ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

The lesson of p. punctatus

Immigration advocates never seem to take into account that the putative benefits of immigration depend entirely upon the characteristics of those entering the society en masse.
In a recently published paper in PNAS Early Edition, Dobata and Kazuki Tsuji demonstrate what they believe is the first observed public goods dilemma observed in a non-human and non-microbial system.

By using the social ant Pristomyrmex punctatus, they were able to show the fitness consequences to the colony and track the shifting genetic make-up as cheaters invaded and took hold. Researchers have recently evaluated these questions in systems involving viruses and cells (where cells may secrete protective substances, or self-destruct to form a spore-dispersing stalk) but not in multicellular organisms before. Yet the results are so similar, write Dobata and Tsuji, that they believe universal principles are at play.

P. punctatus is a curious species. The queen caste, morphologically and functionally distinct in most social insects, has been secondarily lost. All workers are involved in both reproduction and cooperative tasks like foraging. There is still a division of labor, among age groups. Young workers take care of inside-nest tasks, which include asexual (thelytokous) reproduction. Older workers ease out of reproduction and shift to tasks outside the nest, like foraging.

But there is a third kind of P. punctatus. A group of cheaters, made of a single intraspecific lineage in the field, that engage in very few tasks, save for reproduction.

The researchers found when these genetic cheaters infect a colony they have better individual fitness than the workers, both in terms of survival and brood production. They reduce worker survival and reproduction, as more young workers shift to tasks outside the nest to effectively pick up the slack. Eventually, the cheater hordes take over. The authors call the cheaters a kind of  ”transmissible social cancer.”

In cheater-only colonies, more eggs are initially produced, compared to worker colonies, but they are neglected. Eggs begin to rot and the nest becomes a dirty, unhygienic place. Eventually, the nest dies. For a group, cheating is an evolutionary dead end.
Compare the global North to the global South. Then consider whether the immigrant communities of today more closely resemble meticulous productive ant nests or dirty, unhygienic places. Ants might not be able to anticipate the idiocratic consequences of allow a "transmissible social cancer" to take root in their colonies, but one would have thought that human beings could do better.

When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end, it should invite rethink. Instead, questioning it is deemed akin to blasphemy. This is not the hallmark of a society destined for survival.

Labels: ,

194 Comments:

Blogger Crude October 08, 2013 2:50 AM  

But there is a third kind of P. punctatus. A group of cheaters, made of a single intraspecific lineage in the field, that engage in very few tasks, save for reproduction.

Man, that is going to invite some obvious rhetoric.

Anonymous Dc October 08, 2013 3:23 AM  

A lesson any lesson like this would be lost on libtards. Thus the tard compound.

It's interesting the parallels between libtard and insect behavior.The insects are smarter in that they don't willfully invite the cheater hoard (destructive crimigants) into their colony.

Blogger Francis W. Porretto October 08, 2013 3:45 AM  

Philippe Rushton would have something to say about this, I think.

Anonymous kh123 October 08, 2013 3:55 AM  

Is more a high school writ large at this point. Text tarding probably hasn't helped.

Anonymous Dc October 08, 2013 4:00 AM  

"They reduce worker survival and reproduction,(and wages)

as more young workers shift to tasks outside the nest( ie.. less homemaking) to effectively pick up the slack.(as the cheaters sit around on their asses collecting unemployment,rental assistance,food stamps etc.. that libtards sign them up for.)

Anonymous Ann Morgan October 08, 2013 4:49 AM  

**When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end,**

Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

If you still deny evolution, then you need to retract your entire argument.

If you do want to use an evolutionary argument, I'll give you some help in the form of behavior of another social insect. Honey bees prevent 'cheaters' by posting guards at the entrance to their hive. Any bee from any hive with a full load of nectar in it's stomach is welcome into their hive. A bee without a load of nectar is not allowed in, and will be attacked if it attempts to force it's way in.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 08, 2013 5:42 AM  

"They reduce worker survival and reproduction... the nest becomes a dirty, unhygienic place... Eventually, the nest dies."

You have to understand, the [hostile] elites WANT this to happen. Because slavery. Because Auschwitz. The sucker libtards are just the useful idiots who help the process along. Why do you think they have to be indoctrinated so strenuously, and so constantly? They might come to their senses otherwise, and discover that the ship is being scuttled deliberately, with all hands still on board.

Anonymous AdognamedOp October 08, 2013 5:59 AM  

Cant tell you how many times I was ankle stung by libs when I used the insect analogy to describe their collectivist ideology. But it's fitting. And they reacted as predicted, like drones; lashing out instinctively to protect the hive, offering no logical rebuttal save for the usual emotion based talking point or accusation.
They got particularly ugly when I pointed out the insect like behavior of Chinas one child policy, where the female drone was offed to make way for the male worker drone.

Drones gonna drone..

Anonymous MrGreenMan October 08, 2013 6:26 AM  

@Ann Morgan

Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

If you still deny evolution, then you need to retract your entire argument.


You seem to fail at the idea of knowing and using the stated beliefs of your adversary in argument against them, or, more simply, in the Alinsky formula, to make your opponent live by his own rules. Immigration activists are, by and large, leftists; leftists, by and large, believe in St. Darwin and whatever the scientists claim today is the theory of abiogenesis and macroevolution, and so fetishize the ultimate purpose in life to be reproduction and the successful reproduction of your line. Therefore, if you believe in evolution, there is a message here aimed at you.

However, we live in a culture that is simply drenched in the odors of the left - feminism, evolution, communism, Keynsesianism - and so, the terminology is understood, and the meanings known, even if not universally believed. If you happily say - evolution is bunk - well, then, this argument isn't as well targeted at you, but it does still make a good point when you overlook the evolution mumbo-jumbo. Someone who rejects abiogenesis as unscientific hand waving and speciation with branching to be unprovable in the context of sexual reproduction knows what is meant by evolutionary dead end, anyway, to mean that they won't reproduce and they or their offspring will eventually be supplanted/out-bred. There are all sorts of other reasons you would find this a bad thing apart from some moral perspective born of evolution; just because you are so brain damaged doesn't mean everyone else is required to think the way you do.

Knowing the terminology - e.g. transubstantiation - and talking to a someone who believes about it doesn't mean you have to believe it, just that you know who you are talking to and what they do or don't value.

Anonymous MrGreenMan October 08, 2013 6:35 AM  

Just like a woman, and just like a lefty, to try to play the game - you aren't permitted to speak about X because you aren't Y. The whole claim that liberals like debate is always funny to hear, quaint in a way.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 6:36 AM  

Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

Ann's sitting there at her computer, hyperventilating: "OMG, OMG, I've finally converted Vox to atheism! OMG! I knew my strategy of repeating myself over and over until he agreed would work! I'm so smart! I'm so smart!"

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 6:38 AM  

Just like a woman

Don't lump me in with her, Mr. Man. Them's fightin' words.

Blogger Crude October 08, 2013 6:43 AM  

I know Vox said 'if it's on Drudge I've already seen it', but just in case anyone else missed it - this experience is probably one more anecdote for the 'women and men are totally interchangeable and they can do any job equally' arguments.

Anonymous Basilisk October 08, 2013 6:46 AM  

If you do want to use an evolutionary argument, I'll give you some help in the form of behavior of another social insect. Honey bees prevent 'cheaters' by posting guards at the entrance to their hive. Any bee from any hive with a full load of nectar in it's stomach is welcome into their hive. A bee without a load of nectar is not allowed in, and will be attacked if it attempts to force it's way in.

Dat's Ray-ciss! :-P

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 6:48 AM  

Dear God, Crude. And worse still, it was an incident that didn't have to happen--that is, if they weren't under a socialized health-care system.

They can't even manage asthma over there anymore.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 6:51 AM  

Dat's Ray-ciss! :-P

More so than that, Ann's basically using evolution to promote killing the disabled. Since I don't like that, Ann is evil.

Anonymous Josh October 08, 2013 7:23 AM  

Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

No you idiot, he's not talking about morality at all, but societal survival.

You think you're so clever, like a child that finally learns how to poop in the adult toilet.

Anonymous Fax Bray October 08, 2013 7:29 AM  

Ann, I'll type slowly:
There is a difference between biological evolution and societal evolution.

You think someone with a self-professed super-IQ (but yet to be proven) would have picked up on a nuance like that...

Blogger Crude October 08, 2013 7:36 AM  

Sigyn,

Dear God, Crude. And worse still, it was an incident that didn't have to happen--that is, if they weren't under a socialized health-care system.

Like I said, it's a single anecdote - I'd only put so much stock in it. But I think there's something worth pondering in a tragic situation where a woman in a high-stress job encounters some difficulty in a tense situation, and her reaction (as reported) is to break down and start crying, so the person who called her up for her assistance has to take over and struggle to do what they were supposed to do. Sadly, failing at that.

Anonymous Vic October 08, 2013 7:44 AM  

"A bee without a load of nectar is not allowed in, and will be attacked if it attempts to force it's way in."

What if said bee brings in a load of poop instead of nectar?

"If you still deny evolution, then you need to retract your entire argument."

A perfect example of said poop.





Anonymous VryeDenker October 08, 2013 7:54 AM  

Proverbs 6:6 "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise."

Not only does the ant teach us about hard work and diligence, it now also teaches us about the consequences of disregarding these virtues.

Blogger tz October 08, 2013 7:59 AM  

Otoh, the north has the idle people who feel entitled and just want to engage in sex and not work, so it has to import workers

Anonymous FrankNorman October 08, 2013 8:01 AM  

People, I suggest that instead of dog-piling Ann and calling her stoopid, pointing out politely why she's mistaken is better. Let's leave poop-throwing to the Left.

Ann, many Creationists don't have a problem with Natural Selection as something that operates in the real world. We do not, however, believe that life started by itself or evolved from a single common ancestry.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni October 08, 2013 8:02 AM  

Sigyn:

"Just like a woman"

"Don't lump me in with her, Mr. Man. Them's fightin' words."

I should think you would be glad to think that your comments are not just like the average woman's. You are confusing comments about the average woman with comments intended to apply to every woman. Now THAT is just like a woman!

Anonymous FrankNorman October 08, 2013 8:06 AM  

Sigyn October 08, 2013 6:51 AM
More so than that, Ann's basically using evolution to promote killing the disabled. Since I don't like that, Ann is evil.


Not letting strangers into your society unless they add value to it equates to killing disabled people?

Anonymous Josh October 08, 2013 8:13 AM  

Not letting strangers into your society unless they add value to it equates to killing disabled people?

If based on the premise that morality is social improvement or society, that's where it leads.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother October 08, 2013 8:39 AM  

That's a shitty example, Vic.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 8:53 AM  

The simple minded, like Ann, always confuse evolution with common descent.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 9:06 AM  

Not letting strangers into your society unless they add value to it equates to killing disabled people?

Do honey bees let in just anyone? I wasn't aware they did, but I'm not a bee expert.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 9:06 AM  

The lesson to take from this, is that there is a very, very important trait that must be cultivated, or the lack thereof will lead to total destruction of the group though this mechanism. And that is xenophobia.

Anonymous Joe Doakes October 08, 2013 9:15 AM  

So Detroit is full of ants?

Blogger IM2L844 October 08, 2013 9:34 AM  

>>Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

Woosh.

Anonymous Josh October 08, 2013 9:36 AM  

And that is xenophobia

Not xenaphobia (fear of warrior princesses)?

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 9:41 AM  

Not xenaphobia (fear of warrior princesses)?

Well, they DO tend to be Lawless.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 9:45 AM  

"When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end, it should invite rethink. Instead, questioning it is deemed akin to blasphemy. This is not the hallmark of a society destined for survival."

The most similar of things was said about the arrival of
-The Germans
-The Italians
-The Irish
-The Chinese
-The Slavs
-The Catholics
-The Jews

When they were arriving in America. That turned out to be bad judgement too.

The Country Clubs did the same thing..."Can't have Blacks, Asians, Jews, Catholics joining this gold club, by golly they'll just taint the whole environment.

That too turned out to be wrong.

It is ever true that history repeats itself.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 08, 2013 9:49 AM  

Golf Pro October 08, 2013 9:45 AM

"When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end, it should invite rethink. Instead, questioning it is deemed akin to blasphemy. This is not the hallmark of a society destined for survival."

The most similar of things was said about the arrival of
-The Germans
-The Italians
-The Irish
-The Chinese
-The Slavs
-The Catholics
-The Jews

When they were arriving in America. That turned out to be bad judgement too.

The Country Clubs did the same thing..."Can't have Blacks, Asians, Jews, Catholics joining this gold club, by golly they'll just taint the whole environment.

That too turned out to be wrong.

It is ever true that history repeats itself.



Either those people's arrival made no difference at all, or it made some difference.

Do you claim it made no difference at all?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 9:57 AM  

"Either those people's arrival made no difference at all, or it made some difference. Do you claim it made no difference at all?"

Of course it made a difference. It provided a much larger pool of potential golfers and with it a much larger pool of talented golfers.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 9:59 AM  

I like how Tad, a hard leftist Jew, says that inviting mass migration of hard leftist Jews wasn't a bad thing.

He probably doesn't have any kind of bias in this. Not a bit.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 9:59 AM  

It provided a much larger pool of potential golfers and with it a much larger pool of talented golfers.

Golf is the salvation of humanity. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got a swing.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:03 AM  

"Golf is the salvation of humanity. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got a swing."

Nice!!!

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 10:04 AM  

It's sad when I do your shtick better than you do, isn't it?

Anonymous Eric Ashley October 08, 2013 10:04 AM  

The Irish brought us Tammany Hall and Chicago politics, also 'kiss me, I'm Irish' t-shirts at Wal-Mart which is okay, and gave us an excuse for Celtic music, which is cool.

Speciation is part of Creationism. Its just that its generally negative over the long term as it creates a smaller genetic pool.

Is there some insect hive in which the leaders of the hive conspire against their workers by importing new workers?

Blogger Bob Wallace October 08, 2013 10:06 AM  

This sounds like r/k selection theory. R = lots of kids, ignore them, hope they survive. K = few kids, lots of investment.

Anonymous Eric Ashley October 08, 2013 10:07 AM  

But what if the immigrants are evil, vile beasts who believe golf is a game for Satan worshipping pansies who should be stuffed head first into one of those little holes?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:08 AM  

"It's sad when I do your shtick better than you do, isn't it?"

It's inspiring. Afterall, no has ever before applied the Duke's tune to golf.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:10 AM  

"But what if the immigrants are evil, vile beasts who believe golf is a game for Satan worshipping pansies who should be stuffed head first into one of those little holes?"

That would be bad for everyone. Except, no one every has or ever could think this about the great game of golf.

Anonymous daddynichol October 08, 2013 10:13 AM  

Golf:

Measured or regulated immigration vrs minimally regulated immigration. See the difference?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:17 AM  

"Measured or regulated immigration vrs minimally regulated immigration. See the difference?"

Gosh...I don't know. What does "minimal" or "measured" mean?

You are making a distinction here without meaning.

Blogger wrf3 October 08, 2013 10:18 AM  

Markku wrote: The lesson to take from this, is that there is a very, very important trait that must be cultivated, or the lack thereof will lead to total destruction of the group though this mechanism. And that is xenophobia

Why is that the lesson? Sure, one solution is to keep the outsider out. But another, perhaps better, solution is to actually punish those who defect against the group (where punishment could be banishment). Isn't that, after all, the lesson of heaven and hell?

Blogger wrf3 October 08, 2013 10:21 AM  

Ann Morgan wrote: Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

Why are they mutually exclusive? For example, why does the knowledge of physical law preclude the existence of God?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:23 AM  

" Isn't that, after all, the lesson of heaven and hell?"

Probably not the right scenario to compare to as the idea of Heaven and Hell and what gets you in either place is pretty arbitrary and unlinked to anything other than obedience to a dictator. As a comparison, it doesn't work for this country.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 10:23 AM  

But another, perhaps better, solution is to actually punish those who defect against the group (where punishment could be banishment).

I specifically said "trait". This is not a trait. If you were the player in a strategy game, then sure, you could employ that strategy. But in a system of independent actors, it has to work through layers of defense. Xenophobia is the first layer. What gets through that, is then to be handled by the group's sense of morality.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:25 AM  

"Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?"

The concept of the "good" or the "evil" is not genetically determined. It is different in different societies and times based on circumstance, history, tradition, need and various survival requirements.

Blogger wrf3 October 08, 2013 10:28 AM  

Golf Pro wrote: The concept of the "good" or the "evil" is not genetically determined.

Sure it is, in the same way that a generalized search algorithm is programmatically determined in a computer. Just because a wide range of outputs are possible doesn't mean that the procedure isn't determined.

Anonymous Susan October 08, 2013 10:28 AM  

What an excellent analogy on the future death of California. Using the science of ants yet! The spiral should quicken now that every illegal is going to be drawn there, thanks to Moonbeam's announcement of sanctuary yesterday. Some reports were saying this stupidity is his way of setting himself up for a run at the Big Chair.

I have never believed in evolution in the way that you do Ann. However, I do believe that God implanted, at the time of His creation, the ability to adapt to a changing environment in order to ensure survival.

Eric, don't you be knocking the creators of corned beef and cabbage now. Good stuff.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 08, 2013 10:28 AM  

The concept of the "good" or the "evil" is not genetically determined. It is different in different societies and times based on circumstance, history, tradition, need and various survival requirements.

Clearly, Golf Pro (Tad) lacks the intelligence to see the underlying unity in those circumstances, history, etc.

Anonymous Samuel Gompers October 08, 2013 10:29 AM  

Golf Pro, your studious avoidance of Mexicans and blacks in your litany of success is painfully obvious.

All the groups you name have a median IQ of 100.

Why not mention the multigenerational lack of immigrant "success" of blacks and Mexicans?

I would agree with you that white immigrants have been a success. But what does that have to do with Mexican immigrants, for example, whose descendants have been on a downward trajectory for four generations.

To the extent you are recommending we return to our old (and successful, by your estimation) immigration policies of not accepting non-whites, not accepting the crippled, diseased, or those liable to become a public charge, I would have to agree with you: the immigration policies of 50-100 years ago worked (excepting Mexicans, of course).

The Jews have been very successful building a wall around their country to prevent illegal infiltrators (AKA immigrants) from invading, and the putting those the catch in desert concentration camps, and some of them for several years. It is, as the Jews of Israel know, the only way to insure immigration "success" in the modern world, to keep wages up, and to bless their own people (as we wish to bless ours).

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 10:29 AM  

And Golf Pro is correct in that Heaven doesn't need xenophobia because it has one ultimate arbitrator, whose slave everyone is. (Modern Bibles sanitize it to servant, but the Greek word is "slave") and also with infinite resources on His hands. This is adequate to solve the problem in itself.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:39 AM  

"And Golf Pro is correct in that Heaven doesn't need xenophobia because it has one ultimate arbitrator, whose slave everyone is. (Modern Bibles sanitize it to servant, but the Greek word is "slave") and also with infinite resources on His hands. This is adequate to solve the problem in itself."

Not only that, but by all indication there is no golf to be played in heaven or hell, meaning that these locations are ruled by a mind not fully developed, let alone capable of appreciating what the soul needs to thrive.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 10:40 AM  

This would be a good time to quote C.S. Lewis:

“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 10:42 AM  

Samuel Gompers - Why not mention the multigenerational lack of immigrant "success" of blacks and Mexicans?

Racism, Sam. These groups are kept down by racism, unlike all those other groups who never had to deal with racism or prejudice of any kind.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 08, 2013 10:43 AM  

I am sure it can be observed in many other places in the USA, but I have mostly seen it in Arkansas. Specifically, where a lack of direct experience or education or knowledge (ignorance) is actually a form of innocence and a virtue, that enables the ignorant to speak with real authority on the subject. By making ignorance a virtue and giving the ignorant special powers or privileges or dominion, apparently retards the entire society. What I call "militantly ignorant"......not only ignorant but pround of it......after all, decent people are not expected to know such things. I guess it is much like the virtue of virginity. (In no other way is a lack of direct experience considered a prideful achievement.) Or maybe it is the same situation, regarding the simple vrs worldly, rural vrs urban, tribal vrs individual.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:47 AM  

"“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

If this "Lord" needs our desires to be stronger than they are, then they probably need to offer greater incentive. "Infinite Joy" is not only a confusing and incomprehensible concept, it is built to motivate those who are inclined to look forward to death. Bad strategy. What if the lord promised, instead, finely tailored golf courses, great swimming holes, perfectly prepared roast chicken and easier opening plastic packages? Then you'd generate some real veneration and obedience.!!

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 10:49 AM  

Then you'd generate some real veneration and obedience.!!

From those metaphorical, ignorant slum children.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 10:51 AM  

Golf - Bad strategy.

Yep. That's why it failed so badly for the last couple of millennia.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:52 AM  

"From those metaphorical, ignorant slum children."

Everyone loves golf, once they know it. And even metaphorically ignorant slum children get frustrated with those plastic packages that one needs a machete to open.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 10:54 AM  

"Yep. That's why it failed so badly for the last couple of millennia."

Ignorant policies and rules and built for an ignorant people. As the veil of ignorance falls away over time, the rules and policies often fall away too. Witness the slow but continued move to secularism.

Blogger wrf3 October 08, 2013 11:03 AM  

Markku wrote: And Golf Pro is correct in that Heaven doesn't need xenophobia because it has one ultimate arbitrator, whose slave everyone is.

So, if thought obeys the laws of physics, and we can establish a link between physics and morality, then these two formerly disparate realms would be united.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 11:03 AM  

Golf - Ignorant policies and rules and built for an ignorant people.

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! GOALPOST MOVING!

Seriously though, all those "ignorant" people were not ignorant of the promise of "infinite joy" which is supposed to be a bad strategy because it's confusing and "built to motivate those who are inclined to look forward to death" (which doesn't even make sense).

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 11:07 AM  

"and we can establish a link between physics and morality, then these two formerly disparate realms would be united."

It would need to be more than just a "link". Good luck with this.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 11:09 AM  

When secularism finally succeeds in making life so horrible that death is a sweet respite, you'll learn that the Christian strategy wasn't such a bad one after all.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 11:09 AM  

What if the lord promised, instead, finely tailored golf courses, great swimming holes, perfectly prepared roast chicken and easier opening plastic packages?

What makes you think there aren't?

Markku's point is that you're so limited and self-absorbed, you can't imagine any higher enjoyments than what you currently enjoy.

You have no life of the mind, much less of the soul. You're so chained to your flesh and the physical, you can't think of anything else--and that is exactly why your "secular" political philosophy is so destructive. You can see nothing else.

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 11:10 AM  

So, if thought obeys the laws of physics, and we can establish a link between physics and morality, then these two formerly disparate realms would be united.

If.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 11:10 AM  

"Seriously though, all those "ignorant" people were not ignorant of the promise of "infinite joy" which is supposed to be a bad strategy because it's confusing and "built to motivate those who are inclined to look forward to death" (which doesn't even make sense).

Yes, they were and are ignorant of the promise of "infinite joy". It simply can't be conceived. So, that's a problem. Further, this "infinite joy" is presumably available only after the death of the body and, supposedly, the gates of heaven opened. So, this "infinite joy (undefinable in any meaningful and approachable way) only comes after the death of the body. You just need t think it through.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 08, 2013 11:15 AM  

Golf Pro....."Witness the slow but continued move to secularism."

While you were not explicit, I will take it from your comment that you believe the move toward secularism is an achievement, and that it is possible to sustain secularism, and no other religion will simply replace the ones you cause to "fall away".

In modern history, I do not believe there have been any societies that tried harder than the Soviets and the Chinese Communists to completely eradicate all religious beliefs (no matter what they are) and actually achieve that secular society. Is this the goal of our own Leftists rad-libs? Do they suppose they are smart enough to succeed? (... assuming a fair amount of opportunity and all the necessary power and authority)

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 11:15 AM  

Golf Pro: Do you simultaneously hold the opinion that religion is a crutch?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 11:16 AM  

"Markku's point is that you're so limited and self-absorbed, you can't imagine any higher enjoyments than what you currently enjoy."

Of course I can imagine it. All I have to do is imagine staring down the fairway on the 18th hole at Pebble Beach while I'm paying bills in my office.

"You have no life of the mind, much less of the soul. You're so chained to your flesh and the physical, you can't think of anything else--and that is exactly why your "secular" political philosophy is so destructive. You can see nothing else."

Wow....talk about ignorant. It's quite easier to cultivate one's "life of the mind" when not burdened with silly promises of "infinite joy" after death. Furthermore, it should be pretty clear by only looking at the various philosophers who rejected theism that one can engage in a "life of the mind" while embracing a secular world view. This isn't disputable. What you seem to be saying is that you don't appreciate a secular perspective. That's fine. But you can't say that a secular world view distances one from a contemplative life. That's just incorrect by any measure.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 08, 2013 11:17 AM  

Everyone loves golf, once they know it

In the same way that certain masochists enjoy the occasional root canal, I suppose, but I think "everyone" is a bit beyond the bend of exaggeration.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 11:17 AM  

Golf - Yes, they were and are ignorant of the promise of "infinite joy". It simply can't be conceived. So, that's a problem.

One of these days you're going to learn that you can't redefine words to suit your short sighted rhetorical purposes. Those people were not and are not ignorant of the promise of infinite joy. Whether they can conceive of infinite joy itself is irrelevent.

However, I grant that we in this life can't conceive of infinite joy. How is this a problem?

So, this "infinite joy (undefinable in any meaningful and approachable way) only comes after the death of the body.

Do you really think anyone didn't already know that, you idiot? Your claim doesn't make sense because Christianity offers a new life after death. It has always claimed to offer an escape from death. It has no appeal for anyone who already "looks forward" to death, and if it did how would that be a problem?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 11:18 AM  

"Golf Pro: Do you simultaneously hold the opinion that religion is a crutch?"

"Religion" is a pretty broad term that encompasses many meanings. You'll have to be much more specific in your question.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 11:20 AM  

You'll have to be much more specific in your question.

Do you hold that Christianity is one of those religions that are primarily a metaphorical crutch to weak people, like New Atheists constantly speak of it?

Anonymous Sigyn October 08, 2013 11:23 AM  

No, Tad. You. As in YOU. I've seen enough of your "thoughts" to conclude this.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 11:29 AM  

Markku,
I think Xstianity is a myth that provides simple answers to complex question, and that this simplicity is good enough for this either disinclined to think more deeply, are fearfull of what deeper thinking and meditation on ultimate questions will tell them or simply don't have the knowledge to allow them to go beyond the simple answers Xstianity provides.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 11:31 AM  

That's nice, but that isn't what I asked. You'll need to answer yes or no, although you are allowed to further clarify your answer.

Example:
-Have you stopped beating your wife?
-No. Additionally, I haven't started beating by wife either, and furthermore, I don't even have one yet.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 11:33 AM  

Golf - I think Xstianity is a myth that provides simple answers to complex question, and that this simplicity is good enough for this either disinclined to think more deeply

"Simple" answers... that are "confusing"... and "incomprehensible"... and "bad strategy"...

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Harvard Microbiology October 08, 2013 11:44 AM  

For the love of Non-Demoninational Hey-zeus, Pristomyrmex punctatus and P. punctatus.

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 11:45 AM  

Non-Demoninational Hey-zeus

A.k.a. Judeo-Christ.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 12:00 PM  

When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end, it should invite rethink. Instead, questioning it is deemed akin to blasphemy. This is not the hallmark of a society destined for survival.

You fail to consider that there may be more than two parties involved. Who benefits from the policy and who is destinted for survival is the real issue. Please consider the following link especially the comments below. The "Go back to Oklahoma" comment is most revealing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/05/california-s-new-feudalism-benefits-a-few-at-the-expense-of-the-multitude.html

Anonymous Carlotta October 08, 2013 12:07 PM  

First of all, everyone knows that golf started as a drinking game of the Scottish, probably taught to them by their Irish betters. Your welcome.

Now Ann, are you claiming in your argument that it is moral and the right of the bees to discriminate?

Anonymous TWS October 08, 2013 12:16 PM  

Can we please have a break from Tad? I know some find him amusing but he is a 'one trick pony'. At least give us until Christmas. A Tad free Christmas would be a wonderful gift.

Anonymous VD October 08, 2013 12:25 PM  

Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

No.

If you still deny evolution, then you need to retract your entire argument.

That is incorrect. There are few things sadder than a 166 IQ which observably remains incapable of mastering logic of which those of average intelligence can handle.

Anonymous Metal panther October 08, 2013 12:28 PM  

Seriously tad, change yer fking name back to tad again. I actually enjoy golf and you're making me want to hate it.; doooshbag

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 12:54 PM  

Markka,
The term "metaphorical crutch" is just way too vague for the "yes/no" answer you want. If you most have a yes/no answer, then ask a question that can't be misinterpreted due to its vagueness.

Blogger JCclimber October 08, 2013 12:58 PM  

I see Vrye beat me to it.

Solomon was the wisest of humans. There is still wisdom in considering the ant.

Anonymous Heh October 08, 2013 1:17 PM  

There are few things sadder than a 166 IQ which observably remains incapable of mastering logic of which those of average intelligence can handle.

Time to reevaluate that number (where did it come from, anyway?) based on the observably inability to master logic...

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 1:33 PM  

then ask a question that can't be misinterpreted due to its vagueness.

If a New Atheist were to make a passing comment to you, that "Christianity is just a crutch to weak people, don't you think?", would you indicate that you do indeed think so, or that you do not, or that you confused about the question?

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 1:43 PM  

Btw, if you are thinking of being clever and answering "yes", then I'm going to ask yes/no questions about those three options individually.

Blogger JCclimber October 08, 2013 1:45 PM  

The most similar of things was said about the arrival of
-The Germans - Who brought in the collectivism and a sympathy for socialism
-The Italians - brought in the strong mediterranean work ethic - NOT! and a corrupting tendency for organized crime.
-The Irish - brought in similar to the Italians, a combative spirit, and Catholicism
-The Chinese - a distinct lack of blending into bedrock American values. Still very tribal.
-The Slavs - brought in a subservience to authority and obedience to masters.
-The Catholics - good Lord, don't get me started. Jesuits. Socialism. Obedience to masters without question. Collectivism. A distinct lack of work ethic.
-The Jews - Socialism. Usury. Central Banking. War mongering.

Vox had a column a few years ago with definitive arguments about the harm each of these waves of immigrants brought with them.

In their waves, they have consistently changed the Republic of America from its roots, and not for the better.

But then, I understand that most people are still emotionally attached to the model of America as the melting pot, and aren't willing to examine the truth that white immigrants can also bring in corrupting philosophies.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 1:59 PM  

Vox had a column a few years ago with definitive arguments about the harm each of these waves of immigrants brought with them.

Yes. Perhaps we could return to rulership by kings. They would protect the purity of our culture. Yes?

As soon as we can decide on what that culture should be. Yes?

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 2:13 PM  

In their waves, they have consistently changed the Republic of America from its roots, and not for the better.

Awww. Pining away for the good old days of the aristocracy.

Blogger Nate October 08, 2013 2:14 PM  

"Yes. Perhaps we could return to rulership by kings. They would protect the purity of our culture. Yes?"

Wheeler... paging Wheeler...

Anonymous DonReynolds October 08, 2013 2:17 PM  

civilServant......"As soon as we can decide on what that culture should be. Yes?"

Without the benefit of isolation and some serious barriers to invasion, you already know how that decision is made.....by the sword. Those who prevail (kill or drive out the others) are the culture in a place. Has never been anyways different in human history.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 2:20 PM  

Vox had a column a few years ago with definitive arguments about the harm each of these waves of immigrants brought with them.

Speaking of which. Perhaps he could explain which if any of the waves of immigration to the isles - the Celts and the Angles-Saxons-Jutes and the Vikings and the Normans - had any corrupting influence on the Rights of Englishmen.

Anonymous Josh October 08, 2013 2:20 PM  

Awww. Pining away for the good old days of the aristocracy

As opposed to what, the corporatism and progressive feudalism of today?

Pray tell what historical situation you would find more agreeable than the old republic?

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 2:24 PM  

Without the benefit of isolation and some serious barriers to invasion, you already know how that decision is made.....by the sword.

That is altogether another topic. The issue was cultural corruption not which culture is superior in war. And in any case libertarians should not seek war because they will lose.

Blogger Nate October 08, 2013 2:31 PM  

" And in any case libertarians should not seek war because they will lose."

Sure... because governments are SO good at 4G warfare. They have this amazing track record of success against it!

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 2:44 PM  

The Catholics - good Lord, don't get me started. Jesuits. Socialism. Obedience to masters without question. Collectivism. A distinct lack of work ethic

Lack of work ethic... as opposed to the corporate slave/feudalism work ethic of today.

Didn't some carpenter mention something about not gaining the world and losing your soul in the process?

Anonymous kh123 October 08, 2013 2:55 PM  

"Lack of work ethic... as opposed to the corporate slave/feudalism work ethic of today."

Will admit the same thought occurred to me too. Probably what was meant was the old Protestant work ethic, back when one could manage a grocer as an individual or family career. Will admit as well, first thought in my mind was Ulster, where housing was (as far as I know) subsidized. I get the mental image of a Prod going on about work ethic and all, his house, family, and job opportunities secured by the Orange State the meanwhile.

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 3:00 PM  

Pray tell what historical situation you would find more agreeable than the old republic?

The old republic would be quite agreeable if one were a wealthy landowner of the political class.

As for your question? I can think of many "situations" where I could thrive including the old republic and the present one. Doesn't mean I have to endorse them. Anarchy is a journey, not a destination.



Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 3:02 PM  

Markku,
I'd answer "no". Christianity is far more than JUST one thing as your question would suggest. Of course it CAN be such a crutch, but that doesn't make it unique.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 3:31 PM  

JCclimber - Vox had a column a few years ago with definitive arguments about the harm each of these waves of immigrants brought with them.

In their waves, they have consistently changed the Republic of America from its roots, and not for the better.


civilServant - Perhaps we could return to rulership by kings.

Porky - Pining away for the good old days of the aristocracy.

You two are misrepresenting JCclimber. According to Wiki's entry on US immigration, "Nearly all population growth up to 1830 was by internal increase; about 98.5% of the population was native-born. By 1850, this had shifted to about 90% native-born. The first significant Catholic immigration started in the mid-1840s, shifting the population from about 95% Protestant down to about 90% by 1850."

What this means is that after the American Revolution, approximately 1790 to 1830, there was a period of about 40 years with minimal immigration to the new American republic. This was before the large scale influx of the Germans, Irish, etc and after the country had cast off monarchial government. JCclimber refers to the early Republic, not to the colonial period.

But even if JCclimber were "yearning" for a time when Americans were ruled by kings and aristocrats, so what? That response is a non sequitur (unless you believe that kings and aristocrats always oppose immigration, which is silly).

Anonymous . October 08, 2013 3:55 PM  

The old republic would be quite agreeable if one were a wealthy landowner of the political class.

And if you were one of the millions of small farmers. Better for the bottom as well as the top, yaay!

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 4:02 PM  

And if you were one of the millions of small farmers. Better for the bottom as well as the top, yaay!

Tell that to Daniel Shays.

Blogger JCclimber October 08, 2013 4:02 PM  

Exactly. The early American colonies were incredibly attractive to immigrants. Although most Americans did not get rich, if you worked hard and steady, year after year, you were able to buy your own plot of land, and make a living with a sizable family.

