Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2016 - 03:16 pm:
Come on Reep, ya gotta let them smoke weed!
I read "Brave New World" when I was?6? or 7.
Still a good read. Still a dire warning.
In the novel, the government just issued free recreational drugs. "Soma". Great buzz, mild hang over, hard to OD on.
Oh, they still had booze, but you had to pay for that. The idea was keeping the lower classes stoned greatly reduced the problem of them being bored and rioting.
The concept of Class was in a way a parody of Maxist Bull crap and a very real thing since the entire society was mass produced genetically engineered people. You were born an Alpha or Beta or Gamma or... and while in the artificial womb were fed differing amounts of oxygen & nutrients to stunt or encourage your mental & physical growth. In this case the mass produced lower classes were actually lesser people. By design & nurturing. Children raised in Creches with constant propaganda..... "it takes a Village".
Oh, and when the Revolution enlightenment happened, they knocked the tops off all the crosses to make them "T"s. In honor of the Father of Mass Production. They even swore By Ford.
I'm constantly reminded how bad the education system is. How woefully ignorant of the past people are.
The current trend is to, in 1984 fashion, erase the past by never teaching it.
And 1984 is almost the First book they don't want you to read. And it sucks and it's depressing and there should be trigger warnings..... F*&^ NO! No trigger warnings for the perpetually idiotic. You are SUPPOSED to be shocked and alarmed when they lie and torture.
Oh, no, don't make kids read Huckleberry Finn! It's RACIST!.. No Sheet Sherlock, did you READ it? It's ALL ABOUT racism.
And Brave New World... Ok... maybe the author smoked a lot of hashish. So what? It was the age of Absinth. You better know what's going to happen when you are encouraged to have your children built to order. See also the movie "Gattaca".
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2016 - 05:50 pm:
Aesquire, I'm guessing you still haven't read Signature In The Cell. Is it really dishonest when the science really does point to there being an intelligent design, and not random events? When you look at your Buell, do you see the difference between strategic engineering vs. random happenstance?
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2016 - 06:48 pm:
Sifo, this is the Hillary Clinton is the Result of Evolution thread. Where we point out that no God would create such a dishonest person so it must be an adaptation to an environment. ( circles 4, 8 & 9 of Hell )
What you refer to is The God Of The Gaps.
We have a small understanding of how stuff works. We can speculate on the Why. We posit Rules that make things work as we observe them.. which is as close to Why as Science can get... and still, always begs the Question.
So we Know, fairly surely, "you can see it happen" that IF we assume certain rules then stuff on a medium size scale works predictably. Bigger? not so much. Smaller? WTF?
I'm not in the "it just happened" camp across the board. There is some obvious validity to "survival of the fittest".
( Long Boring Science Lesson Deleted )
Science is in essence, the notion that you make a guess, then test it. If it's wrong, you make a new guess, your old one is invalid. But reality isn't always that cut and dried. You can be right on part of your guess, and wrong on others.
People can go hundreds of years relying on a theory, and it works for them. Physics is FULL of that sort of thing. On a limited basis, X was right.
I don't need more than Newtonian Physics to shoot a cannon a few miles. If I want to hit Pluto? I'd better include the special cases from Einstein to not miss. If I want to move one atom? Newton doesn't help that much.
I fully appreciate the Glory that is Life and the Complexity beyond random chance. I just don't know, scientifically, how it happens.
If you insist that The Great Experimenter has the Universe as a Lab experiment.....or a leftover in his Cosmic Fridge that went bad, either one, you can argue the logic all day long. You can be convincing. I may even agree that you have an elegant idea. But I can't Prove it, or Disprove it, by experiment. So it aint science. It's faith.
That's ok. There is, and should be a difference.
I can agree that is is highly unlikely that THIS just happened. Must be Divine Intervention.
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2016 - 08:16 pm:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2016 - 10:07 pm:
I always loved that one.
It's a sly commentary on the ( I think Jesuit ) argument that not only can you not prove God Exists... ( true ) you can't prove God Doesn't Exist ( also true ) but furthermore, There CAN'T be proof that God Exists. ( which is a fallacious argument meant, really, to get kids to shut up and study )
There is no real disconnect between men of science and faith. There is a separation between what we understand and the true nature of all. When we get that figured out, If we can, I suspect there will be no real difference... But this week? Not so much.
A Communist Revolutionary Cry to slaughter the Aristocracy... or tax them. ( It is a gentler time I suppose ) With the Classic bad math that claims to solve the worlds problems by taking it from the rich... when it never works that way and the people that work for a living have to pay the freight, as always.
I'd love to have mind control powers just long enough to take over the minions in the press corps at an Obama press stroking.
"But that's an outright lie, respectfully, Mr. President. You deliberately covered up multiple felonies and committed several criminal, impeachable acts. Felonies others go to prison for."
OTOH I'd hate to be responsible for some minion committing suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head 5 times.
Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2016 - 09:56 am:
We wont get to hear her policy.... if she has a cough attach... or a head spasm, or fainting spell.... (and she will). No body care anymore about her/his policies.... they only want their candidate to look good so they can feel good that they are voting the right person in their mind. I don't like either but Trump will win, I predict he may double-cross "some" of his voters in the future, with a few policy changes but most will be happy-ish. It would be deplorable to vote Hillary into the Whitehouse.
Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2016 - 10:59 am:
While I tend to agree .... I think Trump....although looking better in recent polls ..... will struggle to prevail in an election where the count is subject to chicanery.
I suspect this years "post election" mess will make "hanging chads" laughable.
Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2016 - 12:29 pm:
Multiple cases where the percentage win for Hillary was the same. Exactly. All places Bernie was leading in exit polls. Pretty much a given that fraud will be the Nov-Dec news.
All CNN will report is Trump's people robbed the vote from blacks & immigrants.
As if it wasn't apparent before. It just becomes more and more clear that the fix was in for Hillary at the FBI. If Trump gets elected, I think he needs to clean house of virtually every major government department. They have all become political, and bear no resemblance to what they are supposed to be. If Hillary gets elected, our government will just fall deeper into the abyss of corruption.
I'm not sure if my condemnation of Amazon on this is going to be limited to Clinton's book. If they are going to fiddle with the reviews of a book they sell, will they not fiddle with reviews on anything they sell? Is it restricted to politics, or is it a standard business practice for them? Either way, they deserve strong condemnation IMO.