SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
Read the bill. Then comment....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138488029/The-...ct-of-2013
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinside...01_xml.pdf

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 09:33 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013 09:39 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Parties are concepts. The people who represent them are for themselves.

Then you have no basic idea of how social groups work.

(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  What then, is the stated purpose of the congress?

I should not have to tell you this if you have taken a remedial elementary history class.

(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  It was broken when it was conceived.

Demonstrate to me how the system was broken when it was conceived.

(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  What does simply throw in the towel mean? Why can humans not govern themselves and, is not government a collection of humans? What ignorance have I demonstrated with respect to human history?

You completely dismiss the entire reason that our species was able to survive: Our ability to unite under a single or, in many cases, multiple causes to ease our species' plight for existence. Your mislead perception of government, and how it is inherently broken, displays a drastic misunderstanding of how social structures work. Governments form, regardless of whether or not the population wants it, because that is the way humans operate. The notion that an anarchy would be ideal or achievable, even if the majority desired to dispose of government, is morbidly ignorant.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(02-05-2013 09:33 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Parties are concepts. The people who represent them are for themselves.

Then you have no basic idea of how social groups work.

(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  What then, is the stated purpose of the congress?

I should not have to tell you this if you have taken a remedial elementary history class.

(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  It was broken when it was conceived.

Demonstrate to me how the system was broken when it was conceived.

(01-05-2013 12:16 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  What does simply throw in the towel mean? Why can humans not govern themselves and, is not government a collection of humans? What ignorance have I demonstrated with respect to human history?

You completely dismiss the entire reason that our species was able to survive: Our ability to unite under a single or, in many cases, multiple causes to ease our species' plight for existence. Your mislead perception of government, and how it is inherently broken, displays a drastic misunderstanding of how social structures work. Governments form, regardless of whether or not the population wants it, because that is the way humans operate. The notion that an anarchy would be ideal, even if the majority desired to dispose of government, is morbidly ignorant.

Well at least you have responded to a question or two from me... that's a start. However, all you've done is level personal insults. Do you have any evidence for your claims?

For instance:

"Demonstrate to me how the system was broken when it was conceived."

The US constitution is the document upon which all of the abuses of power we see today were made possible. In simple terms, using the popular assumption that a document can control a group of people, the US constitution has failed miserably at controlling the size and scope of the federal government, as is evidenced by the government we see today. It has been amended repeatedly and there have been countless scholars who made it their life's work to keep the state in adherence with this document... to no avail. In simple terms, it was broken when it was written. That is, if one is to suppose it was written to protect the proletariat. As it was not written by the proletariat and as it was never signed by any commoner in any part of the US... it could be said that it is and always has been working quite as designed for those who profit through its use.


Notice there how I never called into question your level of education, your ability to learn or anything else about you. I don't know anything at all about you or your level of education. I don't know how old you are, your gender, where you've been educated or on what subjects, so how could I accuse you of being uneducated?

Kindly accord me the same respect and answer the questions I've posed with evidence or at least your own conclusions based on evidence. Or simply don't respond.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(02-05-2013 09:52 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Well at least you have responded to a question or two from me... that's a start. However, all you've done is level personal insults. Do you have any evidence for your claims?

If you even bothered to read my reply in full, you'd see that nothing there was an attack on your character.

(02-05-2013 09:52 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  The US constitution is the document upon which all of the abuses of power we see today were made possible. In simple terms, using the popular assumption that a document can control a group of people, the US constitution has failed miserably at controlling the size and scope of the federal government, as is evidenced by the government we see today. It has been amended repeatedly and there have been countless scholars who made it their life's work to keep the state in adherence with this document... to no avail. In simple terms, it was broken when it was written. That is, if one is to suppose it was written to protect the proletariat. As it was not written by the proletariat and as it was never signed by any commoner in any part of the US... it could be said that it is and always has been working quite as designed for those who profit through its use.

The U.S constitution was not designed to remain purely stationary for a reason. The governance we observe today was not even conceived in the minds of those who authored it. It was written when the United States was an agrarian society with no industrial development. It would not be eighty years later until the constitution would be drastically changed, with the peoples' consent, to include more "pervasive" things. I already gather that you are against things like income tax (and all tax in general, for that matter), which is something that was first introduced at the time.

But if you would study the constitution, you will also see why it is not broken at all. It accounts for future revision and change, and whether or not you believe that change is in the right direction is irrelevant. If the majority want it, they can change it once again.

(02-05-2013 09:52 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Notice there how I never called into question your level of education, your ability to learn or anything else about you. I don't know anything at all about you or your level of education. I don't know how old you are, your gender, where you've been educated or on what subjects, so how could I accuse you of being uneducated?

