Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by notsobad


551. AAI 07

Comment #83519 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 10:00 am

'"losers" of the game are punished unduly harshly'
'free market theology'

Irrational thoughts always supply a great deal of entertainment.

552. AAI 07

Comment #83496 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 8:08 am

Some people just have to replace rational arguments with personal attacks,. Who does that remind me of...

553. AAI 07

Comment #83485 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 7:09 am

Stress can easily lead to illness, nothing fallacious there. Various illnesses can lead to cancer so...

554. AAI 07

Comment #83469 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 5:29 am

How can anyone justify a salary of one or three million a year? I ask you!! It is obscene. Where the majority of workers garner between $12,000 to $50,000, it is expected that they will understand these massively salaried CEOs??

Is this a joke? It sounds like some parody question of a typical communist with no economical education.

You know why they earned that much? Because their private employer pays them that much. Just like your employer pays you your salary.

And, Veronique, if you feel such a sympathy for your own species, how dare you earn $12,000 to $50,000 if hundreds of millions people earn a few dollars a day?
How dare you accuse others of no empathy if you protest against free trade, which stops these people from earning more?
And if you use phrases like 'poor specimen', why do you want to go against evolution and nature so much?

555. AAI 07

Comment #83383 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm

windweaver,
libertarians' core policy is to oppose government subsidies (or any other intervention for that matter).
Free market is by definition (free!) opposed to government subsidies.

556. AAI 07

Comment #83354 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Diacanu,
using others does not have to have a dirty meaning. Some may call it compassion or humanism, but technically speaking it is using others.

Also, libertarians are not some eugenics freaks or Spartan society supporters (some of them probably are, but it's not what the theory is about) like some people here seem to think.

mejdrich,
that is some anecdotal evidence you have there. Also, you don't understand the theory of minimum wage and why it lowers someone's buying power.
Minimum wage would increase their wages, but it would also increase everybody else's wages. And that would lead to higher prices, thus a lower buying power, especially because people earning minimum wage are very likely the same people who most often buy products and services from employers paying minimum wages.

Teratornis,
that's a nice post and I would argue that open source approach already exists in medicine (and other fields for that matter) through share of information between universities, labs and professionals.

557. AAI 07

Comment #83337 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Texas is libertarian? One of the states that has some of the worst punishments for victimless crimes? You gotta be kidding.

More importantly though, 'libertarian' is just another label that some of you are using without actually knowing much about it and ignore that there are various types of libertarians, just like there are people who like some of the libertarian ideas and reject others (like me).

Diacanu, I agree with a lot of things you write (in other debates too), but there was a lot of emotional material inserted and calling someone who wants people to take care of themselves instead of blaming and using others cold-blooded is a stretch too.

It's emotional to state examples like 'what is a poor guy supposed to do to feed his family.' Not having any family if he never could afford it is what he is supposed to do.
It's immoral to have kids if you know you can't and will not be able to take care of them. It's immoral to rely on others to take care of them if you knew you wouldn't be able. Using your children to get compassion from others is cold-blooded.

558. AAI 07

Comment #83278 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Actually, it's classic liberal vs social liberal stuff.
It's just that in the US liberal automatically means social liberal, and the word liberal is used because 'socialism' is considered a dirty word.

559. AAI 07

Comment #83269 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm

No, it's because I don't think that a relatively high-standard of living means 2 cars, latest technological gadgets, tens of clothes and other things so many people think they have to have no matter what.

steve99, this is pointless. You cannot/don't want to respond to what I say and shift the debate all the time.

560. AAI 07

Comment #83249 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 12:44 pm

steve99,
this is getting pointless


Again, you 'humanists with morals' are calling low-skilled workers losers in the first place.

Quite the reverse.

really?
Since most of the jobs are unskilled, there will always be more "losers" than "winers"
---Bonzai


We talk about low-skilled JOBS and when you have nothing to say, you start talking about 'mass UNEMPLOYMENT'.
Do I have to note that work is an opposite to unemployment?

Yes, moving to another county, state or country does build a character. Many people do it willingly and are glad for that so it does not have to be a struggle.
Why do you consider every person unable to take care of themselves?
Do you realize how close that is to religious (Christian) reasoning - only God and Jesus can save you.

561. AAI 07

Comment #83243 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Actually I meant something deeper than that - it amounts to asking why would someone be rummaging around in your garden shed for stuff to steal. If its for drugs, maybe you should work to legalize drugs and keep them out of your garden shed - I don't know.

Yes, but this is still just blackmail - legalize drugs or we will steal your money.
And even if heroin was cheaper if it was legal, it would not be cheap enough for these addicts since they have no legal income.

562. AAI 07

Comment #83239 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

Again, you 'humanists with morals' are calling low-skilled workers losers in the first place.

Low-skilled workers can easily achieve a relatively high-standard of living in the Western world. In many countries, engineers earn less than garbage men in the richest countries, and I mean in real value.

Do you think it is fair that for some that would mean moving away from their family, their friends, their neighbourhood and having to establish themselves in a new area. Actually, when it comes to schools, it might be an idea if they did this at age 4 or 5...

It's not only fair; it's absolutely crucial to a successful economy. Some people have to move to another country to achieve their goals. Imagine that horror! Not to mention, the US was founded on that principle.

563. AAI 07

Comment #83211 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:27 am

And while not everybody may have an equal opportunity to end up rich and successful 9and not everybody wants to in the first place), almost everybody has the opportunity to achieve a relatively high standard of living, which is what we are talking about here.

Not globally. There are still hundreds of millions of Africa and Asia that don't have the opportunities to attain any decent standard of living.

We were discussing the Western world and I specifically wrote that it may not apply to other countries.

Since you mentioned it, there are other socialist policy that shows how they can pretend to be humane but in fact they have the opposite effect - farm subsidies and trade barriers.
Farm subsidies and trade barriers make it almost impossible or at least very difficult for farmers from 3rd world countries to compete on the European market. And unlike the EU, 3rd world countries are dependent on farming. This does not give 3rd world countries chance to get richer and increases foodstuffs prices in the EU. Meanwhile, we send products (even the expensive subsidized foodstuffs!) and money to 3rd world countries and then act like we are helping them. We are also very proud that we help our farmers. Who cares that subsidized food is often destroyed because there is not enough demand. Some hypocrisy there.

564. AAI 07

Comment #83207 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:17 am

Aah - I see the glimmer of understanding here notsobad - you may not like it but people will respond to the way they're treated. If you don't give a shit about them - it will be returned. Reminds me of growing up in Latin America in one of those ex-pat communities with the grills on the windows, and dobermans on patrol for Ladrinos.
Is that what you want for America?


If by 'not giving a shit' you mean not giving me anything for free if I intentionally caused my misery, I am fine about that.

565. AAI 07

Comment #83199 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:05 am

As for calling people who want others to take responsibility for their decisions 'inhumane' and 'immoral', take for example drug addicts.
Someone broke two times into my garden house and stole some equipment, probably drug addicts (the police even said they knew who "operates" in that area). And some socialists dare tell me that it's because there aren't enough rehab centres or that it's because they were unfortunate in the past and the society didn't take care of them. Bullshit!
This is not humanism or compassion, this is blackmail. Give them money or else they will steal it. Cure their addiction caused by their own decisions or they will steal and damage your property. Blackmail it is and nothing else.

I've also noticed (and not here particularly) that people with socialist views like to talk about helping others ... when it involved someone else's property.
There was a news post about an owner who after three years of tolerating people who lived in his houses but paid no rent called in a security firm and booted them out. Immediately, the comments section was full of people saying how inhumane that was and how the right of the people who were kicked out were stumped on. However, when others and I asked these "humanists" how many people they had sheltered for free in their lives and what about the rights of the owner who just protected his property (he, for example, still had to pay property taxes despite receiving no rent), there was indeed no answer.

566. AAI 07

Comment #83196 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 8:49 am

steve99,
then say what you understand under 'equal opportunity'.

You mentioned Paris Hilton, which was quite pointless. First, she was also able to earn millions for her "music" and "acting" so is not living just by using the inherited money. On the other hand, you have a lot examples of singers and actors who earned millions but started broke.

And while not everybody may have an equal opportunity to end up rich and successful (and not everybody wants to in the first place), almost everybody has the opportunity to achieve a relatively high standard of living, which is what we are talking about here.
Of course, disabled and such deserve to be taken care of by the rest of the society, but people who ruined their lives - and often lives of others - do not. Giving them money and things for free will never make them change their destructive way of living.

567. AAI 07

Comment #83184 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 7:57 am

epeeist,
I wrote about European countries and not the US or any other country, for that matter - non sequitur and/or pointing to another wrong.
Also, the fact that the US is doing poorly does not excuse what the European countries are doing - two wrongs don't make a right.

568. AAI 07

Comment #83167 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 6:24 am

You're born equal not given equal.

You have equal opportunity, not entitlement to equal distribution.

Oddly, given the context, probably the only societies where this is true - where people are really born equal and have equal opportunity, are true communist societies. But that works by limiting opportunity.

If someone favors Communism, then it follows that you rather like someone else taking care of you like the religious like god taking care of them.

I don't favour communism personally. But that is the only social system that I can think of that provides the true equality of opportunity you seem to favour.


steve99, what are you talking about? Communism won't let an idiot be a chemical engineer; however, it would let an idiot have the same standard of living as the engineer.

569. AAI 07

Comment #83037 by notsobad on October 28, 2007 at 4:35 pm

I knew I should have expanded my answer because someone would come with a sound-bite saying this :)
China has a communist, totalitarian government.


Totalitarian I can go with. Communist is false.

You really need to do some reading to know what the basis of communism is and what kind of society it proposes.


Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. You should know that one by know since it's often used by theists.
Yes, China cherry picks and alters the Marxist original idea and we should all be glad for that.

The basis of communism is utopia, which is not possible because of - and again you should already know that - evolution (people are different) and survival of the fittest (competition). It's that easy.
Oh, and I lived in a communist country so no need for recommendations to go read about communism.


Regarding socialism, the level it reached in Europe is sick and cannot support itself.

Have a look at how much the USA borrows compared to Europe and then justify that statement.


Non sequitur, two wrongs don't make a right...

570. AAI 07

Comment #82802 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Thank you for your straw man arguments. I'll try to address at least some.

What planet were you raised on that you ended up with such a naive viewpoint toward homelessness and substance abuse? You need to read up a bit on Psychology, poverty, the cycle of abuse, and addiction.

I've studied psychology and regularly buy every issue of the local homeless magazine. I also worked with the disabled and know quite a lot about special education through my mum, who has worked in it throughout her whole life.
Addiction is in most cases freely chosen despite all the available knowledge in the Western world.
I have never said anything close to "Bad things happen to bad people. Good things happen to good people. Since I'm a good person, bad things can never happen to me." Actually, if you read some of my forum posts, you would know that shit happening to anybody is one of my most practical reasons to oppose the Christian theory of just and loving god.
So your hasty generalizations were not appreciated and you comparing my reasoning to religious is comical.

Corylus, your hasty generalization was also uncalled for.
You appear to see these people as a waste.

Again, I never said anything close to this. I said that homeless are usually responsible for their own fate (in the Western world) and that I wouldn't support random ones by just giving them money for nothing.
I don't mind them as long as they don't limit others' freedom, which I apply to everybody else. I'd help the ones that actually want to change something about their lives and are not only interested in a couple of quid for another drink or drug.

571. AAI 07

Comment #82792 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Nor do the homeless who have healthy limbs but cannot bother to work.

yeah, it's really easy getting a job when you're homeless....

Someone with healthy limbs should not become homeless in the first place! I can understand position of some homeless people, but in most cases, they are clearly responsible for their situation (alcoholics and such). I will gladly donate to orphanages or educational charities but would not give a cent to a beggar.

China has a communist, totalitarian government. However, it also has a somewhat limited free-market economy and is probably the most capitalist country in the world, as the already mentioned non-existent welfare suggests.

This is obviously self contradicting. How can a communist country be the most capitalist country at the same time?!

Who said communists cannot cherry pick their ideology as well?
Have you never heard of Deng Xiaoping and his economic reforms?

572. AAI 07

Comment #82786 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 2:59 pm

China is communist

No it isn't

I knew I should have expanded my answer because someone would come with a sound-bite saying this :)

China has a communist, totalitarian government. However, it also has a somewhat limited free-market economy and is probably the most capitalist country in the world, as the already mentioned non-existent welfare suggests.

==

Regarding socialism, the level it reached in Europe is sick and cannot support itself. I am all for public education, and basic welfare, which should help the really unfortunate, like children born with genetic disorders. Smokers getting cancer after ignoring known issues throughout their whole life do not belong to this category, for example. Nor do the homeless who have healthy limbs but cannot bother to work.

573. AAI 07

Comment #82689 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 8:45 am

Replacing religions with socialism or strong welfare is a bad idea.
Communism is founded on the same idea to target people who can't or don't want to think for themselves and replace religion with a similar system, minus the supernatural.


First, having decent government support for people is not communism. Secondly, to claim that Chapman is wanting to replace religion with a similar system is just not true. All he is saying is that in countries with poor welfare and government support for people in times of need, people turn to the churches. In a strong democratic society, we need systems to support our fellow citizens. If we don't provide it, the churches and other religious organisations will fill the gap. We see such a problem in the UK, where people often think that 'faith schools' provide a better education. Improve the general education system and there will be less demand for such institutions. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and is hardly communist.


I never said that socialistic government and strong welfare automatically lead to or equal communism. And I never said Chapman suggests so. China is communist and has almost non-existent welfare system. On the other hand, Nordic states have strong welfare and have never had communist regimes and I can't imagine them having ones.

I'd like to see the society move from irrational thinking to rational thinking directly but maybe strong welfare is the fastest way to lower influence of religions, and should be used as a transitory state.

574. AAI 07

Comment #82656 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 6:09 am

Replacing religions with socialism or strong welfare is a bad idea.
Communism is founded on the same idea to target people who can't or don't want to think for themselves and replace religion with a similar system, minus the supernatural.

575. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82653 by notsobad on October 27, 2007 at 5:36 am

Acleron,
I wouldn't call every atheist a rational being. Heck, many communists were and are atheists.

However, an atheist cannot be a fundamentalist because atheism only says 'I don't believe in gods' = 'I don't believe in something there is no evidence for', and it is not a belief system or a religion.

576. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82550 by notsobad on October 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm

"If you accept Dawkins's characterisation of religion, you'd probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot"

He repeatedly says that this is not his view anywhere he can. Next time, try to actually read his opinions instead of opinions of a demagogue writing about him, which you became now too.

"Isn't it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we'd never abide with race, religion or gender?"

This sentence illustartes how confused the author is (notice the double use of 'religion'). Not to mention the weasel wording 'we'..

577. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82473 by notsobad on October 26, 2007 at 12:12 pm

"This is our way of seeing how God created the universe and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn't contradict truth; that if you have faith, then you're never going to be afraid of what science is going to come up with.
"Because it's true."

..pure delusion

578. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #82048 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 3:33 pm

USA_Limey, here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M31mkLp3jWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_quRZ_ALMo

579. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81992 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm

D'Souza sure likes to masturbate his poor ego and where else to go than "fair and balanced" Faux News.

Anyway, thanks, decius, for the link.

580. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #81990 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 1:55 pm

They also accept evolution now. All these organized religions are becoming a big parody of themselves every day now.

581. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #81758 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 6:17 am

Theocrapcy, don't turn this into semantics debate, because that's one of the last hiding places of theists in debates.

For practical reasons, when debating religion, meaning of the word faith should be 'believing in something there is no evidence for'. This is after all the meaning the Bible itself and the Catholic Church (the first church/denomination, yes?) gave it.

582. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81742 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 5:52 am

USA_Limey,
you do realize that this site and its admins do not equal 'atheist history'?

583. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81679 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 3:05 am

Even talking about it any more is giving those idiots too much credit.

584. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81447 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 6:26 pm

It's pointless to debate people like D'Souza, period.

People who listen to him are not going to prefer reason and logic to fallacies, wishful thinking and sweet lies.

585. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #81172 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 10:27 am

And not just religious, any others.

586. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #81171 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 10:26 am

Isn't this the survival of the fittest?

587. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #80839 by notsobad on October 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

We are all related to everything alive on this planet, more so if there even was a creator.
Ironically, it's the theists that often act like they are superior to all other forms of life.

588. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80552 by notsobad on October 22, 2007 at 6:26 am

Why does Hitchens even want to debate a creationist? pointless

589. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80463 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 10:52 pm

In addition, Dinesh D'Souza is an ID advocate. Debating such kind of idiocy is beyond pointless.

590. Devil of a problem

Comment #80460 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Project Ark to save devils :-)

591. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80459 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Christianity has nothing new to say.
It's pointless to watch Christian apologists after you saw a few already because still have the same lame arguments. For that matter, it's pointless to watch the same atheist speakers debate with them.

592. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80333 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

idolatry ...?

593. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80305 by notsobad on October 21, 2007 at 8:54 am

Counter-intuitive?
No, it never was to me.

It can be counter-intuitive to people who were brainwashed into believing in irrational claims and god did it explanations.

And, of course, the straw-man evolution presented by creationists (ancestors of monkeys, eye and other complex organs created by chance) is counter-intuitive.

594. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80024 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Riley, there are thousands of religions and within those religions thousands of interpretations. It's funny when a single theist tries to speak for others or even a majority.

595. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80016 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

"noteworthy Christian"

That's comedy in itself. Is that like another name for "true Christian"?

596. God's honest truth?

Comment #79976 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 11:45 am

First of all, it's important to realize that both science and scriptures cannot be true.

I realize that the fundamentalists and the fundamatheists think this is so, but the vast majority of Christians (the religion with which I am most familiar) do not.


Provide sources:
-that scriptures and religious dogmas do not contradict science
-that "the vast majority of Christians do not" think so

Either resurrection is possible or not.


That's much more of a philosophical position than a scientific one.


What does that even mean? Are you saying resurrection didn't happen?

Either we were created or are a result of evolution. Etc.


False dichotomy (read Ken Miller for example).


Isn't Ken Miller a proponent of evolution? Doesn't he actually speak against creationism, thus saying that the creation story is not compatible with evolution?

Thus it's not possible to teach both scriptures as if they were true and real knowledge.


I realize you're irrationally attached to this dogma, but most of us aren't.


Again, provide sources:
-that this is a dogma
-examples where the scriptures not only don't contradict science but actually improve it
-that most people support your opinion

Shouldn't values be taught even before a kid enters school?


I can't imagine anyone with parental experience saying something so silly. I still work to instill values in my children every day, and I only have one left at home.


First you say that it's silly to teach values before kids enter a school, which doesn't make sense considering the Christian indoctrination, and then follow with a non sequitur.

Shouldn't proper education give basics upon which values are created and/or reinforced using critical thinking instead of indoctrination?


The idea that education can be somehow values-free is a myth (as the Jesuits and the Maoists well understood, for example).

I never said that education should be values free. Actually, the sentence you replied to says that it shouldn't!

597. God's honest truth?

Comment #79948 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 7:59 am


Why should a state allow private schools to teach irrational beliefs instead of critical thinking, proper science and historical facts?

I have no argument with the idea of the state mandating that certain subjects be taught, especially where governmental funding is involved. My disagreement is with the authoritarian idea that parent-funded private schools be prohibited from teaching more than the curriculum demands and from imparting values the parents wish imparted to the students.


First of all, it's important to realize that both science and scriptures cannot be true. Either resurrection is possible or not. Either we were created or are a result of evolution. Etc.
Thus it's not possible to teach both scriptures as if they were true and real knowledge.

Second, what do you mean by values? What values could possibly be taught by teaching fairy tales as if they were true? Shouldn't values be taught even before a kid enters school? Shouldn't proper education give basics upon which values are created and/or reinforced using critical thinking instead of indoctrination?

Still, you haven't told me whether you are a libertarian who is against this law out of principle or just a theist.

598. Atheistic Denomination Struggles To Fill Void Left by Founder's Death

Comment #79851 by notsobad on October 18, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Interesting story.
Nusmus, what are you raving about?

599. God's honest truth?

Comment #79837 by notsobad on October 18, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Sinbad,
private schools still have to follow many rules to be recognized as schools by the state. Often, even private schools still receive subsidies from the state.
One of the main rules is obviously curriculum. Why should a state allow private schools to teach irrational beliefs instead of critical thinking, proper science and historical facts?
Are you a libertarian or just a theist?

600. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79466 by notsobad on October 17, 2007 at 10:43 am

Yes,
delusion is a very precise term.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next