does not pain me to be consistant.  How about as a liberal?  Can you hand out to the poor but not to Oil companies?  What have you taught the poor by giving them something they have not earned?  Sweep a street for your food stamps.  That is all I ask.  It is basic psychology.  You appreciate less what you don't earn.

I going to come visit your side if you let me drive my Hummer.  The immigrant minorites should have the third coat of wax done by tomorrow.

Um. Well, being consistent doesn't require me to choose between two quite unequal entities or self-perpetuating stereotypes.  Changing one’s mind based on the best available evidence is what I consider being a ‘realist.’  I don’t base my beliefs or opinions on either a conservative or liberal position, I base it on a realistic one, which often is very complex (the opinion, not my mind) and doesn’t lend itself to simplistic answers and requires a great deal of thought to reach what I would like to think is a valid conclusion (subject to change based on new evidence).

I do believe that often we have to give the poor something so they can be taught (a mother of three cannot afford nor find time to go to school to be 'taught' unless there's an alternative to being a mother of three (yes, go ahead with the 'well, she shouldn't have had the kids - argument doesn't hold when wealthy families have, on average, use more resources than do poor families, regardless of family size).  I believe that providing the means of teaching a person a skill will be significantly more rewarding to our society than would sweeping a street.  It’s hard to sweep streets if we want to move people off food stamps and into higher paying jobs by allowing them to get a skill.

Hummers? Sure, you can also drive your hybrids. Liberals are an equal auto-tunity group. 

Except, I'm not a registered Democrat or Republican.  Never have been. I consider myself moderate on some issues, liberal on come, conservative on some. I'm not a sheep on either side.  I’m an Independent – and no, I didn’t vote for Nadar.

/Tim

bencook2 wrote:

I think the term is "infinitely close".  You can't ever reach it.  (1,1]

Indeed. Typo on my part.  That should not say Zero, but Infinity.

And if Infinity isn't a finite number (which is isn't considered to be), then just substitute this formula:

(1/0)+n (where n is any number you desire) and magic, you get your own version of infinity)

/Tim

bencook2 wrote:
Wait!

What just happened here?

Maybe If I refresh it will change?....Nope still there.

Yep...that is what it looks like.  Honesty.  I thought would never see it again on the internet.  But there it is!

Don't be hard on Tim.  He is my favorite sparring partner.  Give it time and he will be yours as well.  That is if he doesn't leave the country!

You think YOU'RE stunned! Yes, honesty IS alive, but it had to wade knee-deep in the over-congratulatory mud of the self first, I guess... ARGH. I get way too wrapped up in these discussions.

Tim Baker wrote:
Actually Rich, I'm the OP on this thread - and I don't mind things going astray. It's about the Dover ID decision.

I do appreciate a good debate based on information (links) and not just opinion. Kickbox just can't seem to stay out of the rehelm of opinion (and he apparently can't see himself heading down that slipplery slope - or he doesn't want to).

You can always tell Tim is out of his league and has been intellectually cornered when he resorts to calling other people's arguments 'opinions'. It's an intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that corner without applying logic or reason.

Tim Baker wrote:
I am amazed at how poorly many people debate and resort to ad homenim attacks or answering question with a question (which are tired, old debating techniques).  I would expect the question-to-question tactic to be used by a teenager, not an adult.

Tim, please... as I've pointed out to you once already on a different thread, it's ad hominem , and you're misapplying it. AGAIN.

You remind me of the character of Vizzini in The Princess Bride, who insisted on using the term 'INCONCEIVABLE!' to make himself look intelligent, yet not having a clue what it meant. It isn't until Inigo Montoya finally can't ignore it anymore, and utters his famous line "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means"...

kickfight wrote:
As I mentioned, an animal instictively 'knows' that a group of somethings is better than a single something, and bacteria do experience parthenogenesis.

Hmmm...better sounds like a subjective judgement. I wonder if Fido would think 3 dog catchers are better than 1 dog catcher.

OK...I am being sarcastic. But we could argue ad ifinitum (pun intended).



So are we agreed that the good guys won in court and that the judge in PA did the right thing?

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:

Hmmm...better sounds like a subjective judgement. I wonder if Fido would think 3 dog catchers are better than 1 dog catcher.

OK...I am being sarcastic. But we could argue ad ifinitum (pun intended).



So are we agreed that the good guys won in court and that the judge in PA did the right thing?

Yes. We DO agree on that. We also agree that the good guys won in the Senate, and the Patriot Act is a lame duck now. Right?

Thread Hijacking - it's what's for dinner!

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
If you can quote from the Princess Bride, there is a chance we can actually get along.

NO! YOU'RE WRONG! WRONGWRONGWRONG!!! WE CAN ONLY GET ALONG IF I CAN QUOTE FROM THE HITCHHIKERS' GUIDE TO THE GALAXY!!! DAMMIT!!!

Oh, wait... what am I saying?

Tim Baker wrote:

Um. Well, being consistent doesn't require me to choose between two quite unequal entities or self-perpetuating stereotypes.  Changing one’s mind based on the best available evidence is what I consider being a ‘realist.’  I don’t base my beliefs or opinions on either a conservative or liberal position, I base it on a realistic one, which often is very complex (the opinion, not my mind) and doesn’t lend itself to simplistic answers and requires a great deal of thought to reach what I would like to think is a valid conclusion (subject to change based on new evidence).

I do believe that often we have to give the poor something so they can be taught (a mother of three cannot afford nor find time to go to school to be 'taught' unless there's an alternative to being a mother of three (yes, go ahead with the 'well, she shouldn't have had the kids - argument doesn't hold when wealthy families have, on average, use more resources than do poor families, regardless of family size).  I believe that providing the means of teaching a person a skill will be significantly more rewarding to our society than would sweeping a street.  It’s hard to sweep streets if we want to move people off food stamps and into higher paying jobs by allowing them to get a skill.

Hummers? Sure, you can also drive your hybrids. Liberals are an equal auto-tunity group. 

Except, I'm not a registered Democrat or Republican.  Never have been. I consider myself moderate on some issues, liberal on come, conservative on some. I'm not a sheep on either side.  I’m an Independent – and no, I didn’t vote for Nadar.

/Tim

Changing one’s mind based on the best available evidence is what I consider being a ‘realist.’
___________________________

Tim if I or you could actually do what you said above with any consistancy we would be very special indeed!  There is no way to parse out every instance and judge it by its own weight.  We are not little difference engines.  We jugde and assume and apply past experience.  We have our own set of values.  My set is based on conservative principles that state: Individual responsibility for myself and Individual Responsibility should be expected of others.

People can not just "get a pass" for bringing three souls into this world with no way of providing for them.  There has to be some responsibility here.  It may be a harsh one.  But it must happen.  And by NO means should it be rewarded.

I volunteer, I give to charity, I work in the community.  I do my part and I expect others to do theirs.  If a mother of three wants to go to school.  I say let the government loan her the money.  LOAN.  If she wants food stamps...she can work for it.  Stuff envelops from home.  Do medical billing.  (trust me, it doesn't take much to do it.  My cousins wife makes 21k per year doing it and she has 3 kids and only a rural SC high school education)

The entitlements must stop.  I am not without feeling and believe we have a responsibility as citizens, neighbors, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., etc. to help those in need.  But HELP does not necessarily translate into handout.  NO one should get a dime of my money for free.  NO ONE.  IF you want my money I will give it to you if you earn it.  I will also give you my respect.  That is also worth alot.

kickfight wrote:
You can always tell Tim is out of his league and has been intellectually cornered when he resorts to calling other people's arguments 'opinions'. It's an intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that corner without applying logic or reason.


Tim, please... as I've pointed out to you once already on a different thread, it's ad hominem , and you're misapplying it. AGAIN.

You remind me of the character of Vizzini in The Princess Bride, who insisted on using the term 'INCONCEIVABLE!' to make himself look intelligent, yet not having a clue what it meant. It isn't until Inigo Montoya finally can't ignore it anymore, and utters his famous line "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means"...

Kickfight, you said you do not care to debate with me.  Thus, don't.  I am the OP on this thread and the topic is 'ID and the Dover, PA, court case'. If you don't really care to debate, stay somewhat on topic, but continue with the moronic logic and refocusing of your thought processes and debating skills on 'spelling errors' and your inability to tell 'opinion' from well-supported research, then you certainly are free to go to another thread. 

It may come as a surprise to you, but words such as ‘ad hominem’ are very much part of my vocabulary and with many others with whom I work and discuss issues with on MM.

/Tim