Of course you didn't. I am not dismissing decades of sociological and evolutionary study. All one would have to do is read a brief description of the Gilded Age to understand why a strong government, that is not wide open to corporate corruption, is necessary.

(02-05-2013 09:52 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Kindly accord me the same respect and answer the questions I've posed with evidence or at least your own conclusions based on evidence. Or simply don't respond.

Again, you seem to be under the notion that I have some how defaced your character. Because I call you out on your ignorance concerning the basic evolutionary sociology of the human species, and that said ignorance has misguided you to a dangerous conclusion, does not mean that I disrespect you.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 06:44 PM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(02-05-2013 11:05 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If you even bothered to read my reply in full, you'd see that nothing there was an attack on your character.

I read the entire post. Your attacks aren't character assassinations, they're attempts to imply that I am uneducated. I didn't ask how much education you have on this subject because it doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you can bring forth an argument. I don't expect anything more and I won't pretend to debate with someone who calls me ignorant in place of presenting an argument. If I am indeed ignorant, telling me so won't help me. Presenting a well reasoned argument for your position will.

Quote:The U.S constitution was not designed to remain purely stationary for a reason. The governance we observe today was not even conceived in the minds of those who authored it. It was written when the United States was an agrarian society with no industrial development. It would not be eighty years later until the constitution would be drastically changed, with the peoples' consent, to include more "pervasive" things. I already gather that you are against things like income tax (and all tax in general, for that matter), which is something that was first introduced at the time.

That the constitution is a "living" document is completely irrelevant to its efficacy. My argument is that it has failed to constrain the power of the state and the fact is that it has indeed failed to constrain the power of the state.

Quote:But if you would study the constitution, you will also see why it is not broken at all. It accounts for future revision and change, and whether or not you believe that change is in the right direction is irrelevant. If the majority want it, they can change it once again.

I have nine copies of this booklet in my desk drawer right now. I started with a hundred of them and used to pass them out to people when I had occasion. I've read both the constitution and the declaration of independence dozens of times and have studied the bill of rights in great detail. Like an atheist who knows the Bible front to back, knowing the constitution as I do is one of the main reasons why I now speak against it. Your comment about the tyranny of the majority being one of the most important.

Quote:Of course you didn't. I am not dismissing decades of sociological and evolutionary study. All one would have to do is read a brief description of the Gilded Age to understand why a strong government, that is not wide open to corporate corruption, is necessary.

Brief descriptions don't tell the whole story. Reference the comment I made about the Bible. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of history books tell only what happened and not why it happened. Understanding human society requires an understanding of human motivations from a psychological perspective... which is not often a perspective considered by historians and cultural anthropologists.

Quote:Again, you seem to be under the notion that I have some how defaced your character. Because I call you out on your ignorance concerning the basic evolutionary sociology of the human species, and that said ignorance has misguided you to a dangerous conclusion, does not mean that I disrespect you.

You didn't call out my ignorance, you called me ignorant and you implied, without having a shred of information about me, that I haven't studied the things I'm speaking of. Again... if you will present a reasoned argument I'm happy to debate. If you won't, I've other things to busy myself with.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(02-05-2013 06:44 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I read the entire post. Your attacks aren't character assassinations, they're attempts to imply that I am uneducated. I didn't ask how much education you have on this subject because it doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you can bring forth an argument. I don't expect anything more and I won't pretend to debate with someone who calls me ignorant in place of presenting an argument. If I am indeed ignorant, telling me so won't help me. Presenting a well reasoned argument for your position will.

It is of my opinion that if you arrive at the conclusion that the absence of government is both sustainable and ideal, that you are deluded and uneducated.

(02-05-2013 06:44 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That the constitution is a "living" document is completely irrelevant to its efficacy. My argument is that it has failed to constrain the power of the state and the fact is that it has indeed failed to constrain the power of the state.

The conception of the constitution was created prior to the industrial revolution. When privatized industries grew out of agrarian infancy, federal power was required to maintain fairness in the economy. The constitution was designed for said changes. It was purposely vague and subject for change. Saying that it was a failure implies its purpose was to maintain a static purpose when, in fact, it was and is not.

(02-05-2013 06:44 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I have nine copies of this booklet in my desk drawer right now. I started with a hundred of them and used to pass them out to people when I had occasion. I've read both the constitution and the declaration of independence dozens of times and have studied the bill of rights in great detail. Like an atheist who knows the Bible front to back, knowing the constitution as I do is one of the main reasons why I now speak against it. Your comment about the tyranny of the majority being one of the most important.

The tyranny of the majority is among the many reasons a larger republic is ideal, since the purpose of government is to create a fair society. I am also well aware that notion of complete federal control is, of course, flawed and malformed as any extreme, which is why I pledge to creed to any specific authoritarian or libertarian camp.

