251. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167380 by AllanW on April 24, 2008 at 1:20 am

Yep; plainly a biased site offering little more than sophisticated theist apologetics. Sad. Just how is Cambridge associated with this tripe? I'm sure it can't be as simple as the Faculty of Divinity fishing for Templeton money? Or is it the first example of expenditure of that grant we heard about a few weeks ago?

252. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167359 by AllanW on April 24, 2008 at 12:36 am

I understand the point made by a number of posters on this site that rebuttals of inane creationist nonsense could demonstrate to observers the paucity of their thought even if the poster in question has ceased to read them. And that in most circumstances once the creationist fool du jour has descended into random, infantile, deluded ranting (CAPITALS! Scriptural cut-n-paste :))we should ignore them. I agree with those two views.

And although it is painfully sad to witness the wilful, unknowing ignorance on display by TruthID and Remnant (to name but two) I've finally come to accept the validity of this sites' policy on openness. I've argued before (especially concerning the hate-filled, despicable and poisonous postings of Robertson/clearthinker or the drivel of wooter/clearmind) that they should be marked as troll and their comments consigned to the alternate comment thread but (forgive me for being so slow) I can see the effect that allowing them to perform their rants, to demonstrate so clearly their ignorance and intolerance has on any uncommitted browsing passerby.

So, sorry that it took me so long to catch up but I'm onboard now; keep up the good work of not feeding the troll but continuing to rebutt in a calm and patient manner any substantive drool they issue. Keep on insisting that they present their own ideas in their own language. All that we need to do after that is underline it to make the impact we desire.

253. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167004 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

And we have the knock-out, countdown-concluding data-point. So it's clear; Remnant has nothing to offer in his own defense about what his beliefs are in his own words. He cannot refrain from trolling even for a moment to actually establish any credibility at all.

Ah three ah. You're out. Bye bye troll.

254. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167000 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:33 pm

And no, epeeist, I don't read his post that way. At this point he's just pulling words out of his arse at random, mate. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.

255. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166990 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm

And so we see the second data-point in the 'non-responses to repeated questions for his beliefs in his own words' constructed by the ignorant troll Remnant.

Ah two ah ...

256. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166984 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm

And we have the knock-out, countdown-concluding data-point. So it's clear; TruthID has nothing to offer in his own defense about what his beliefs are in his own words. He cannot refrain from trolling even for a moment to actually establish any credibility at all.

Ah three ah. You're out. Bye bye troll.

257. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166975 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I've learned that even people who can string sentences together can be as irrational, deluded and wilfully ignorant as wooter/clearmind/whatever-he-calls-himself-now.

258. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166969 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Yet another confirmation point in the data-set of 'non-responses to questions asked of the ignorant troll Remnant'.

Ah two ah ...

259. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166962 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:10 pm

My expectations are confirmed so far; the ignorant, deluded troll Remnant makes no substantive point whatsoever in response to protracted requests for his beliefs. Just a lot of words that say 'You nasty people don't agree with me' sniff sniff.

Ah one ah ... (slaps the canvas floor of the ring with his hand)

260. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166959 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

My prediction is correct so far; the lying prevaricating wilfully ignorant troll TruthID avoids any substantive response.

Ah one ah ...(slaps hand on canvas floor of the ring)

261. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166919 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 1:42 pm

'No one wants to defend one of your own. You keep asking me for reasons why I believe in ID, and when I quote one of your own, no response. '

You disingenuous, lying asshole, TruthID; yet again with the deliberate obfuscation and evasion. You know very well he is not 'one of our own'. Answer the damn questions in your own words; we want to hear them. If not you remain the wilfully ignorant turd you appear to be. Oh no! You'll spend the next five posts turning these comments inside-out and still avoiding the question because I used naughty words. Oh dear!

Get a grip; answer the questions. You have presented nothing about your beliefs in your own words so far. No cut-n-paste, no prevarication, no hesitation; do it. Or remain a troll.

262. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166889 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Answer the questions on creationism, Remnant the troll.

263. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166823 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Good grief! Is the troll Remnant still being fed?

Answer the questions on creationism, troll, or be ignored and flagged. You have offered nothing of any value so far; remedy that to be taken seriously.

Answer the questions.

264. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166559 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 9:54 am

Having answered the question on unicorns (thanks for confirming that it is a mistranslation) can we move on to creationism?

Four characteristics of a theory (see epeeists post) that creationism exhibits, please. No prevarication, equivocation, repetition or hesitation (and no cut-n-paste, you scoundrel. Oh no! There goes my potty mouth again ...)

265. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166537 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 9:40 am

I'm sure I mentioned earlier that cut-n-paste was not allowed ....

266. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166528 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 9:37 am

Irate_atheist;
And for your bonus question, spot three glaring contradictions in post: Comment #166450 by Remnant

Comment #166450 by Remnant

'Sorry but man's finite understanding is not capable of "judging" God.'

Contradiction; This understanding is made by an example of 'man' so is an incapable judgement.

'God is concerned with eternity, you are concerned with the temporal.'

He is discussing 'eternity' as a concept in direct contradiction to the statement.

'You are using your finite understanding of God and His plan to judge God.'

A little less clear on this one but surely his finite understanding is as limited as ours.

Is that enough?

267. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166466 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 9:01 am

Irate_atheist;

"I know, I know! Eight letters. Begins with 'F'. Two syllables. First syllable; rhymes with 'buck'. Second syllable; (waves hands in Doctor Who manner) no, shorter than 'tardis'. Yes! Well done :)

268. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166438 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 8:48 am

I'll 'get some soap for my potty mouth' ('fool'! egads how disgusting is my language!) and happily use it the moment you provide any answer in your own words (no cut-and-paste allowed) to any of the questions you have been asked.

Start with creationism and answer briefly and succinctly the four points relating to a theory that creationism satisfies as outlined by epeeist. In your own time; begin.

269. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166423 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 8:37 am

More prevarication from Remnant; address the questions in your own words not link to articles!

You have been asked what YOU believe, tell us or be labelled a vacuous shit-stirrer.

270. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166413 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 8:27 am

Oh my word; Remnant is squirming :)

You fool, you didn't even begin to answer the questions put to you, merely linked to an article. We don't know whether you accept it, accept some of it, accept only 'these' sections etc which is why you were asked to state your answers in your own words.

Answer the damn questions you prevaricating nincompoop; unicorns and creationism please, as quickly as you like or be exposed as a posing fool for all to see.

Stop avoiding the issue by telling us what you don't believe in and how evolution is evil yadda yadda yadda . We've heard it all before but are really interested in what you DO believe, in some detail. Answer the questions.

271. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166299 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 5:27 am

I heartily agree with the last posts by Epeeist, Szymanowski and dj2baduk; they all cover the various aspects of this issue on this site.

And I love it that we have been demanding answers from the theist posters here as it really exposes not only the paucity of their understanding of science, philosophy etc but also reveals their basic objective in coming here which is to sling mud.

272. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166247 by AllanW on April 23, 2008 at 3:40 am

I have to agree with most posters here; a poor, unreasoning and disappointing job done by Lord Winston. My respect for his achievements and status goes down as a result of his use of Pascal's wager, the internment camp anecdote and his refusal to address the core questions.

273. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165637 by AllanW on April 22, 2008 at 1:02 am

Jemym; thanks for those thought-provoking words; I'm sure they were sincere. Yet before accepting them I need a little more explanation.

The three problems I have with your posts (the original one and the reply to mmurray) are;

1. A number of phrases the meaning of which I just don't understand.
2. A number of points that I believe are wrong in fact.
3. A number of wildly assertive projections that, for me, miss the marks they aim for.

Problem one is characterised by;

'They have stood for a religious apartheid, segregation and indoctrination of children.'
'Which is why HUMANITY needs to be the center of a such institution.'
'Do not welcome outcasts. Piling money on people do not cure segregation.'
'Staying OPEN instead of EXCLUSIVE is the cure for segregation.'

Jemym please help me out and explain these sentences a little more. I do not mean to belittle your writing skills in the slightest (we all have problems there!) and the lack of understanding is, I'm sure, all on my part.

Problem two is characterised by;
'religion fulfilled the important role to keep society together.'

I'm sorry but I don't think this is true. Human society has developed over hundreds of thousands of years from our common ancestor with other primates; religions, in this timescale, are a recent invention. How did our distant ancestors cohere without religion? They evidently did and I'm not anthropologist enough to detail it for you here but religion was not it.

Problem three is the largest problem I have and is evidenced by;
'but a secular church will eventually be necessary.'
'Officially the religious institutions stands for:' then a list.
'so that even the most clueless knows about them (they are the ones who need it the most).'
'It would be in the interest of a state to support a such alternative'
'A secular moral teaching is necessary to work for glueing society together, prevent segregation and create social misery.'
'Humanity, not a specific faith/esoteric knowledge/doctrine etc needs to be the center of a such institution.'
'Fighting ones fear for the unknown is the most important self-control there is, and frankly, even liberal countries needs more of that.'
'Knowledge instead of suppression is the key word here. Knowledge have a greater chance to work than suppressing.'
'I see a society divided with growing segregation and mistrust. I see a world where isolation and ignorance is growing and more and more live alone and gets forgotten.'

I'm sorry but I personally need a lot more evidence and information before I'll accept even one of those assertions. They are not self-evident; they do not conform to some data that I have from my own society. And maybe this is the problem here (I hope I'm not guilty of projection or being too mean); Jemym you seem to be drawing conclusions from your own experience and viewpoints that do not bear wider application. It seems to me you have the kernel of an idea but need to spend a great deal of time developing and most importantly testing your views and data against reality before being confident enough to present it in more detail. Should this be possible I for one would welcome this more robust viewpoint as it addresses the important topic of our future.

274. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165529 by AllanW on April 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Aha! Robertson spewing his poison again I see.

No response deserved for such an odious reptile.

What's this I hear about a cheque, Robertson? Clear that one up before you deserve any response.

275. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165250 by AllanW on April 21, 2008 at 9:05 am

Re; comment #165157 incredulous

'The more I read the postings on this site the more it seems probable to me that after we have given enough support and information to those people who are cultural believers and really don't believe any of the nonsense they have been fed, we will be left with a large number of those people who will fight to the death for ideas which are really not worth fighting for. Their ideas are just wrong. Their beliefs unjustifiable.

What next? I guess there comes a point where we just have to be satisfied with being sane and continue to do our little bit to forward reason by simply being reasonable and scientific.'

I would like to think that the two stages you describe could come about. The first stage is for us to mount a concerted effort on numerable fronts over an extended period of time, harnessing all the resources we can engage to establish a movement for reason and science.

It's not inconceivable that over a generation (given the start we have made and the tendencies of the under twenties as polled and reviewed elsewhere) that it becomes the majority view of all western, advanced economies to support science and reason/rationality at the expense of religion and supernatural woo.

As this starts to occur the vast majority of people who are nominally religious at the moment (either from cultural leanings or because they just haven't thought about it much) would gravitate towards the positive movement and accept the ideas. 'Going with the flow' plays a part as does the idea that to 'stick out'/non-conform with the prevalent orthodoxy (which is what we would become) takes a good deal of thought and resilience. Most would not be able to do this and would support the movement.

I agree with you, incredulous, that it would leave a large but minority core of people who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to accept anything other than their dogmatic, wilful ignorance. You ask; 'what would happen to them?'

My answer; out-compete the deluded nincompoops. Use every trick in the book; political, economic, educational to label and highlight them and their organisations and fronts. Then drain their resources, cut them off from new revenue streams, pressure normal universities, schools, government departments, corporations, societies to recognise what they are and deny them any of the advantages of the reason and science they despise. Please be clear; I'm advocating no physical harm at all. Just use the leverage we could have to demonstrate to them that they are an example of a useless, vestigial ideology that will get no breaks whatsoever. I would hope that within two generations the offspring of these minority thinkers would have joined society in droves leaving a remnant to carry on the belief.

There will always be someone to carry it on and frankly as long as it remains an insubstantial, unsupported, wing-nut mentality nothing more need be done.

276. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165087 by AllanW on April 21, 2008 at 3:44 am

Re; comment #165073 Steve Zara

There are more things to do than you could possibly achieve yourself; there are more things to do than an army of people could achieve that's why we need a BIG army :)

- Continue to spread reasonable scientific answers to creationist trolls on this site.

- Find out about and support activities in the UK that try to counter creationist speakers.

- Find out about and support organisations that try to counter creationist nonsense in schools in the UK

- Support bodies and organisations that look to counter and even change the creationist schools (Vardy etc) in the UK

Those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head about one aspect of religious poison in the UK. There are plenty of others to sink your teeth into.

If you fancy getting involved in the States there are a plethora of bodies to direct you to where the current issues are. From education issues to political issues etc.

Pick a level of activity you are comfortable with; don't over-commit; give it a fair crack; assess how it impacts your life. I'm sure you'll get far more value out of anything you do than you thought possible.

Enjoy :)

277. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165073 by AllanW on April 21, 2008 at 3:08 am

Rre; comment #156061 irate_atheist

I agree about the battle and mentioned it here;
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2477,Yoko-Ono-Filmmakers-Caught-in-Expelled-Flap,Ethan-Smith,page4#164183

I'd love to think we'll win as Diacanu said but prefer to actually do something about tipping the odds in our favour.

'All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.'

278. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165045 by AllanW on April 21, 2008 at 1:35 am

Re; comment #165036 madame_zora

'His only argument was "I don't understand science, therefore I'm entitled to make up my own answers!!" '

Exactly; nice, succinct summary, Thanks.

279. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164196 by AllanW on April 19, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Layla Nasreddin and Veritas; heart-warming stories. Thanks for sharing.

280. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #164183 by AllanW on April 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Re; comment #164173 Russell Blackford

'My plea is that we try to think like strategists, rather than responding to every issue on the basis that the bad guys must be in the wrong every time. It just doesn't work like that.'

I'm on record as admiring RB's input on many threads here and I agree with much he has to say (I don't fully understand the rest of it :)) but I have to disagree here.

Strategy suggests a mindset that sees too narrowly. It is rooted in a view that looks to (and believes it can) control the variables within a system. It suggests to me a mental model based in academic studies or corporate thinking. As such I believe it is completely inapplicable to the issue of religion versus science and reason.

The scale of the battle is vast; everyone on the planet. We might think we can comprehend that scale but we truly cannot. It affects the daily lives directly of a huge percentage of that world population (through issues like condom use and AIDS, homophobic stereotyping, the school-life of a free-thinking teenager etc etc). It also affects the lives of everyone to some lesser extent (legislation about stem-cell research, abortion rights and issues etc). To believe we can be strategic about this scale of effects is a colossal mistake; it underestimates the magnitude of the work and reactions we need to make by magnitudes.

I think that a better strategy is to hit back, hit hard, hit below the belt, hit anything you damn-well can and do it as frequently as possible in as many ways as possible and with as many people contributing as possible because what you need to achieve is a vast range of reactions and results not just one. A vast distribution of effects not just one. And if we wait to try to get the 'tone' right, the tactics right, the organisation right and the feelings of everyone concerned all on the same page then we will never achieve a damn thing.

Does anyone here think we're a majority yet? I thought not; we have to fight better and harder to make society shift in our direction.

281. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164160 by AllanW on April 19, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Re; comments #164519 and 164516

Quoting scripture?

Capitalising words for emphasis?

Oh dear, a troll.

Marking.

And ideas? Just laughable. You guys were right earlier; he hasn't read or understood a thing. Move on.

282. Darwin's original theory of evolution goes online

Comment #163771 by AllanW on April 19, 2008 at 2:27 am

Making these notes, journals, drawings and writings available online is terrific. To be able to access this information freely and openly is another aspect of the power of the internet to enable any individual to enquire on their own free from prejudice and indoctrination.

Having said that I hope that initiatives like this and the coming events surrounding the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth are surrounded by plenty of modern scientific presentations and writings pointing out that, while we should celebrate the man and his achievements, our understanding has moved on and become even more robust, explanatory and useful.

283. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163250 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 5:14 am

Thanks again for another of your well-constructed, polite and effective demolitions, Galactor.

284. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163249 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 5:12 am

No problem here Sargeist :). Thanks for your post.

285. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163234 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 4:54 am

Sargeist;

'Whatever happened to ridiculing the beliefs but not the person? Shouldn't we be aiming for that?'

Knock yourself out trying :)

However when the content of a series of posts is nil then I don't feel it inappropriate to say so.

And read my post; it was addressed to the other posters who were responding, not Egomaniac him/her/itself; so tell me again exactly how I've abused him/'her/it?

286. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163225 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 4:36 am

'Is it just pure and simple mean-spiritedness?'

No; weary experience of the specious religious debaters here, mate.

287. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163212 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 4:25 am

OMG; are you guys still letting Egomaniac jerk you around?

Look at his posts; he started with a snide swipe at atheists and you've allowed him ever since to feed off your responses.

He has presented no information; seems to support no position; backs-up no claims; offers no point of view.

He's just pulling your chains.

288. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #163071 by AllanW on April 18, 2008 at 12:23 am

Oh grow up, Santi Tafarella. This is the internet not kindergarten. And get your accusations correct before both spraying them around like a dog at a post and aiming in all directions at once.

'You've made a malicious insinuation about me--suggesting that I'm a troll, and "arse-gravy."'

'Malicious insinuation; if this is the worst comment aimed in your direction in your life you will have a very comfortable existence. Grow up. I began to argue whether you were trolling but backed-off that to speculating whether you were just a shill for the film. Have you addressed that point anywhere? And you make the same mistakes of conflation that many fundamentalist posters on here do; read my post again, the 'arse-gravy' comment was clearly addressed at the film not you as a person. See how people might get the impression you identify yourself with it?

Your next paragraph attempts to establish some kind of credentials.

'I'd appreciate an apology.' When you feel wronged most people would appreciate it. When I'm wrong I offer one.

Nothing in your subsequent posts demonstrates to me any evidence that you are not a shill for the film. In fact many of your utterances have the whiff of 'teach the controversy'. And the final bleat in your post #163046 is heart-rending. Or it would be if I were such a bleeding-heart as you appear to be.

I'm genuinely sorry if you feel that the tone of posts here has left you 'pretty shocked.'. I'm equally curious to see for myself whether the site as a whole (yes you generalise that much) is clearly a case of 'there are a lot of smug, impatient, intolerant people posting here, quick to flame you with scatological vindictiveness if you don't tow the party line.' No, I just checked; it's not like that.

But mainly I feel sad that such a cringing, easily-bruised whiner represents themselves as a robust free-thinker.

Nobody here has a problem with free speech issues; nobody here has a problem with scepticism, inquiry or reason. I think the post-modern relativistic bullshit that appears to inform your outlook is as corrosive as religion if it leads self-proclaimed agnostics and rationalists to accept and even promote the specious propaganda contained in this film. And no, I don't think that qualifies as 'forcing you to tow the party-line'; it's an opinion!

There is a trite phrase that might be appropriate here and I make no apology for repeating it; it's possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

289. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162875 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I think Santi Tafarella is trolling. A reasonably sophisticated version mind you (no shouting, screaming or major words done in CAPITALS) but nevertheless trolling. S/he has consistently avoided expressing or supporting any view of their own about the controversy surrounding this film but criticised others for having opinions. In fact the only other consistent message seems to be 'go see the film'; maybe trolling is wrong but salesmanship is more the mark.

Do you have any connection to this worthless piece of intellectual arse-gravy?

290. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162753 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Thanks for posting this, Richard. A standard of honesty that does you credit.

291. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162706 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 10:20 am

As someone with US copyright experience and knowledge has posted (can't remember whether it's here or on Pharyngula) the 'free use' argument for critique purposes does not apply here as it is plainly a COMMERCIAL presentation (they will charge money to watch the film). This shifts it out of the free speech area into a litigators wet dream.

292. Science Debate 2008

Comment #162662 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 7:46 am

The points Rob makes in #161455 are apposite. The proportion of foreign post doc students that remain and work in American institutions is the key driver. My view (I need more data yet) is that this is falling.

Again a prediction that will/will not be fulfilled is that this concentration of science in the US will be overturned with a very small actual shift of research participants moving abroad; once the tide turns the flood will all be in one direction.

A crucial aspect of assessing when the tide turns is to map the movement of projects (and research funds) that pick up American funding but which actually get spent outside America.

I think that without concerted action soon this scenario becomes more likely (with current trends) and my prediction fulfilled in less than twenty years.

See below for the most recent of many poieces of information;

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1066

293. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162566 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 4:36 am

Epeeist;

'Wooter, with his hermaphrodite invisible friend "logic" and his Mona Lisa painted by Piccasso is irrelevant.'

Don't forget the individually created and designed snowflakes; credit where it's due :)

294. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162437 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 1:22 am

Hehe you guys are still going on this topic; good for you. I still have a bunch of reading and thinking to do about these issues but can't resist a chip-in here.

Radesq and FightingFalcon were discussing progressive and regressive taxation. Radesq supported a progressive taxation regime and the notion of sales taxes was raised with the idea that the rich people in a society would pay more. In response FF said;

'And they will, because they also spend the most amount of money.' But I'd make a couple of observations here. This idea is the generally accepted layman view of the practical effects of a progressive sales tax but it has been shown to be inaccurate

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jpet/2003/00000005/00000004/art00003;jsessionid=3rmxkmvgvncm1.alice?format=print
http://www.ipi.org/ipiIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupQuickStudyPDF/D79990146B436FD186256B4D0073A594/$File/QS-Hartman-Redistribution.pdf?OpenElement
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=125&subsecID=163&contentID=1398

And that makes sense when you consider two aspects; the proportion of income that is expended in normal (non-capital) ways and inheritance. By this I mean that the richest one or two percent of the American population have inherited wealth, established infrastructure (homes, trusts etc) and employ the best tax advice thus minimising their tax burden. Even though they pay more actual amounts of tax the effect of them is lower as a proportion of their income than the rest of the population who do not have these benefits.

The other point above is that the lower eighty percent of the population who have effectively zero savings rates therefore expend the vast bulk of any disposable income and data shows (and common sense confirms) that they are not spending it preponderantly on capital goods. The net actual effect therefore is that the PROPORTIONAL taxation effect is skewed downwards. These proportions of the population pay RELATIVELY higher portions of their income in taxation than the rich segment.

The whole conversation about the Gold standard is for me an exercise in misty-eyed nostalgia :) Sorry guys but even the terms you use (capitalising the word 'Founders' etc) reveals a quaint but essentially retrograde and conservative approach that ignores the way that world conditions have moved on since big buckles on shoes were fashionable.

Yet I very much agree with the core concept that the value (always a difficult concept to grapple with in practical terms) of a currency (a surrogate for the economy) should have some basis in material items. It used to be gold. I may have to do a bit more digging for discussion about this but I would initially warm to some basket of commodities that moved over time both in composition and weighting that reflected where the truer value to our society rested. For example silicon would be weighted more heavily in the basket of commodities now than it would have a hundred years ago, the same with uranium.

295. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162428 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 12:26 am

Epeeist;

'I wonder how many other people will get it.'

Hehe Only us old farts who enjoy John le Carre.

296. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162001 by AllanW on April 16, 2008 at 1:54 am

thisisme;

I think you have the people here confused with those who actually give a damn about your faux-sophisticated arse-gravy hence no reply.

297. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161738 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 3:06 pm

FightingFalcon

I think there is not only some common ground between us but that your stark starting position is moving a little bit my friend :)

Having moved you to accept 'I believe in only three proper functions of government.' from none at all I'll not press you further. Yet I was very interested in your comment;

'I don't think humanity is ready for the type of Capitalism that I believe in. Too many people are susceptible to corruption, dishonesty, unfaithfulness, etc.

as it is exactly the problem I have with Libertarian ideas as currently expressed; they (like economic theory) rely on assumptions that just do not exist in the real world. They are both idealistic ideologies in the sense that they aspire to maximal or perfect objectives; I like the ideas they contain (I'm attracted to them) because they are idealistic but I refrain from embracing them because I pragmatically recognise that they cannot come about at the moment. As an aside, I feel about them both the way I felt about a thread started on this site about fidelity and envy prompted by an article by Dawkins (I can't remember the exact title but it generated quite heated debate at the time). The position I advocated feels almost the same as here; it's an interesting idea that might be beneficial to our species but is impractical while humans exhibit the range of emotional and rational responses that we do (in the case of the article I mentioned, sexual freedom may well be healthy but not until jealousy and envy are far less commonplace than now).

I'm sorry that the articles I listed pissed you of so much :). I suspected they would as they were a selection from the left wing blogs but I have to say that a few (only a few, most right wing economics blogs are still desperately trying to distance themselves from any taint that they supported the policies that caused the current market disfunctions; fruitlessly in all honesty because you just have to go back over the last ten years to their commentaries to prove their deceit) even of those are beginning to realise that 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. Interesting times, huh?

Anyway, I've enjoyed our little correspondence (sorry to all for the topic-hijack) and it's raised a few points that I suspect we both will ponder.

Regards

298. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161170 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 2:00 am

'Meanwhile if you can manage to do this - here is a simple challenge for you. You stated that my post above was odious, lying and nasty. Perhaps you could evidence that by telling us which part is a lie. The other two characteristics are just emotive terms that mean you do not like it. They are meaningless - and to be honest there is nothing rational that one can say to someone who screams in such a childish manner ' I don;t like it ..it must be nasty'. However you have said that it is a lie - so please tell us where these lies are, in the post above. Will I hold my breath? '

The extract above is a typical piece of Robertson obfuscation and deceit. You know very well that my intial comments referenced other posts of yours on this site yet you deliberately deceive casual posters into thinking I referenced that one post, your sole intention being to both demand a response and mislead others. I refer you to my point above; you exhibit and promote ideas and standards of behaviour that are lying, deceitful and nasty.

299. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161165 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 am

Clearthinker; wrong, wrong and wrong again.

My position is not self-contradictory just pragmatic; it feels nice when you stop banging your head against a brick wall.


'I post a great deal of information '; no, you propogandise.


'You can't answer the arguments ' no; you have been answered many times and you refuse to acknowledge that fact.


'Perhaps Allan you will not engage in the conversation because you actually have nothing to say. ' wrong again as I've posted here many times and have points of view and offer evidence across many threads.

You amply demonstrate my initial point; I thank you. You are demanding attention for every inane and despicable ejaculation you make with the retort that if it is not responded to you have 'won' and we exhibit fundamentalist attitudes by not engaging; these are the tactics of a fundamentalist and maroon.

BTW what's this I hear about a cheque? I'm seriously thinking about making this phrase my sig on any posts to you.

300. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161155 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 12:58 am

PZ: just a piece of friendly advice. Clearthinker is not only a misnomer (as you can see from his post above and previous comments) but has been shown on this site to hold and promote particularly odious, lying and nasty ideas.

Do what you wish with this information. As for myself (and I suspect a growing number of regular posters here) I am refraining from engaging in posted conversations with him as he exhibits the worst characteristics of fundamentalists the world over; a refusal to consider any point of view or evidence that contradicts the fiercely-held ignorance in his head.