This option was not available anywhere else in the world for most people.
Disclaimer: I have 3 Native American tribes, but earliest white ancestors came to America in the early 1500's and 1600's. But I also have Irish ancestors who came in the 1860's, and am well acquainted with the fact that several of them were members of outlaw gangs in the West during the Jessie James era.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 08, 2013 5:02 PM  

Yes. Perhaps we could return to rulership by kings. They would protect the purity of our culture. Yes?

My thoughts exactly. It will not be long before you all bend the knee willingly.

As soon as we can decide on what that culture should be. Yes?

I will decide that for you. As if you wretches had the intellect or will to maintain a culture...

And no, civilServant, I will not give you a job in my regime.

Blogger Phoenician October 08, 2013 5:02 PM  

Once again, Dipshit, your confusion between social science and genetics is laughable.

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 5:17 PM  

Although most Americans did not get rich, if you worked hard and steady, year after year, you were able to buy your own plot of land, and make a living with a sizable family.

The muskets weren't even cold before the aristocrats started really clamping down on the lowly peasants in a way that eerily mirrors the political class of today. Fractional reserve banking was privatized, soaring debt, a huge credit crunch caused by the aristocrats favoring wealthy merchants over peasant farmers, government officials favoring the banks over it's citizens, purposeful depreciation of currency, etc.

Your quaint little Currier and Ives version of things: "work hard and steady, buy some land, raise a family" is a fine sentiment fit to be crocheted on a pillow. The reality, however, is that this nation was founded by an aristocratic few subjugating the masses for their own gain - to the point where a revolutionary war hero who fought at Bunker Hill and Lexington without pay was treated like a criminal upon his return.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 5:26 PM  

The old republic would be quite agreeable if one were a wealthy landowner of the political class.

Well ... yes.. After all they are not Most People. (I speak as if libertarian.)

And if you were one of the millions of small farmers.

You speak as if returning to the days of subsistence farming. Good luck with that.

I will decide that for you.

When? Some have decided years ago what our culture will be and are rebuilding the pre-collapsed areas even now. Others somewhat behind the curve are attempting to influence the future only at this time.

And no, civilServant, I will not give you a job in my regime.

Declined if offered.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 08, 2013 5:31 PM  

"I will decide that for you."

When?


When it damn well pleases me to do, and as often as it pleases me to do. Think you an emperor is a servant of the conquered masses?

"And no, civilServant, I will not give you a job in my regime."

Declined if offered.


You amuse me with your petty defiance. I may delete you last, just so that I may enjoy your squeals of unprincipled outrage. Such is the only fitting music for a conqueror.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 5:42 PM  

You two are misrepresenting JCclimber.

I believe JCclimber is mis-representing the situation. While it is true that incoming immigrants may change a culture in ways that objectively may be described as worse his statements presume a previous unified cultural understanding chosen freely. This is objectively not true. Disagreement between states and regions and counties and cities and neighborhoods and families and individuals is the norm. Resolution of serious disagreements historically has always been by surrender or domination or conquest or imposition of terms by a king or equivilant (of course these are not exclusive). It is not for nothing that kings frequently are described as bringing peace to a land by means of conquest. Since libertarians recognize no authority but their own and care for no rights but their own there remains only one means of quelling their arguments and that is a dictatorial king. A king will be necessary to imose upon them their unified culture.

After all. For libertarians private property is the solution to all human relationships. Yes? This will include their nation. It will be the personal property of one man.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 5:51 PM  

civilServant, are you advocating for monarchy?

Blogger Markku October 08, 2013 5:52 PM  

I think he is advocating a totalitarian world government.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 5:53 PM  

Think you an emperor is a servant of the conquered masses?

If you intend to keep them then yes. You will be.

Anonymous civilServant October 08, 2013 5:55 PM  

civilServant, are you advocating for monarchy?

No. I merely point out where you are going.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 5:57 PM  

civilServant, are you suggesting that libertarianism must lead to monarchy?

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 08, 2013 6:06 PM  

If you intend to keep them then yes. You will be.

You amuse me. I take it back. You might make for a good court fool.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 6:32 PM  

I do think much of libertarianism is interesting, but how sustainable would it be in the real world?

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 7:11 PM  

Sure... because governments are SO good at 4G warfare. They have this amazing track record of success against it!

At least if you are referring to the US in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam, etc...recall that this is/was due to political hamstringing and (at least in modern times) PC as well.

If the military was turned against us, there would be no holds barred, unlike the case with those other nations.

A rebellious American citizenry would be brutally crushed very quickly, and the Obama-owned media would spin it somehow to make the state look like heroes to the rest of the world.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 7:12 PM  

Glocks and other civie small arms are nothing compared to advanced military weaponry.

Your gun rack will avail you little against being carpet bombed...

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 7:19 PM  

I am not sure if monarchy is the solution or not, but the problem with democracy is how do you prevent (as a practical matter) suffrage from expanding to whose whom it shouldn't.

Given that most people here hold to MPAI, why would they advocate political systems where MP get a powerful say in how things are run?

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 7:22 PM  

Interesting quote to consider regarding monarchy, libertarianism, et. al

Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison. -C S Lewis.

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 7:23 PM  

I do think much of libertarianism is interesting, but how sustainable would it be in the real world?

History shows libertarianism is only sustainable if libertarians are willing to smash rebellion with threat of government sanctioned violence.

Accordingly, libertarians have a very poor sense of irony.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 7:33 PM  

History shows libertarianism is only sustainable if libertarians are willing to smash rebellion with threat of government sanctioned violence.

Accordingly, libertarians have a very poor sense of irony.


LOL - how true.

Presumeably you are thinking of the Shay's rebellion?

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 7:52 PM  

Porky - History shows libertarianism is only sustainable if libertarians are willing to smash rebellion with threat of government sanctioned violence.

When has that ever happened?

Also, how does that make libertarianism worse than any other plan you care to name?

Re: lozozl's link,

What a pretentious fool. That guy desperately needs a smack upside his bald head. "Argument from skyhook" my ass,;it isn't even an argument.

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 7:54 PM  

Shays' rebellion, Fries' rebellion, Whiskey rebellion....

Libertarians, it would seem, will defend your liberty even if they have to kill you to do it.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 8:05 PM  

Porky, you just said that the new American nation was in the grip of aristocrats at the time. Now you're saying it was libertarian.

Besides, how can military action to enforce taxation be considered libertarian?

Anonymous 3 Peas In A Pod October 08, 2013 8:08 PM  

“Why not mention the multigenerational lack of immigrant "success" of blacks and Mexicans?”

Because IQ is genetic AND environmental. Lower IQ is generally associated with lower socio-economic status, regardless of one’s race or ethnicity. However, Latinos are assimilating at about the same rate as earlier immigrant groups, their IQ scores are actually rising, and immigrants are twice as likely to start a small business as native-born Americans.

Perhaps most importantly, one could reasonably argue from a libertarian position that businesses have the liberty to hire immigrants and ensure this steady stream of labor is readily accessible from a free association standpoint.

Recall that nativists had a disdain for the “dregs” of society--Irish, German, Italians, Chinese--who came to America seeking a better life, and these groups made most of their opportunities. Immigrants from Africa and Latin America are also following suit just like their European counterparts.


“When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end...”

The type of ants VD refers to have a GENETIC DISPOSITION to engage in that behavior. ALL, not SOME, “cheat”. Now, SOME “vibrants” who emigrate to our country also “cheat”. But “cheating” to humans is NOT a hereditary trait; rather, it is learned. So “cheating” reflects their individual disposition and is not representative of their inherent, collective cultural or racial traits, contrary to the assertions being proffered.


“Then consider whether the immigrant communities of today more closely resemble meticulous productive ant nests or dirty, unhygienic places.”



I have. The majority of “vibrants” in my neighborhood and the surrounding environs are clean.


"The Germans - Who brought in the collectivism and a sympathy for socialism."

"The Italians - brought in the strong mediterranean work ethic - NOT! and a corrupting tendency for organized crime.

"The Irish - brought in similar to the Italians, a combative spirit, and Catholicism"

"The Slavs - brought in a subservience to authority and obedience to masters."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here an anti-white sociopath. Look up their overall, positive contributions to American society and get back to us.


"The Chinese - a distinct lack of blending into bedrock American values. Still very tribal."

They broke their back helping to build the transcontinental railroad. 'Nuff said.


"The Catholics - good Lord, don't get me started. Jesuits. Socialism. Obedience to masters without question. Collectivism. A distinct lack of work ethic."

Patently absurd, I don't know where to begin.


"The Jews - Socialism. Usury. Central Banking. War mongering."

Scoobius Dubious, is that you???

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 8:20 PM  

Now you're saying it was libertarian

It was as close to libertarian as we're ever likely to see.

Besides, how can military action to enforce taxation be considered libertarian?

Yeah, that's what all those Pennsylvania farmers said when the troops showed up.

"Hey, didn't we just finish fighting a war for the supposed "Sons of Liberty"? Now the Sons of Liberty are going to shoot us if they don't get their %#@$ tax money?"

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 8:24 PM  

By the way, Porky, I just went to Wikipedia and looked into those three rebellions. I added up all the casualties from each action, including disease, accidents, government deaths, and executions after the fact. Note that these were out of thousands of participants.

Grand total for all three rebellions combined: 26.

Total rebels killed: 11.

Total deaths in Fries' Rebellion: 0

Wow, those libertarians really "smashed" those rebels. Such brutality! Clearly libertarianism is a violent, oppressive ideology.

Blogger Nate October 08, 2013 8:25 PM  

"A rebellious American citizenry would be brutally crushed very quickly, and the Obama-owned media would spin it somehow to make the state look like heroes to the rest of the world."

As usual... this is the position of those who've never bothered to think the matter through... or... the positon of those who are really... really... bad at math.

4G tactics have worked virtually every time they have been tried. Because for every 4G fighter you kill... you create 4 or 5 more.... and if you do "carpet bomb" them... then congratuations... you now live in the stone age. Because you've carpet bombed your infrastructure and tax base.

Dumb ass.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 8:32 PM  

Addendum: Fully 12 of those casualties were due to "illness or accidents".

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 8:40 PM  

So basically three extremely mild (as rebellions go) incidents in which government "aristocrats" sent troops with the admittedly anti-libertarian purpose of enforcing taxation on an unwilling populace "shows libertarianism is only sustainable if libertarians are willing to smash rebellion with threat of government sanctioned violence."

Okay.

Accordingly, libertarians have a very poor sense of irony.

I think my irony-sense is tingling...

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 8:47 PM  

Clearly libertarianism is a violent, oppressive ideology.



No it's not. It's a rather benign ideology, if one ignores human nature.

Why do you suppose Vox has disavowed the "open borders" plank of libertarianism?

Because it seems sensible until you factor human nature into the equation.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 9:00 PM  

You're meandering, Porky. You claimed that "History shows libertarianism is only sustainable if libertarians are willing to smash rebellion with threat of government sanctioned violence." As examples of this you offered three minor incidents that averaged fewer than 4 rebel casualties between them.

The lack of violence is a side issue, however. The real problems with your examples are twofold. Firstly, the government action was anti-libertarian in nature, therefore it shows nothing about libertarianism as such. Secondly, even if the government action had been libertarian your assertion that libertarianism is "only sustainable" by threat of violence is still unsupported for the obvious reason that the nation would have continued just fine without it. If the rebels had been unopposed in each case, the only thing that would have happened is that the taxes would not have been collected; the country would not have devolved into tyranny or otherwise changed from being a proto-libertarian state. Therefore your assertion is entirely incorrect.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:17 PM  

admittedly anti-libertarian purpose of enforcing taxation on an unwilling populace

Well there ya go...

small scale or large scale...the important point was that a 'libertarian' government didn't stay that way for long.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:18 PM  

4G tactics have worked virtually every time they have been tried. Because for every 4G fighter you kill... you create 4 or 5 more.... and if you do "carpet bomb" them... then congratuations... you now live in the stone age. Because you've carpet bombed your infrastructure and tax base.


A small group of wealthy men only needs a portion of their tax base to maintain their wealth (they don't care about anyone else) and only a small number of examples will need to be made to make the rest fall back in line.

Once one or two rebel groups get carpet bombed or taken out by drones then its' over.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:20 PM  

Back in the 18th century the tech gap between citizens and a standing army was *much* smaller than today.

Modern government can listen to anything you are saying anytime, kill you in a thousand ways you could never prevent, and overwhelm you on a scale never before seen in history.

That's just the way it is. If you don't like the system, just about the only things you can do are expat.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:22 PM  

4G tactics have worked virtually every time they have been tried. Because for every 4G fighter you kill... you create 4 or 5 more.... and if you do "carpet bomb" them... then congratuations... you now live in the stone age. Because you've carpet bombed your infrastructure and tax base.


Another problem with your argument is your belief that if you kill 1, 5 more rise and take its' place.

Besides not being mathematically sustainable for long, that assumes that more than a trivial percentage of the populace could for any reason be roused to join your movement.

Look around - the average person knows and cares far more about miley cyrus and twerking than about the constitution or inflation or civil liberties or any of that and you know it.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:23 PM  

Plus in the future how much of that infrastructure and tax base will be able to be replaced by automation...

Anonymous Golf Pro October 08, 2013 9:28 PM  

""A rebellious American citizenry would be brutally crushed very quickly, and the Obama-owned media would spin it somehow to make the state look like heroes to the rest of the world."

It sort of depends on the reason behind the rebellion, doesn't it. Let's face it, some rebellions deserve to be put down and put down hard. Suppose a bunch of 500 Tax Protesters who didn't like the tax rate in CA decided to enter into armed rebellion and began shooting at the Capital with shoulder mounted grenade launchers, attacking with automatic weapons and taking out anyone who confronted them or got in their way near the capital.

Is the state as the peoples representative simply expected to walk away, let the rebels have their shooting and murder fest and do nothing? And if the state intervened and went after the rebels with force and inevitably destroyed them with better equipped fighters, wouldn't the state have cause to be justly praised?

Of course they would. And it wouldn't take any spinning by the media. Just common sense reporting.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:32 PM  

What a pretentious fool. That guy desperately needs a smack upside his bald head. "Argument from skyhook" my ass,;it isn't even an argument.

You did not examine his argument very carefully. One point of many: if a libertarian society is invaded by a large standing army, how do you incentivize people, living essentially as individual atomized family (or smaller) units, to band together under effectively military leadership and fight them off? Each group would be competing against the others to sacrifice less than the others (since they have no feeling of unity with each other) and any given group could have great incentives to sell out to the invading force.

I would like to add - without a central/federal state, how do you have the military and the competitive military technology to do so anyway, irrespective of manpower?

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 9:34 PM  

No it's not. It's a rather benign ideology, if one ignores human nature.


Exactly.

Anonymous Porky October 08, 2013 9:59 PM  

@Krul: "Firstly, the government action was anti-libertarian in nature, therefore it shows nothing about libertarianism as such."

You are making my point for me. What started out as a libertarian government (small government, personal liberty, armed populace, low taxes, etc.) quickly devolved into an authoritarian regime. Actually, it was written into the constitution but it didn't take long to manifest.

Secondly, even if the government action had been libertarian your assertion that libertarianism is "only sustainable" by threat of violence is still unsupported for the obvious reason that the nation would have continued just fine without it.

Maybe if there were never any problems. But at the first sign of fiscal problems, or a foreign aggressor, or governmental power struggles - you can bet your ass that personal liberty will be the first casualty. It's true of totalitarian governments, and it's been shown to be true of the most libertarian government in our history.

Human nature. Study it.

Anonymous lozozlo October 08, 2013 10:00 PM  

What a pretentious fool. That guy desperately needs a smack upside his bald head. "Argument from skyhook" my ass,;it isn't even an argument.

I could go on, but you didn't even begin to address any of the numerous excellent arguments made therein.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 10:38 PM  

Porky - You are making my point for me. What started out as a libertarian government (small government, personal liberty, armed populace, low taxes, etc.) quickly devolved into an authoritarian regime.

While it's true that the US has devolved from near-libertarianism toward despotism, this is only one data point. The US is less free today than when it was founded 200 years ago to be sure, but this alone is insufficient to prove that libertarianism *can't* work.

Actually, it was written into the constitution but it didn't take long to manifest.

This is another reason that the American experiment can't be taken as universal. The founders were divided in their vision of the new nation; some of them leaned toward authoritarianism and others leaned toward libertarianism. The resulting government was therefore not fully libertarian but rather a compromise, so its failure can't be taken as a failure of libertarianism.

Your larger point is that libertarianism can't work because of "human nature" but you simply haven't offered any evidence in support of that proposition except the three rebellions which suggest no such thing. In fact, combining the surprisingly peaceful nature of these rebellions with the astounding economic success of the American experiment, and the fact that the people of the US (though not fully free by strict libertarian standards) still enjoyed MORE freedom than the vast majority of the world's population for the last 200 years suggests that libertarianism is better than any alternative that we've seen.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 10:51 PM  

lozozlo - You did not examine his argument very carefully.

I listened to the whole thing and was unimpressed. The guy's "arguments" are a mess. If you want to bring any of them up here we can discuss them, but I'm not going to write a transcript of the video just to pick it apart.

One point of many: if a libertarian society is invaded by a large standing army, how do you incentivize people, living essentially as individual atomized family (or smaller) units, to band together under effectively military leadership and fight them off? Each group would be competing against the others to sacrifice less than the others (since they have no feeling of unity with each other) and any given group could have great incentives to sell out to the invading force.

This is a good example of the soup of absurd assumptions poured into his laughable arguments. Libertarianism would not prevent people from having feelings of unity, nor from banding together. The people would try to fight off the invaders for the same reason they became libertarians in the first place: they want to be free and the invaders are trying to take away their freedom.