(02-05-2013 06:44 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Brief descriptions don't tell the whole story. Reference the comment I made about the Bible. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of history books tell only what happened and not why it happened. Understanding human society requires an understanding of human motivations from a psychological perspective... which is not often a perspective considered by historians and cultural anthropologists.

Which is why I have criticized your dismissal of evolutionary sociology.

(02-05-2013 06:44 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  You didn't call out my ignorance, you called me ignorant and you implied, without having a shred of information about me, that I haven't studied the things I'm speaking of. Again... if you will present a reasoned argument I'm happy to debate. If you won't, I've other things to busy myself with.

I implied based on your conclusion. Anarchy is an unsubstantiated extreme with absolutely no evidence of its sustainability.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(03-05-2013 08:21 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The conception of the constitution was created prior to the industrial revolution. When privatized industries grew out of agrarian infancy, federal power was required to maintain fairness in the economy. The constitution was designed for said changes. It was purposely vague and subject for change. Saying that it was a failure implies its purpose was to maintain a static purpose when, in fact, it was and is not.

The stated purpose of the US constitution is to control the power of the state. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not purport to make life fair for anyone or provide opportunities for anyone, save by keeping the state out of their pocketbooks and their personal lives. And again, it has failed miserably.

Quote:The tyranny of the majority is among the many reasons a larger republic is ideal, since the purpose of government is to create a fair society. I am also well aware that notion of complete federal control is, of course, flawed and malformed as any extreme, which is why I pledge to creed to any specific authoritarian or libertarian camp.

The representative republic is worse than direct democracy simply because it is a tyranny the minority, rather than a tyranny of the majority. But in reality, it is none the less a tyranny and thus, none the less tyrannical. From that standpoint, there is no fixing it... no controlling it. It is a tyranny.

Quote:Which is why I have criticized your dismissal of evolutionary sociology.

I don't dismiss evolutionary sociology. I approach it from a psychological standpoint as well as a biological standpoint, which is how it must be approached if it is to be an accurate assessment of human motivation. Evolution does not hold all the answers to all questions.

Quote:I implied based on your conclusion. Anarchy is an unsubstantiated extreme with absolutely no evidence of its sustainability.

That's a baseless statement for which you have provided neither evidence nor a reasoned argument.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
This country is just death to reason.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. -- Anais Nin


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 11:12 AM
RE: SPOA creator's latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science finding
(03-05-2013 09:27 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  The stated purpose of the US constitution is to control the power of the state. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not purport to make life fair for anyone or provide opportunities for anyone, save by keeping the state out of their pocketbooks and their personal lives. And again, it has failed miserably.

The constitution defines the purpose by which the branches of government will operate, which they remain in accordance to. The constitution has been, however, changed over the course of time to compensate for economic developments. If anything is to be criticized, it is the implementation of unregulated free market crony capitalism and its incessant corruption of politicians. As I have said, the issues came with the advent of the industrial revolution and not with the agrarian society it was tailored in.

For all intensive purposes, the constitution has done a remarkably efficient job at maintaining a somewhat balanced federal-state system. It is ridiculous to expect such a parchment to account for all economic developments, which is why it should and is considered to be successful. The basis of the government which we both live under is still subject to change, but is solely dependent on the citizen's actions towards the problems of the era. It is of my personal opinion that a renaissance of the unionized proletariat is all that is required to steer the governments current inconsistent, corrupted voting record back in line. What is remarkable is the continuing polarization of world politics.

(03-05-2013 09:27 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  The representative republic is worse than direct democracy simply because it is a tyranny the minority, rather than a tyranny of the majority. But in reality, it is none the less a tyranny and thus, none the less tyrannical. From that standpoint, there is no fixing it... no controlling it. It is a tyranny.

A direct democracy is completely impractical concerning an entire nation on scale with the United States. A republic would also fall under the tyranny of the majority, even in reality, when one looks upon social and economic issues. The problem of the United States, which was criticized on the eve of the dual party system's conception by the founders of the United States, is total political polarization (which you are a victim of). There is no such thing as leftist politics in the United States.

(03-05-2013 09:27 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I don't dismiss evolutionary sociology. I approach it from a psychological standpoint as well as a biological standpoint, which is how it must be approached if it is to be an accurate assessment of human motivation. Evolution does not hold all the answers to all questions.

I have never said our current understanding of evolution explains every specific detail concerning the social progression of an animal. However, humans are social animals, much like our "wild" brethren. Like other social animals, we create groups designed to spread conformity and order in a natural and instinctual manner.

(03-05-2013 09:31 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  This country is just death to reason.

People who say such things are free to move to any African theocracy when they are ready.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: