Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system! To begin posting Login or Sign Up.
August 28, 2014, 09:21:58 AM
Search:     Advanced search
189437 Posts in 10015 Topics by 18074 Members
Latest Member: kimminjun
Home Help Search Login Register
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold  (Read 2726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« on: January 13, 2014, 09:55:46 PM »

Vent here. Tell us what you would actually like to see become a law.

For me, its district permit parking. I pay for the streets of my entire city and expect to be able to use them all, but some NIMBY assholes made it a fineable offense for me to park in their neighborhood.

I think that if someone lives where they have district parking, they can ONLY park there. Fuck them if they want to park in their neighborhood, and mine as well.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2014, 12:25:38 AM »

I def wouldn't call it a position, but I guess what I would consider the lesser of two evils.

My position, officially, is that government shouldn't interfere with the free expression of religion. That said, it's probably going to anyway and I kind of don't care that much. It feels like karma. Religion has interfered so much with freedom historically and I feel like overall freedom will be advanced. I think anything that promotes more rational thinking over religious thinking will help freedom in the long run.

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2014, 09:16:45 PM »

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm against it... technically, but... I kinda won't mind. Privately-funded schools should be able to teach whatever, even Creationism. That said, THEY SHOULDN'T!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/creationism-schools-alice-roberts_n_4618230.html

And while we're working on ending all public schools, in the meantime, any school that gets any public funding whatsoever (unless they had no choice) should be banned from teaching Creationism.

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2014, 11:31:43 AM »

This is further in line with my previous posts. I'm against taxes and I'm generally throwing kudos at any folks who can find loopholes to avoid them. That said, the religious exemption is ridiculous. It's practically a subsidy for stupidity and irrational thought, or equivalent to a tax on intelligent and rational thought.

Nebraska’s Atheist State Senator Introduces Bill That Would Force Churches to Pay Property Taxes

Quote
he has introduced a bill, LB675, that would eliminate a state property-tax exemption for religious organizations — essentially taxing churches.

The bill itself is a riot because all Chambers does is cross out the word “religious” from the current list of groups that are exempt from paying property taxes:

-- Read more -->

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2014, 11:35:42 AM »

BTW, I think this thread is a great topic for discussion so I've added it to the topics for the next Flaming Freedom.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2014, 04:18:08 PM »

Tell us what you would actually like to see become a law.


Hmmm . . .

How about,


Congress shall pass no law . . . . . . . ( ok, period ).

Congress can still try to amend the constitution, but that takes a 3/4 of the States own legislatures to agree.



Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2014, 10:33:53 AM »

The closest i can come to that is "laws that I would be less offended by" and restrictions on religious practice or expression in key areas falls into that category for me.

On a side-note, I'm thinking of starting a D&D religion. I know it's pretend but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want it to be real enough to start a religion. "Yes, YOU can cast a fireball if you only BELIEVE! Also, you must make a contribution to Mistra, goddess of magic. I'm her agent on Earth."

Archibald

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2014, 03:26:34 PM »

You mean like things that we know for certain are proven false?  like the non-existence of global warming?  I agree.  We need a monopoly to decide who is correct when it comes to science and the science of the mind and everyone should agree with them by law.  That can't be abused. /sarcasm

I'm a non-traditional creationist.  I believe if you find a watch in the woods in implies the existence of a watchmaker.  I believe it is a rational analogy to the miraculous (miraculous means I don't fucking know how it was done.. someone was smarter than me) machine we live on.  I think you're a fucking idiot if you don't see that and I fear you if you would force your foolishness on my children or prevent me from imparting my wisdom on whoever I want.  THIS is why NH and free staters is no safer a place to raise my kid than anywhere.  

« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 03:32:39 PM by Archibald »
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2014, 04:35:00 PM »

You mean like things that we know for certain are proven false?  like the non-existence of global warming?

First off, just feel the need to restate that I don't believe in forcing any view on anyone with stolen money. That said, my line on what I would label "religion" is fairly unambiguous. I don't just mean really controversial opinions or bad science, loaded with bias (like a lot of global warming science), etc. I'm talking about when the word "faith" is actually used by the adherents as if it were a good and necessary thing, i.e. the belief in something without evidence. Faith is never to be questioned. In fact, that are usually repercussions for questioning it, either by humans here and now or in some faith-based after life.

Now I know that lately creationists (for example) have been coming up with creation museums and have attempted to make it into a science, but that's pretty clearly been a relatively recent act of desperation when public schools started to ban it from classrooms for not being science (which it clearly isn't). Before that, you weren't supposed to question it. But questioning and testing is the very definition of science. You're supposed to put any theory under great scrutiny and actually attempt to disprove it. If you repeatedly fail, you may get it to stick, at least for a while.

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2014, 10:22:27 PM »

I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.

I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.

If it "must" be available to young minds, make it an elective.

Of course getting rid of schools all together (public and private) changing the current model significantly, I find to be much more important.

Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2014, 11:21:57 PM »

I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.

The only reason it's called a theory is for political reasons; not scientific ones--for people who don't accept it, and always for religious reasons. Politics is always corrupting science, e.g. the one we probably largely agree on--global warming. As to why it's taught, you could ask that about any subject. It's pretty foundational to a lot of biology in terms of biological classification.

Quote
I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.

It wasn't applicable in my computer science field either but I learned a lot of things in school that were not part of my career. Neither was chemistry or history. I'm glad I learned a lot of science about the world around me besides just what I need to make a living. Knowledge has enriched my life and seeing how questions have been answered prior is helpful to my critical thinking skills. A lot of people would like to know how life came to be.

A note on science: It's always evolving and knowledge we hold to be "facts" today, even amongst the hardiest science supporters, is sure to be much different 100 years from now. And in many ways it's a religion in it's own right.

No, it's not. If it's religious at all, it's not science. You can always point to a particular case and argue for why it's badly done science, but science isn't a set of beliefs. Science represents a rigorous method for arriving at those beliefs. You should be welcome to make a case for why something is bad science that did not apply the scientific method well and should not be taught and you may very well be right. But there's no such ambiguity with religion. There should simply be a proverbial trap door underneath that is triggered by the word "faith" and SWOOSH--out it goes.

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2014, 12:00:32 AM »

I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.

The only reason it's called a theory is for political reasons; not scientific ones--for people who don't accept it, and always for religious reasons. Politics is always corrupting science, e.g. the one we probably largely agree on--global warming. As to why it's taught, you could ask that about any subject. It's pretty foundational to a lot of biology in terms of biological classification.

Politics is foundational to people. People conduct science. Therefore, politics will never be separated from science. Eliminate all government, egos will still prevail and politics will always play a role in the scientific community.

I agree in a well rounded education... but by choice, not requirement. If I choose to go to school for astronautical engineering, I should not have to learn the history of rocketry. It's a benefit as it creates a well rounded person, and perhaps may provide inspiration to a solution for a problem some time down the future. Nevertheless, it should be a choice. Likewise, knowing that Australopithecus Afarensus is in our evolutionary history does little in providing a mitochondrial solution, even if I observe the same problems in a chimpanzee and want to extrapolate their process to our own. I can do so through the use of the scientific method. I do not necessarily need knowledge of evolution. Indeed, there are plenty of effective biologists who are creationists. If it were vital, they simply could not function. Yet, they do.

Quote
Quote
I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.

It wasn't applicable in my computer science field either but I learned a lot of things in school that were not part of my career. Neither was chemistry or history. I'm glad I learned a lot of science about the world around me besides just what I need to make a living. Knowledge has enriched my life and seeing how questions have been answered prior is helpful to my critical thinking skills. A lot of people would like to know how life came to be.

Read above.

Quote
A note on science: It's always evolving and knowledge we hold to be "facts" today, even amongst the hardiest science supporters, is sure to be much different 100 years from now. And in many ways it's a religion in it's own right.

No, it's not. If it's religious at all, it's not science. You can always point to a particular case and argue for why it's badly done science, but science isn't a set of beliefs. Science represents a rigorous method for arriving at those beliefs. You should be welcome to make a case for why something is bad science that did not apply the scientific method well and should not be taught and you may very well be right. But there's no such ambiguity with religion. There should simply be a proverbial trap door underneath that is triggered by the word "faith" and SWOOSH--out it goes.


In the sense that people adhere to a group of beliefs that organize the nature of their universe. Often on faith, because most of us cannot maintain all the scientific disciplines necessary in order to understand our universe and origin of our own accord. We rely on other people to relay that message.

In so doing, many people accept blindly what "experts" tell them and become as dogmatic and passionate about their beliefs, complete with all the darkness of what most would consider "actual religion", to pollute the system.

Without people to conduct it, science does not exist...it's not a thing, it's a practice. You cannot separate ego and politics from science.   ergo... it's a religion. Or religious-esque
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 12:07:14 AM by Ylisium »
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2014, 09:47:23 AM »

Politics is foundational to people. People conduct science. Therefore, politics will never be separated from science. Eliminate all government, egos will still prevail and politics will always play a role in the scientific community.

No doubt. Improving scientific processes like removing bias is an ongoing process. We will always be learning new things and devising new methods for learning new things.

Quote
I agree in a well rounded education... but by choice, not requirement.

Yes, of course. I'm a libertarian. I also hate mandatory/government/whatever education. This is kind of a devil's advocate sort of thread (sort of?) where we talk about our least libertarian positions. So I'm only addressing the reality we're stuck with right now which is public schools. Biology is considered by many to be part of what should be core knowledge and if you have biology, evolution is pretty core to that. Most biologists agree.

Quote
Indeed, there are plenty of effective biologists who are creationists. If it were vital, they simply could not function. Yet, they do.

Who's an example? It's an honest question, btw. Not trying to make a zinger. I have not investigated this claim at all. My gut inclines me to think they're probably either in a very peripheral field or specialized field or even not directly involved in science, i.e. postulating theories and testing them for validity and so on. I would not expect them to be taken seriously by other biologists so if you actually find one such as a college professor in a non-religious school, I would be honestly surprised.

Quote
Without people to conduct it, science does not exist...it's not a thing, it's a practice. You cannot separate ego and politics from science.   ergo... it's a religion. Or religious-esque

Agreed that it's a practice as I said, and not a set of beliefs. It's flawed, as I acknowledged, and can always be improved. Religios-esque... maaaaaybe occasionally. But that's what I would call bad science. I'll try one more time to point out what I see as a fairly solid line between bad science and religion.

Science "expert" presenting bad science: Here's is what I believe to be true and here is the evidence for what I believe. *Presents poor evidence that didn't use good scientific method. Might even say any evidence to the contrary is "bad science" in a hypocritical fashion.*

Religios "expert": Here is what I believe on faith alone and you're just supposed to believe it on faith alone also. *Discourages any attempt to make evidence or a scientific method relevant to the discussion, possibly even with threats (like Hell).*

The "bad science" guy might question someone else's scientific methods and even be very hypocritical about it, but he at least pays lip service to the scientific method and the idea of presenting evidence for one's belief.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 09:49:34 AM by Dalebert »
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2014, 10:15:49 PM »

Neil's least liberty position was a desire to ban tomatoes. Lauren's least libertarian position was doggy style.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/43177915

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2014, 11:44:37 AM »

Quote
Science "expert" presenting bad science: Here's is what I believe to be true and here is the evidence for what I believe. *Presents poor evidence that didn't use good scientific method. Might even say any evidence to the contrary is "bad science" in a hypocritical fashion.*

I think that is very foundational to most religions. My mother will sit down and tell you that her faith isn't just a belief, that she's actually spoken with God, seen angles and miracles. There are plenty of "faithers" who have "evidence" that makes their case.

Is that evidence recordable, testable and reproducable... amongst the millions who think they have it, yeah sure in their own way and that's an essential part of the scientific method.

However, I think that mostly what I'm getting at is the attitude towards certain sectors of science that becomes like a religion. Science in and of itself isn't a religion, it's the observers attitude that is. Better way of saying it, I guess.

Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial, so we don't have frothingly mad scientists out there defending it like Dawkins who go above and beyond in presenting their case. It's the Ideal Gas Law and just is. No one cares. However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible. The similarities are striking. And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.



Welcoming debate = science
Shutting down debate = religion

Very simplistic but the best way I can relate what's floating about my head.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
 

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 18 queries.

Free Talk Live Image
Free Talk Live Image
Free Talk Live Image
Be your own bank
Free Talk Live Image
Free Talk Live Image
Watch the Ridley Report
Free Talk Live Image
Liberty Stickers
Mark Warden - New Hampshire Realtor
Math Gate
Free Talk Live Image
Midas Resources
Amazon
Buzzbox Coffee
freedomcam.net
Quantum Vibe from Bighead Press
DoorDevil.com
Free Talk Live Image
Free State Project
Free Talk Live Image
Advertise Market Promote with AMP
Free Keene - NH Liberty Activism
shiny badges
Join the Shire Society
Freedom's Phoenix
iHeartRadio
stitcher smartradio
talk stream live
FTL on AudioNow
bitcoin not bombs
Liberty on the Rocks