In the same vein, Baldy also suggested that libertarianism requires "a nation of doves", making it vulnerable to "one hawk", but this is nonsense. Libertarianism doesn't require a nation of geniuses dedicated to non-aggression, it only requires people willing to defend themselves against aggression (including foreign aggression). A nation of rattlesnakes is not as easy a target as a nation of doves.

Anonymous Krul October 08, 2013 11:10 PM  

lozozlo, I will add that no government edict was required to create the Continental Congress. The colonists willingly banded together to protect themselves against aggression of their own volition, and they were successful.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 09, 2013 12:22 AM  

This also seems relevant since it is about You Know Who.

Anonymous Toby Temple October 09, 2013 2:51 AM  

Lol at those claiming that libertarianism is not taking into account human nature.

LOL!!!

Anonymous Joe October 09, 2013 5:30 AM  

"The Slavs - brought in a subservience to authority and obedience to masters."

The history of Poland would disagree with that. Take this for instance.

Blogger James Worrad October 09, 2013 5:36 AM  

If we're gonna proceed from non sequitur comparisons between human society and 1 cherry picked obscure ant species from the thousands available, what about that breed of ant that invites certain butterflies into the nest whose larvae gift the ants with glucose in return for protection? Immigration working! Trouble is I wouldn't make that comparison unless Little Lord Trustfund had

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 09, 2013 6:54 AM  

Lol at those claiming that libertarianism is not taking into account human nature.

Yes, like Communism, libertarianism was never really tried. It always gets corrupted by people thirsting for power and those masses yearning to be slaves.

I wonder why that keeps happening, since most people are, deep down, libertarians, yes?

Anonymous Porky October 09, 2013 10:54 AM  

Yes, like Communism, libertarianism was never really tried.

My thoughts exactly.

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 1:00 PM  

People like Porky and lozozlo are similar to a medieval skeptic who says that flying machines can't work, with a smirk and some vague notion of "human nature" as his only argument.

Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it can't work, especially if it's never actually been tried.

As for Loki, he's a Jotun and knows nothing of human nature. His pronouncements about humankind are pure projection on his part.

Anonymous Sigyn October 09, 2013 2:09 PM  

As for Loki, he's a Jotun and knows nothing of human nature. His pronouncements about humankind are pure projection on his part.

Argumentum ad hominem. Ten yard penalty.

Anonymous Nah October 09, 2013 2:56 PM  

4G tactics have worked virtually every time they have been tried.

Bzzzt, wrong.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG965.pdf

"Most insurgencies fail, since states, no matter how weak or feckless, are typically stronger, better organized, and more professional than nonstate forces."

They looked at 89 insurgencies, and the insurgents won only 26 of them.

Blogger Markku October 09, 2013 3:35 PM  

Argumentum ad hominem.

Begging the question. It can be ad hominem only if he indeed is a homo, which was the point of contention.

Anonymous Sigyn October 09, 2013 3:54 PM  

Begging the question. It can be ad hominem only if he indeed is a homo, which was the point of contention.

He has as much right to--

It can be ad hominem only if he indeed is a homo...

...

I see what you did there. You think you're so clever, don't you. Sooooooo clever.

Anonymous Sigyn October 09, 2013 3:56 PM  

Anyway, he doesn't have to be a human to be right. God's not human, and I'd say he knows more about human nature than any of us. Same with Satan, or else he wouldn't be much of a tempter.

There you go, BOOM. Admit defeat or kiss my frying pan.

Blogger Krul October 09, 2013 4:14 PM  

Sigyn, you're pregnant.

Therefore I'm right.

Blogger Markku October 09, 2013 4:48 PM  

Anyway, he doesn't have to be a human to be right.

No, but you have to go through the hard work of identifying it as a new kind of logical fallacy, giving it a name, and then arguing why it is fallacious.

Blogger Markku October 09, 2013 4:49 PM  

And even then I won't be wrong, since it still wasn't ad hominem. You merely will have then regained the ground you already thought you had.

Anonymous Sigyn October 09, 2013 9:14 PM  

No, but you have to go through the hard work of identifying it as a new kind of logical fallacy, giving it a name, and then arguing why it is fallacious.

Did you and Asher have a brain transplant or something?

Blogger Markku October 09, 2013 10:09 PM  

Well, you could just admit defeat, if all this is too complicated.

Anonymous Anonymous October 09, 2013 11:40 PM  

Sigyn wrote: **Do honey bees let in just anyone?**

The guard bees at the entrance to the hive will let in any worker honey bee that has a full load of nectar, regardless of what hive it is from. If a bee from another hive wants to come into their hive with a full load of nectar, that's all good by them. At best, they will contribute their nectar. At worst, with a full belly of nectar they are not capable of stealing more than they brought.

Anonymous Anonymous October 09, 2013 11:54 PM  

Vox Day wrote: **Are you admitting now that evolution occurs and that some forms of 'moral' behavior might be selected for and enforced by certain species without it necessarily being 'commanded' by a 'God'?

No.**

If you deny evolution, then to invoke evolution simply because it happens to support you at some particular point is hypocritical.

**That is incorrect. There are few things sadder than a 166 IQ which observably remains incapable of mastering logic of which those of average intelligence can handle.**

I can think of a few. Such as demanding that science provide concrete engineering before it can be considered 'proven', and it is to automatically be considered 'not proven' until that point, regardless of the evidence. Yet then turning around and claiming that exactly the opposite is the case with religion, and it is to be considered automatically 'proven' with no evidence at all other than hearsay, and that it will be considered to be 'proven' until others provide evidence absolutely disproving it. Then declaring yourself the 'winner' of all arguments, based on this sort of double standard.

Anonymous Anonymous October 09, 2013 11:56 PM  

Sigyn wrote: **God's not human, and I'd say he knows more about human nature than any of us.**

You're knowledge of what God does and doesn't know about human nature comes from where, exactly? Other than what human beings claim God knows, but have no evidence of.

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2013 12:02 AM  

lozozlo wrote: **Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters.**

Translated out of the deceiving language:
"When men are forbidden to honor someone who has an important position entirely because his ancestors were better at bashing in heads than anyone else around at the time, they honor people who produce wealth and provide employment, have worked hard to develop various skills, or other people who are personally good at bashing in heads, rather than those who simply have ancestors who were good at bashing in heads."

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2013 12:07 AM  

wrf3 wrote: **Why are they mutually exclusive? For example, why does the knowledge of physical law preclude the existence of God?**

It violates Occam's razor. If mutual cooperation in a 'prisoner's dilimma' type scenario (as opposed to cheating by one or both parties) can be selected for by evolution, then adding a 'God' is then a completely unnecessary level of complication.

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2013 12:15 AM  

Carlotta wrote: **Now Ann, are you claiming in your argument that it is moral and the right of the bees to discriminate?**

It is moral and right of the bees to discriminate in that particular fashion, which involves individually assessing each bee attempting to enter the hive, and rejecting those who are actually attempting to cheat in a manner which provably would actually harm the hive. Merely being offended by someone or having a magic book declaring that certain people are 'abominations', or refusing to allow them to contribute (or deliberately damaging them to the point that they can't contribute) to society - then complaining that they are not contributing, is not proof that that person is a cheater, and their presence would harm society.

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2013 12:19 AM  

wrf - also, simply because you don't know the cause of something, be it a physical law or the way evolution works, or whatever, you cannot simply then declare: "GOD" by default. That isn't how it works, there's probably literally millions of possible explanations for things that we don't entirely understand. God is just one of them, and you must either prove 'God' or disprove every one of the other millions of possible explanations (including all the Gods believed in by various other religions), before you can declare 'Christian God' as the reason.

Anonymous Sigyn October 10, 2013 9:03 AM  

You're knowledge of what God does and doesn't know about human nature comes from where, exactly?

I don't have to repeatedly go over the proofs of theism or Christianity just because you feel like stubbornly persisting in your aspie episodes.

Blogger wrf3 October 10, 2013 9:06 AM  

Ann Morgan wrote: It violates Occam's razor.

First, where is it written that Occam's razor is true? Is it just not an article of faith?

Second, Occam's razor only applies where two theories explain the same data. You haven't shown that the Theist and Atheist positions are equivalent.

If mutual cooperation in a 'prisoner's dilimma' type scenario (as opposed to cheating by one or both parties) can be selected for by evolution, then adding a 'God' is then a completely unnecessary level of complication.
You do know, do you not, that if you consistently apply the game theory behind the prisoner's dilemma to life that you end up with the Christian command to love your neighbor and even your enemies?
Second, this particular line of argument is internally inconsistent.

wrf - also, simply because you don't know the cause of something, be it a physical law or the way evolution works, or whatever, you cannot simply then declare: "GOD" by default.
Go project onto someone else. I don't declare "'God' by default." After all, I used to be a hard core atheist. Meeting the Risen Christ changed that in an instant. It is the Resurrection that is the reason for Christianity, not your pseudo-explanation that makes you feel good.

