[quote=AES;174646]There are many different cultures around the world that practice very diverse religions. Does your bigotry include all of them?[/quote]

I have no prejudices: anyone who believes in the supernatural is a dangerous fool, regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, education, ...

Since you preach tolerance, you should really try some religions - maybe religion is good for you! I suggest you begin by trying the ones that have some form of collective suicide on doomsday.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174651]I suggest you begin by trying the ones that have some form of collective suicide on doomsday.[/QUOTE]
Your avatar seems apt. You are spraying foul odours around.

You can catch more flies with honey.....

[quote=Uncwilly;174652]You can catch more flies with honey.....[/quote]

Or maybe not...
[CENTER] [ATTACH]3695[/ATTACH][/CENTER]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174654]Or maybe not...
[CENTER] [ATTACH]3695[/ATTACH][/CENTER][/QUOTE]It depends on the fly. The term "fly" is about as informative as the word "mammal".

Drosophilids feed on ripe fruit, by and large. Ripe fruit tends to ferment to produce alcohol (and Drosophilids have a fully functional Adh gene to deal with it, as do we) which itself oxidises to acetic acid. The smell of acetic acid very probably indicates that ripe fruit is in the vicinity.

Other flies, such as the tsetse, feed on live mammals. They tend to follow scents such as acetone which are produced by mammalian skin.

Other files are coprophages. They tend to be attracted by isocyanides, thiocyanides, phosphines and other such compounds.

Nectar feeding flies will indeed be attracted to sweet smelling substances.

Overgeneralization: don't overgeneralize in the presence of pedants.

Paul

[quote=xilman;174656]It depends on the fly.[/quote]

No. It depends on counting flies and applying a comparison operator.

[quote=xilman;174656]Overgeneralization: don't overgeneralize in the presence of pedants.[/quote]

Please do not confuse literacy with pedantry.

The common house fly is better caught and trapped using honey as both bait and trap, rather than using a clear vinegar as bait and trap.

[quote=Uncwilly;174668]The common house fly is better caught and trapped using honey as both bait and trap, rather than using a clear vinegar as bait and trap.[/quote]

[[I]citation needed[/I]]

According to [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly[/URL] they are poop-eaters, but as honey tends to be very low in poop-content, my first guess would be that if this works at all, the honey is approximately 1% lure and 99% trap.

For the record:

My weapon of choice for decimating flies is a mechanical extension of the arm called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_swatter"]flyswatter[/URL]. Devices operating on the same principle such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_%28club%29"]these[/URL] are perfect for control of the religious population.

Of course one could use deception to get religious people to bash each other and then bash the survivors, but where's the fun in that?

EDIT: Since survival of the fittest means that the survivors will be harder to kill, bashing them as soon as they can be identified is not only fun, but also reasonable.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174664]No. It depends on counting flies and applying a comparison operator.



Please do not confuse literacy with pedantry.[/QUOTE]Indeed. An adequate level of literacy would have unambiguously determined the referent of "it" in my statement. As you appear to have problems with literacy, let me attempt to be clearer.


The choice of a fly for a scent, when two or more scents are in the air, goes with the type of fly and with what it likes to eat.


There, monosyllabic. Does that help?


Paul

[quote=xilman;174674]Indeed. An adequate level of literacy would have unambiguously determined the referent of "it" in my statement. As you appear to have problems with literacy, let me attempt to be clearer.


The choice of a fly for a scent, when two or more scents are in the air, goes with the type of fly and with what it likes to eat.


There, monosyllabic. Does that help?


Paul[/quote]

Not really, because you are providing the answer to the wrong question, i.e: "Given the choice between honey and vinegar, where will a fly go?".

Your problem is [U]functional[/U] illiteracy.

EDIT:

For clarification:

From the statement: "You can abduct more children with candy than with brussel sprouts", it does [U]not[/U] follow that "You can abduct a child more easily with candy than with brussel sprouts".

In case you forgot what this is about:

[quote=Uncwilly;174652]You can catch more flies with honey.....[/quote]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174675]Not really, because you are providing the answer to the wrong question, i.e: "Given the choice between honey and vinegar, where will a fly go?".

Your problem is [U]functional[/U] illiteracy.

EDIT:

For clarification:

From the statement: "You can abduct more children with candy than with brussel sprouts", it does [U]not[/U] follow that "You can abduct a child more easily with candy than with brussel sprouts".

In case you forgot what this is about:[/QUOTE]The quote was that one can catch more flies with one attractant than with another. I, quite correctly, pointed out that the truth of that statement depends on the type of fly.

You have not yet shown that in a given locality at a given time, or that for a time-weighted global average distribution, that more flies are attracted to vinegar than are attracted to honey. I don't deny that that may be the case under certain circumstances, but I don't need to prove that it is the case under all circumstances for my claim to be correct. I need only to show that it holds under at least one circumstance.

Your turn.


Paul

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174673]
According to [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly[/URL] they are poop-eaters, but as honey tends to be very low in poop-content, my first guess would be that if this works at all, the honey is approximately 1% lure and 99% trap.[/QUOTE]A selective (and bowdlerized) quotation from the article. The Wikipedia entry actually states:
[quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly]Within a day, larvae (maggots) hatch from the eggs; they live and feed in (usually dead and decaying) organic material, such as garbage or faeces.[/quote]

In my experience, they tend to lay their eggs on many different types of foodstuff, including meat intended for our cats --- much to the distaste of the cats.

Paul

[quote=xilman;174685]The quote was that one can catch more flies with one attractant than with another. I, quite correctly, pointed out that the truth of that statement depends on the type of fly.[/quote]

No, it depends on whether the median fly is found in the honey or the vinegar. Knowing that there are several types of flies with different preferences does not provide any information about the median.

There is no way to determine the validity of the statement without getting your hands dirty by collecting actual data. Over the years I've performed the experiment several times, and vinegar always outperformed honey by wide margins.

A possible explanation could be that because the acetic acid molecule is smaller and more volatile compared to the fragrances in honey, you simply get more moles into the air faster traveling farther and therefore attract more flies.

BTW, if the expression is taken really, really literally, you *can* even catch flies with a sealed container if you are willing to wait long enough for a fly to tunnel through the seal, which does not depend on the type of fly either.

Forced checkmate in three posts. Your turn.

EDIT: Not only is there very little poop in honey, there is also very little cat-food in honey.
EDIT 2: changed "will go for the honey or the vinegar" to "is found in the honey or the vinegar".

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174694]BTW, if the expression is taken really, really literally, you *can* even catch flies with a sealed container if you are willing to wait long enough for a fly to tunnel through the seal, which does not depend on the type of fly either.[/QUOTE]

Not really. First, with overwhelming probability, by the time a fly would tunnel though the container would aloready be destroyed -- quantum processes alone would suffice, and normal environmental exposure long before that. But even if that doesn't happen (say, the container is repaired at regular intervals), the tunneling probability is strongly dependent on the type of fly: less-massive flies are far more likely to tunnel.

[quote=CRGreathouse;174695]Not really. First, with overwhelming probability, by the time a fly would tunnel though the container would aloready be destroyed -- quantum processes alone would suffice, and normal environmental exposure long before that. But even if that doesn't happen (say, the container is repaired at regular intervals), the tunneling probability is strongly dependent on the type of fly: less-massive flies are far more likely to tunnel.[/quote]

Very informative, but the likelihood of tunneling is irrelevant as is the average waiting time. Only the ability is required, as indicated by the verb 'can' in the statement:

"You can catch a[ny type of] fly by waiting for it to tunnel into the trap."

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174696]Very informative, but the likelihood of tunneling is irrelevant as is the average waiting time. Only the ability is required, as indicated by the verb 'can' in the statement:

"You can catch a[ny type of] fly by waiting for it to tunnel into the trap."[/QUOTE]

I'm claiming:
1. In this context, "trap" is not well-defined.
2. Using any reasonable definition to fix #1, your statement "which does not depend on the type of fly" is wrong. (I take no issue with the earlier existence claim.)

[quote=CRGreathouse;174699]I'm claiming:
1. In this context, "trap" is not well-defined.
2. Using any reasonable definition to fix #1, your statement "which does not depend on the type of fly" is wrong. (I take no issue with the earlier existence claim.)[/quote]

1. In the greater context we're allowed to use an unreasonable definition of trap, because attempting to catch flies with tunneling is unreasonable, justified only for the sake of argument.

2. Can you claim that p( any-type-of-fly @ location-inside-trap ) == 0 ?

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174651]I have no prejudices.[/QUOTE]
:orly emu:

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174702]2. Can you claim that p( any-type-of-fly @ location-inside-trap ) == 0 ?[/QUOTE]

I have not claimed this. Could I claim this? Sure. That wouldn't make it true.

But what has that to do with my claim that the tunneling probability of a fly is *not* independent of its type, contrary to your claim?

[quote=CRGreathouse;174705]But what has that to do with my claim that the tunneling probability of a fly is *not* independent of its type, contrary to your claim?[/quote]

I think we're misunderstanding each other.

Presumably you are arguing that a greater tunneling probability leads to more flies trapped. And I totally agree with this, if we decide to emphasize the quantitative issue.

The tunneling argument was introduced as an over-the-top, p(anything)>0, anything physical *can* happen (however unlikely) argument. As in:

"You *can* catch more X with Y." (Read: It is possible to catch more X with Y).

As this statement is true independent of the value of X and Y, xilman resigned.

[QUOTE=xilman;174687]In my experience, they tend to lay their eggs on many different types of foodstuff, including meat intended for our cats --- much to the distaste of the cats.[/QUOTE]I have ssen them lay eggs on cat meat (on a cat), much to my distaste.

[quote=philmoore;174704]:orly emu:[/quote]


Nice try, but I won't argue with you, so you're still "it". Try picking a fight with xilman. I'm pretty sure he's willing to go the distance with you.

All this talk of catching flies is insensitively conflicting with the precepts of my religion of the day: Jainism

The recent words of some Republicans have me rapidly losing interest in trying to resurrect the GOP, despite my genuine concern that this country needs a balance to the current leftward swing.

I moved away from Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1977, thus barely missing the political rise of Jim Inhofe ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe[/URL]). Senator Inhofe (R - OK) has now just led Republicans in calling Obama's speech in Cairo "un-American" ([URL]http://newsok.com/u.s.-sen.-inhofe-calls-obama-speech-un-american/article/3375137?custom_click=lead_story_title[/URL]). Of course, if the president were Republican, and a Senate Democrat had characterized something the GOP Prez did/said as "un-American", Inhofe would've been outraged.

However, Inhofe's been outraged about outrage (over Gitmo detaineee torture) itself, and he's criticized the Red Cross as a "bleeding heart", so it doesn't take much... He's also used to provoking outrage in others: according to [URL]http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/James_Inhofe[/URL] (not an unbiased source),[quote]Inhofe outraged federal employees on the day [April 19, 1995 - cheesehead] of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building by stating on National television that there probably weren't very many casualties because federal employees wouldn't be at their desks at 9:00 instead they would be off having coffee somewhere.[/quote]

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173722]I firmly belive that the logical conclusion is that all the order we see in the universe is a result of an intelligent designer's plan.[/QUOTE]
"If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows"

If an intelligent designer did exist, why did he/she/it give humans so many bad characteristics? Why can't people regrow limbs like salamanders? Why can't people fly like birds? Why aren't people as strong as bears? Why can't we swim as fast as sharks or run as fast as horses and cheetahs? Why do we have useless structures like appendices?

You could say that the intelligent designer gave us really good brains, but we're finding out that even our intelligence isn't that great. Computers are beating us at finding prime numbers, playing chess, and recalling facts. Apes, gorillas, and chimps know how to make basic tools and learn sign language, and some of them are even better than college students at memory tests:
[url]http://cbs5.com/health/chimps.memory.humans.2.601356.html[/url]
Also, it took us thousands of years for our intelligence to develop cars, TVs, cell phones, air conditioning, and other modern conveniences. For most of human history, our living standards were at best only a bit above that of most animals.

So, are you struggling to outrun a lion? Are you having difficulty finding the result of (296142*40895) ^ 10? If so, you can blame your intelligent designer for that.

[quote=MooooMoo;176651]"If an intelligent designer[/quote]MooooMoo, as I wrote in post #83:
[quote=cheesehead;174272][B]Please leave evolution/ID out of this thread.[/B] I tried carefully to avoid mentioning evolution/ID in my comments on anti-science, because that particular argument tends to take over the discussion when it comes up. Note that none of the examples of science suppression I cited from the UCS website concerns evolution/ID. My accusations of Republican anti-science do not depend upon referring to the evolution/ID controversy -- there are plenty of examples completely outside that area.

[B]There is another thread already established for arguing about the scientific aspects of evolution vs. ID argument[/B]: [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6326[/URL] ("Evolution: The Scientific Evidence")

Please take the evolution/ID discussions (including about Ida) there.[/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;176870]MooooMoo, as I wrote in post #83:
"Please leave evolution/ID out of this thread."[/QUOTE]
Oops! I browsed through the thread a bit too fast and didn't read that post. Sorry about that.

"For Republicans, The Ice Age Cometh"

[URL]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html?iid=tsmodule[/URL]

[quote=Mike Murphy]... I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

. . .

... we hear a lot about going back to "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Well, I love Reagan too. But demographics no longer do. In 1980, Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by 10 points. If that contest were held again today, under the current demographics of the electorate per exit polls, the election would be much closer, with Reagan probably winning by about 3 points.

. . .

Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House.

. . .

Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration. ... Instead, the GOP should support practical immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. Republicans should differentiate themselves from the left by heating up the lukewarm American melting pot with a firm insistence on learning English and a rejection of the silly excesses of identity politics. A smart GOP would be deeply in the microloan and free-English-lessons business in immigrant communities. Illegal immigrants can't vote. Their children will.

... Saving the GOP is not about diluting conservatism but about modernizing it to reflect the country it inhabits instead of an America that no longer exists.

[I]Murphy is a GOP political consultant and writer.[/I][/quote]

[QUOTE]Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian...[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... The problem is, young voters are few in number, do not represent the base, and often become more conservative as they grow older, get a family of their own, etc...

While I would like to see the GOP become a little more libertarian (not with regards to hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc...--we are [from my experience with Republicans] *already* open to those civil rights aspect-- but with abortion in special circumstances so we can get to the heart of the issue) I primarily want is a group of politicians I can trust to actually do what they say they will and represent the conservative standard. Speaking from my personal experience, the GOP lost so soundly because they failed to vote conservative. Polls might put the GOP down, but they put conservatism up.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177752]I primarily want is a group of politicians I can trust to actually do what they say they will and represent the conservative standard.[/quote]

Pffffft...

[LIST][*][B]Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change.[/B] It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense. This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism.[/LIST] [LIST][*]Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. [B]The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.[/B][/LIST][LIST][*]The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."[/LIST] [LIST][*]Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.[/LIST] [LIST][*]In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule — not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. [B]Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.[/B][/LIST] [LIST][*]When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. [B]There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.[/B][/LIST][LIST][*]In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. [B]The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people — he is not an egalitarian — but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.[/B][/LIST] [LIST][*][B]That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere.[/B] Conservatives usually oppose collectivist and directivist measures in the industrial field, and here the liberals will often find allies in them. But at the same time conservatives are usually protectionists and have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture.[/LIST] [LIST][*]Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.[/LIST] [LIST][*]Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it — or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. [B]Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.[/B][/LIST] [LIST][*][B]What I have described as the liberal position shares with conservatism a distrust of reason to the extent that the liberal is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the rights ones or even that we can find all the answers. He also does not disdain to seek assistance from whatever non-rational institutions or habits have proved their worth.[/B] The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic — but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism.[/LIST][LIST][*]In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.[/LIST] [LIST][*]The conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed — a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them. Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.[/LIST]

HRB,

[QUOTE]Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such.[/QUOTE]They are just names. Is it improper to call a line in hyperbolic space a "circle"?

That said, my experience seems to be quite different than yours. For example, I can think of quite a few "conservative principles" off the top of my head. [Unfortunately, none of which the politicians seem to follow.] Small government; a balanced budget; strong military; etc... Your characterization of the conservative position resting "on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others" seems a bit...over the top. But maybe that's how the conservatives behave in your part of the country. It seems kind of funny that, at least from my point of view, it always seems to be the liberals who are the ones who make "protected classes".

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177760]That said, my experience seems to be quite different than yours.[/quote]

Actually it's F.A. Hayek's explanation, "Why I'm not a conservative".

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177760]For example, I can think of quite a few "conservative principles" off the top of my head. [Unfortunately, none of which the politicians seem to follow.] Small government; a balanced budget; strong military; etc...[/quote]

Small government is a classical liberal (libertarian) position, [I]not[/I] a conservative position. Small government and strong military are mutually exclusive: the larger the portion of the GDP is socialized by allocating it to public defense,the bigger the government is [I]ceteris paribus[/I].

[quote=__HRB__;177758][...][LIST][*][B][...]Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.[/B][/LIST][LIST][*][B]That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere.[/B] [...][/LIST][/quote]

See? You like big armies so you feel entitled to force that value on others and redistribute wealth by threat of force to the public sector. Some people buy bigger cars to compensate. Some people feel superior if they can say "My country has a [strike]bigger penis[/strike] more F22s than your country. We're so cool! The only reason we let your country exist, is because we like to feel generous. Kneel before Zod!"

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177760][...]It seems kind of funny that, at least from my point of view, it always seems to be the liberals who are the ones who make "protected classes".[/quote]

Hayek uses the term [I]liberal[/I] in the classical sense. Whom you call a liberals, he calls socialists, which is exactly what they are: promoters of an [I]Aristocracy of Pull[/I].

[QUOTE=__HRB__;177769]Actually it's F.A. Hayek's explanation, "Why I'm not a conservative".[/quote]Plagiarism is a crime. It is also bad manners to quote someone without reference. I'd recommend you quote your sources next time.

[quote]Small government is a classical liberal (libertarian) position, [I]not[/I] a conservative position.[/quote]I disagree. Firstly, with equating liberal with libertarian (they are quite different, at least here in America, I don't know where you are from). Secondly, because the claim is contradicted by the liberal position on universal healthcare, for one example.

[quote]Small government and strong military are mutually exclusive...[/quote]I again disagree (although it can be the case sometimes).

[quote]See? You like big armies...[/quote]No, I like strong armies. [quote]... so you feel entitled to force that value on others and redistribute wealth by threat of force to the public sector.[/quote]LOL! Um...if democratically voting in favor of those things you favor is "forcing values" I guess the only way to avoid it is not to vote.

[quote]Hayek uses the term [I]liberal[/I] in the classical sense. Whom you call a liberals, he calls socialists, which is exactly what they are: promoters of an [I]Aristocracy of Pull[/I].[/QUOTE]This thread is about American politics and American Republicans. I thought that was clear... :confused:

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]Plagiarism is a crime. It is also bad manners to quote someone without reference. I'd recommend you quote your sources next time.[/quote]

Ideas cannot be owned. It is also a sign of bad manners not to recognize 100% Hayekian text. I recommend you start reading and remembering things that are worth [URL="http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46"]knowing.[/URL]

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]I disagree. Firstly, with equating liberal with libertarian (they are quite different, at least here in America, I don't know where you are from). Secondly, because the claim is contradicted by the liberal position on universal healthcare, for one example.[/quote]

What you call 'liberal' is 100% socialist. Universal healthcare e.g. is in word and deed 100% [U][B][I]illiberal[/I][/B][/U]. If you think this is a liberal position, then you have yet to figure out that words have a meaning.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]No, I like strong armies. LOL! Um...if democratically voting in favor of those things you favor is "forcing values" I guess the only way to avoid it is not to vote.[/quote]

No. You could, e.g. vote against the ones willing to use force, but unfortunately you seem to see things from a zero-sum point of view: the only way you think you can get something is by taking it away from someone else. But actual wealth is made by someone, because it doesn't fall like manna from the heavens. So, I'm sorry to hear that you are convinced that the only way you can live is as a parasite or thief.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. If your position is that it is OK to murder 49% of the population if 51% support this policy, the system is beyond repair and I'll go directly to box Nr. 4:

Four boxes in defense of Liberty:

1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Ammo

Note connection of [I]liberty[/I] and [I]liberal[/I].

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]This thread is about American politics and American Republicans. I thought that was clear... :confused:[/quote]

I thought it was clear that I'm all in favor for euthanizing the Republican Party. As soon as you have people like Rush Limpboor (note spelling) identifying themselves with something, then that something has become eternally stained.

So, good riddance. One stupid set of ideals down. One stupid set of ideals to go.

But of course you wouldn't be a good conservative, if you weren't trying to trying to keep stuff alive that doesn't serve a purpose, so good luck in conservationinging the [strike]GOP[/strike] FUBARP!

[QUOTE=__HRB__;177808]Ideas cannot be owned.[/quote]That doesn't justify plagiarism.

[quote]It is also a sign of bad manners not to recognize 100% Hayekian text. I recommend you start reading and remembering things that are worth [URL="http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46"]knowing.[/URL][/quote]I have a feeling that your idea of something worth knowing, and mine, might not overlap very much.

[quote]What you call 'liberal' is 100% socialist. Universal healthcare e.g. is in word and deed 100% [U][B][I]illiberal[/I][/B][/U]. If you think this is a liberal position, then you have yet to figure out that words have a meaning.[/quote]Tell that to American liberals. ;)

[quote]No. You could, e.g. vote against the ones willing to use force, but unfortunately you seem to see things from a zero-sum point of view: the only way you think you can get something is by taking it away from someone else. But actual wealth is made by someone, because it doesn't fall like manna from the heavens. So, I'm sorry to hear that you are convinced that the only way you can live is as a parasite or thief.[/quote]I'm sorry you feel the need to misread what I wrote to such an egregious level.

[quote]Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.[/quote]LOL! The watch-cry of those who want to be tyrants but can't get the support they need.

Anyway, I'm done here. You aren't entertaining enough to continue dialoguing with. ;)

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177818]Anyway, I'm done here. You aren't entertaining enough to continue dialoguing with. ;)[/quote]

You'd be the first person who ends sentences with prepositions, I have heard interesting argumentizationings from.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;177769]Actually it's F.A. Hayek's explanation, "Why I'm not a conservative".[/QUOTE]

My first reaction on reading the excerpts was that you had suddenly acquired a new-found property of lucidity that had been previously absent. Actually the entire essay is good reading. A pity you didn't have the intellectual honesty to attribute it in your original post.

There are certainly a lot of contradictions in the term "liberal", aren't there? Where does "neo-liberal" come in? How do you reconcile the desire to promote liberty and democracy with the historical record of covert and armed interventions in foreign conflicts?

On the other hand, much of our current political legacy since FDR in the U.S. is undoubtedly socialist. Social security, certainly, but also government support for education, health-care, agriculture, interstate highways and other transportation systems, basic scientific research, industry, housing (including tax deductions for home mortgages), environmental protections; all this is predicated on the idea that government spending for the greater good of society is justifiable. Certainly, every government dollar spent in any of these areas raises ethical problems of undue interference in the private sector, but having lived in third-world countries that spent almost nothing on these types of benefits that people in most advanced industrialized countries take for granted, I'm not convinced that at least a little socialism may not be a good thing! Maybe we need to move beyond simple categories and think about how government and markets can work together, without making an all-or-none sort of conflict the issue.

[quote=philmoore;177827]There are certainly a lot of contradictions in the term "liberal", aren't there? Where does "neo-liberal" come in? How do you reconcile the desire to promote liberty and democracy with the historical record of covert and armed interventions in foreign conflicts?[/quote]

No (classical) liberal has that desire, since it requires that the ends justify the means. Fortunately we can use reason and conclude, that if this were the case, then we'd perpetually suffer the means.

Read: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies"]The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies[/URL] by Popper, if you're suffering from insomnia, or you think that long(winded) explanations are better, to state that something bad is something one shouldn't do. Even if someone nukes an entire city, then that is a small price to pay for not using torture, because otherwise we'll simply get torture and nuked cities. Analysis shows that using torture is a dominated strategy. So simple, but yet so hard to understand for some.

Being smart seems to be a [I]conditio sine qua non[/I] to be a (classical) liberal, since you really have to figure this stuff out for yourself. We [U][I]must[/I][/U] know that a policy is sound before we implement it. It's no good if it appears to work, but we don't know why.

Just because a decision is made based on a democratic process, doesn't make the decision any good. The prominent example here is "Figuring out the length of the nose of the emperor of china". You can ask a billion people what they think, but you are much better off asking [I]one[/I] person who has actually seen him.

And you know that something is very wrong in the state of the Faroer Islands, when people equate democratic==right and undemocratic==wrong.

But, the biggest misconception is that some morons interpret [I]freedom [/I]as [I]freedom [U][B]from[/B][/U][/I][I] want[/I], whereas in the political sense [I]freedom[/I] always means the [I]freedom [B][U]to[/U][/B] want. [/I]There are many omega primates who believe they do not have freedom, because they have to earn (money to pay for) the stuff they desire.

[quote=philmoore;177827][...]I'm not convinced that at least a little socialism may not be a good thing! Maybe we need to move beyond simple categories and think about how government and markets can work together, without making an all-or-none sort of conflict the issue.[/quote]

That problem has been solved by Paul Samuelson in his classic 1954 paper [I]"The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure"[/I], which you can read [URL="http://www.ses.unam.mx/docencia/2007II/Lecturas/Mod3_Samuelson.pdf"]here[/URL]. If one doesn't want to (or cannot) understand the theory, the policy will be dominated by the 99% chimpanzee genes.

[quote=philmoore;177827]My first reaction on reading the excerpts was that you had suddenly acquired a new-found property of lucidity that had been previously absent. Actually the entire essay is good reading. A pity you didn't have the intellectual honesty to attribute it in your original post.[/quote]

If I had wanted to make it sound like I had written it, I'd have done search 'socialist' & replace with 'fvcking socialist sh1thead' and search 'conservative' & replace with 'fvcking conservative a$$hole'.

But even without the changes it explains [I]exactly[/I] why I'm not a fvcking conservative sh1thead, even though I'm not a fvcking socialist a$$hole, either.*


*Of course I meant: "fvcking conservative [I]a$$hole"[/I] and "fvcking socialist [I]sh1thead[/I]". Sorry about that, but they are so easy to confuse.

CEI vs. Bureaucrash
 

Some comments from Reason's [URL="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134170.html"]hit and run[/URL], about the conservatarian takeover:

[quote]"Sounds like the faux libertarian religious right took over the site. I'd leave too. Would never help those jackasses."

"I have no stomach for fusionists. CEI has always been too cozy with the 'God, Guts, and Guns' crowd for my taste."

"[...]CEI, is a conservative-libertarian group that wanted to use BC as a hep youth outreach front-site. They appointed a relatively moderate guy as head crasher.[/quote][I]

Principia obsta. [/I]Conservatism and classical liberalism are incompatible.

GOP Presidential Hopeful Caught with Pants Down
 

...And the latest y`all-are-a-bunch-of-self-righteous-do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-hypocrites black eye for the GOP comes out of that bastion of family values and toxic federally-subsidized hard-rock mining, Nevada:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/ensign.affair/index.html]Nevada Sen. John Ensign admits affair[/url]
[quote] (CNN) -- Sen. John Ensign of Nevada admitted Tuesday to an extramarital affair with a woman who had worked for him.
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada is considered a rising star in the Republican Party.

Sen. John Ensign of Nevada is considered a rising star in the Republican Party.

Ensign, 51, would not identify the woman but said she and her husband had been "close friends." Her husband, he said, also worked for him.

"Last year, I had an affair," the Republican senator said outside his office in Las Vegas. "I violated the vows of marriage. It`s absolutely the worst thing I`ve done in my life.

"I take full responsibility for my actions. I know I have deeply hurt and disappointed my wife, Darlene, my children, my family, friends, my staff and those who believed in me. And to all of them, especially my wife, I`m truly sorry," he said.

The senator`s office also released a statement from Ensign`s wife, saying, "Since we found out last year, [strike]I`ve been staying with the kids at my Mom`s ... let the diddling bastard rot in hell ... once my divorce lawyer`s done with him, that is[/strike] we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation. This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends, our marriage has become stronger. [strike]The GOP paid me big $$$ to say all this crap[/strike] I love my husband."

Ensign`s spokesman, Tory Mazzola, said Ensign and a campaign staff member carried on the affair from December 2007 through August 2008. Her husband was an official Senate staff member for the senator.

Neither remained in Ensign`s employ as of May 2008.

Ensign, a veterinarian, is considered a rising star within the Republican Party. A member of the party`s Senate leadership, Ensign last year took over as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

He was elected to the Senate in 2000 and comfortably won re-election in the midterm elections of 2006, when Democrats won back Congress. He is up for re-election in 2012.

This month, Ensign spoke to a conservative group in Iowa, stoking speculation that he might have interest in running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.[/quote]
[i]My Comment:[/i] You mean those Las Vegas Tourism Bureau "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" ads aren`t literally true? Or does that just apply to picking up hookers on the Vegas strip?

Curious, the mention of him being a vet ... I can`t recall any [strike]God-supported crusades for democracy[/strike]wars on his re'sume'...

As has been illustrated numerous times before, the Religious Right is quite willing to forgive (and return to office, especially from Nevada) a conservative sinner who sincerely confesses. His voting record in Congress counts much more than any other scoring.

But Ensign [i]has[/i] taken himself out of any presidential contention.

[quote=ewmayer;178021]Curious, the mention of him being a vet ... I can`t recall any [strike]God-supported crusades for democracy[/strike]wars on his re'sume'...[/quote]

He's an animal-doctor.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;178027]He's an animal-doctor.[/QUOTE]

You stickler-ish people make this [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_9jxQWje9Q]much too easy[/url]. :P

[quote=ewmayer;178039]You stickler-ish people make this [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_9jxQWje9Q"]much too easy[/URL]. :P[/quote]

Who'd-a-thunk-it: the guy actually [I]is[/I] a veterinarian. What I meant to say was that he owns a ZR-1.

But it turns out that he's also a real marine veteran, because he's owned an aquarium since 5th grade.

Okay, it's now official as far as I'm concerned:

The Republican Party has become rabid.

Congressman Joe Wilson (not to be confused with the other Congressman Wilson) breached congressional decorum last night with his "You lie!" shout during the president's speech. One long-time radio commentator said he could not recall any such heckling of a previous president in that setting in his entire career.

This is what happens when a group so consistently spouts viciously false propaganda that its own party leaders come to believe the falsehoods.

The unprecedented numbers of death threats against Obama since he took office are another symptom.

The GOP is playing with fire.

Republican leaders must speak out to denounce not only such incivility but also the threats and violence evidenced recently at "town hall" meetings across the country -- if, that is, the GOP is to regain a place as a legitimate counterweight to its political opponents.

Sure, there was some violence committed at those meetings by the other side, too -- but you didn't see Democratic leadership publicly and repeatedly [I]excusing[/I] and [I]supporting[/I] such violence and threats, calling them justified. As one columnist pointed out, during the era of Weatherman bombings ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions[/URL]) not one single Democratic leader ever spoke out to praise or excuse [I]them[/I].