Anonymous lozozlo October 11, 2013 12:10 AM  

@Ann

I see your aspie tendencies coming to the fore once again.
Translated out of the deceiving language:
"When men are forbidden to honor someone who has an important position entirely because his ancestors were better at bashing in heads than anyone else around at the time, they honor people who produce wealth and provide employment, have worked hard to develop various skills, or other people who are personally good at bashing in heads, rather than those who simply have ancestors who were good at bashing in heads."


You are making a wild overgeneralization – like the leaders of any society, democratic or monarchal or otherwise, there are a wide variety of leaders, and they came to power a wide variety of ways,

I would hardly call the athletes getting millions for throwing around a ball, or miley cyrus acting like a skank, or the other in sundry ridiculous garbage as worthy of honor. Many of the wealthiest people got that way through crony-capitalist plundering and the actions of the federal reserve, not the production of real wealth.

Anyway, since you are an aspie, you totally missed the main point. The main point was that people will always honor an ‘aristocracy’ of sorts – there will always be a hierarchy among people, no matter how it is determined. So that primary argument against monarchy and for democracy, i.e. that all people are equal and on the same level, is observably false in all cases where it has been tried.

You really are quite dense. There was no deceiving language, merely your reading comprehension.

Anonymous Anonymous October 11, 2013 12:52 AM  

Sigyn wrote: ** I don't have to repeatedly go over the proofs of theism or Christianity just because you feel like stubbornly persisting in your aspie episodes.**

Neither you nor anyone else has offered any actual proof. Claiming otherwise or insulting me doesn't change that fact.

Anonymous Anonymous October 11, 2013 12:59 AM  

wrf3 wrote: **You do know, do you not, that if you consistently apply the game theory behind the prisoner's dilemma to life that you end up with the Christian command to love your neighbor and even your enemies?**

I'm well aware of that. However, that is not proof of the existence of the Christian God any more than the fact that the Egyptians constructed their pyramids at an angle of 45 degrees (which in a mathematical sense is the steepest angle that still allows the pyramids to be stable) is proof of the existence of Horus.

**Go project onto someone else. I don't declare "'God' by default." After all, I used to be a hard core atheist. Meeting the Risen Christ changed that in an instant. It is the Resurrection that is the reason for Christianity, not your pseudo-explanation that makes you feel good.**

You have a videotape or blood samples or an artifact that could not be created by human beings at our current level of technology or some other evidence of your meeting with the Risen Christ? Otherwise you are simply believing in the Risen Christ without actual evidence, because you feel like it, and are simply declaring 'God' by default as the answer to any question not currently completely understood.

Anonymous Anonymous October 11, 2013 1:09 AM  

lozozlo wrote: **You are making a wild overgeneralization – like the leaders of any society, democratic or monarchal or otherwise, there are a wide variety of leaders, and they came to power a wide variety of ways**

First of all, almost all monarchs in the traditional sense are descended from people who obtained power by being the best at killing other people. Leaders in countries that have popular votes are simply the best at playing what amounts to a large scale high-school popularity contest. I don't regard either one as being worth of honor.

**I would hardly call the athletes getting millions for throwing around a ball, or miley cyrus acting like a skank, or the other in sundry ridiculous garbage as worthy of honor.**

So you and CS Lewis are the arbiters of who everyone else in humanity should or should not honor and why? Do you also presume to tell everyone else what books and foods they should like?

**Many of the wealthiest people got that way through crony-capitalist plundering and the actions of the federal reserve, not the production of real wealth.** Many does not equal all. Without statistics, for all I know, 'Many' could mean less than 1%. And given that the standard of living has gone drastically upwards in the past 200 years, SOMEBODY must be producing all those goods and electricity.

**The main point was that people will always honor an ‘aristocracy’ of sorts – there will always be a hierarchy among people, no matter how it is determined. So that primary argument against monarchy and for democracy, i.e. that all people are equal and on the same level, is observably false in all cases where it has been tried.**

No, the main point was that CS Lewis had some objection to people someone to be on top of the hierarchy other than those who got their because their ancestors were good at bashing people's heads in, and presuming to make himself the arbiter of human thought such that he gets to determine which people everyone else should place on top of the hierarchy is incredibly arrogant, and the assumption that those on top of the hierarchy should be those who got their because their ancestors were good at bashing heads in is incredibly immoral.

Anonymous lozozlo October 11, 2013 1:28 PM  

@Ann

Now I see why the others hold you in such low regard.

You truly are mentally deficient and unable to make some basic connections, as is typical of aspies.

First of all, almost all monarchs in the traditional sense are descended from people who obtained power by being the best at killing other people. Leaders in countries that have popular votes are simply the best at playing what amounts to a large scale high-school popularity contest. I don't regard either one as being worth of honor. So you and CS Lewis are the arbiters of who everyone else in humanity should or should not honor and why? Do you also presume to tell everyone else what books and foods they should like?

Not all kiling people is the same, some is defense, some offense. You are making a terrible conflation error here.

And not all cases had to do with violence anyway, but that is lengthy matter, and since you have very little reading comprehension, I doubt you reading some history books would do you any good.

I find it hilarious that you talk about what you hold in honor, but then a moment later attack both Lewis and myself for doing the same. LOL! Unless you are using your own private definition of honor, which is then totally useless outside of your own retarded opinions.

No, the main point was that CS Lewis had some objection to people someone to be on top of the hierarchy other than those who got their because their ancestors were good at bashing people's heads in, and presuming to make himself the arbiter of human thought such that he gets to determine which people everyone else should place on top of the hierarchy is incredibly arrogant, and the assumption that those on top of the hierarchy should be those who got their because their ancestors were good at bashing heads in is incredibly immoral.

This is seriously painful. First I love how atheists keep talking about honor and morality, but others have torn you apart for that and you in your idiocy persist in your foolish and vain thoughts. So never mind that. Second, a cursory reading shows that the main point was my claim, about how people always establish a hierarchy - the main clause is that if people don't honor a king, they will honor (insert another group here).

There is a secondary point about the nature of those people, (which is totally valid) but you still are missing the main one.

If you want to bring up the matter further, bring it up on the latest post on the blog as opposed to a post that is quite far down from the top.

Blogger wrf3 October 11, 2013 4:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger wrf3 October 11, 2013 4:25 PM  

Ann Morgan didn't answer the question about Occam's Razor: First, where is it written that Occam's razor is true? Is it just not an article of faith?

Ann, like everyone else, you have to back up your claims if you're called on them.

She then wrote: However, that is not proof of the existence of the Christian God any more than the fact that the Egyptians constructed their pyramids at an angle of 45 degrees (which in a mathematical sense is the steepest angle that still allows the pyramids to be stable) is proof of the existence of Horus.

You're missing the point. If you start with the premise "there is no God" then you'll end up with a very different philosophical "geometry" than if you start with the premise "there is a God." The only way to decide between the two is a) internal consistency and b) congruence with external reality (whatever that happens to be). To tie this in with your rebuttal, at least in this respect Christianity is consistent with what we can determine from nature. By applying game theory, computer science, and evolutionary biology I can derive most of Christianity. If Horus worshippers had a text telling them the range of angles necessary for building pyramids, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Also along the lines of the consistency argument, you didn't address the points in my post, Atheism: It isn't about evidence. Until you deal with this, all of your requests for evidence are really pointless.

That you can't properly evaluate evidence is shown by your subsequent request: You have a videotape or blood samples or an artifact that could not be created by human beings at our current level of technology or some other evidence of your meeting with the Risen Christ? Otherwise you are simply believing in the Risen Christ without actual evidence.

That is, you don't even know what evidence is. Heaven help us all if you're ever on a murder trial where all you have is a body and eyewitnesses to the murder. Of course there's evidence for the Resurrection. Have you read, for example, Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach?

As to what I experienced, you're asking for evidence that simply doesn't exist in the way you're demanding. It's like a virgin asking what sex is like or a blind person asking for evidence of color. Some things have to be personally experienced.

Blogger wrf3 October 11, 2013 4:28 PM  

Ann Morgan wrote: and the assumption that those on top of the hierarchy should be those who got their because their ancestors were good at bashing heads in is incredibly immoral.

I'd like to see the derivation of this claim.

Anonymous lozozlo October 11, 2013 5:23 PM  

@wrf3

True enough re: Ann. Her posts consist of legions of claims that she never proves.

Ann - if you read this, given how old this thread is, these issues should be brought up on a recent thread so everyone can participate, not just the tiny handful of folks still perusing this one.

Blogger wrf3 October 11, 2013 5:29 PM  

lozozlo wrote: given how old this thread is, these issues should be brought up on a recent thread so everyone can participate, not just the tiny handful of folks still perusing this one.

Only if a more recent thread is on topic. Anyone who is still interested in this one should have the "Notify me" checkbox set so that they receive e-mail updates when something is posted.

Blogger Markku October 12, 2013 10:06 AM  

these issues should be brought up on a recent thread so everyone can participate

Vox is known to take a very dim view on cross-posting.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts