So Palin Doesn't Believe in Evolution...

[peach174]

Oh you mean like the Coelacanth? Thought to have been extinct 65 million years ago? It still exists and is still the same species. Just because man could not find them does not mean that they went extinct.
It has been proven that they did not go extinct.

What does that have to do with anything. It's just a distraction from the real topic, which is the progression of the fossil record through the ages, indicating evolution of species. Is that all you have? Are there any land animals you can point to that shows the same thing? The ocean is a big place and coelocanths probably aren't numerous. That's muxh more likely than any sort of proof that evolution is false.

I believe in adaptation and you don't believe in God. Each of us have that right. Nothing is going to make you believe in God. Same as for me, in evolution.

 

[konradv]

Valid point Kaz.. the left is constantly imposing their beliefs on us under the notion that it is for the common good. IF you speak out it inevitably turns into...

What idiot wouldn't support _________________________? You fill in the blank.

Now I know this statement will anger you as you believe your ideology is perfect, but the right also impose their beliefs on the ground that it is for the common good, thus the term ideology.

plural ide·ol·o·gies
Definition of IDEOLOGY
1: visionary theorizing
2a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

Ideology - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I agree. That's why I'm libertarian. I don't want government in my wallet or my bedroom.

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

 

[gekaap]

I believe in adaptation of species that can mate to become other species, like polar bears and grizzles, that is starting a new species right now. Monkeys and apes can't not mate with humans.

Listen, peach, you REALLY need to gain a basic knowledge and understanding about biology. Polar bears and Grizzly bears are two entirely different species. If you mate them together (and there's no guarantee that such an effort would even produce an offspring, but you can try) the result would be a hybrid. Hybrids are inter species replications. By virtue of their mixed species breeding they are sterile. That's why you can never breed to mules to get more mules. That's why a dog/wolf hybrid cannot be bred to another animal. They do not have the capability of reproducing.

Humans, are just as capable of producing hybrids with other species as any other animal. However, as best as I know, no meaningful attempt has ever been made to do so. No doubt there are significant ethical implications involved.

You need to read up on what has happened in Alaska. One guy was in trouble for shooting a polar bear grizzly mix (hybrid). They have found quite a few of them up there lately.

Go back and read what I said carefully. Yes, polars and grizzlies can mate and create hybrids. But those hybrids cannot themselves mate and give rise to a new species. They are sterile and without the biological capability of reproducing. I understand where you're going. You're proposing that various species of bears could hybridize and "evolve" new species of bears. But that is not possible, because hybrids are always sterile.

All dogs come from wolf's

So you admit to the occurrence of evolution.

 

[konradv]

Oh you mean like the Coelacanth? Thought to have been extinct 65 million years ago? It still exists and is still the same species. Just because man could not find them does not mean that they went extinct.
It has been proven that they did not go extinct.

What does that have to do with anything. It's just a distraction from the real topic, which is the progression of the fossil record through the ages, indicating evolution of species. Is that all you have? Are there any land animals you can point to that shows the same thing? The ocean is a big place and coelocanths probably aren't numerous. That's muxh more likely than any sort of proof that evolution is false.

I believe in adaptation and you don't believe in God. Each of us have that right. Nothing is going to make you believe in God. Same as for me, in evolution.

When did I say I didn't believe in God? I believe God set the ground rules when He said, "Let there be light"(The Big Bang). Everything after that was evolution based on the Laws of Nature that were set down.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Now I know this statement will anger you as you believe your ideology is perfect, but the right also impose their beliefs on the ground that it is for the common good, thus the term ideology.

plural ide·ol·o·gies
Definition of IDEOLOGY
1: visionary theorizing
2a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

Ideology - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I agree. That's why I'm libertarian. I don't want government in my wallet or my bedroom.

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Where does libertarianism say they don't expect the strong to prey on the weak? That happens in every form of money-ism including capitalism. Any libertarian who says that wouldn't happen is an idiot, however I've never heard one claim it wouldn't.

 

[gekaap]

I believe in adaptation and you don't believe in God. Each of us have that right. Nothing is going to make you believe in God. Same as for me, in evolution.

So you admit your closed mindedness. You're unwilling to allow any amount of evidence to matter. You will reject any amount of evidence in favor of preserving your current position, which subsequently means that said current position is not based in evidence, but dogma.

 

[konradv]

I agree. That's why I'm libertarian. I don't want government in my wallet or my bedroom.

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Where does libertarianism say they don't expect the strong to prey on the weak? That happens in every form of money-ism including capitalism. Any libertarian who says that wouldn't happen is an idiot, however I've never heard one claim it wouldn't.

Then why is it constantly touted? Sounds like a philosophy that needs to thrown on the trash pile of history along with Marxism. Maybe that doesn't bother you because you think you'd be one of the strong, but usually there's always someone stronger. What would a libertarian do about the situation, if a strong government and "men with guns knocking on your door" are such anathemas?

 

[editec]

So Palin Doesn't Believe in Evolution...

If I had to live insider her head?

I wouldn't either.

 

[kaz]

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Liberalism is based on the lie that people will act in other people's interest. Libertarianism is based on the truth they will act in their own. Liberalism is based on the lie that people in government will protect you. Government cannot protect you from the strong without inherently becoming the strong you need protection from. As is happening in spades.

Libertarianism IS human nature. People act in their own interest. The worst solution is giving government the power to remove choice when government is comprised of people acting in their own interest. The best solution is choice. And choice is libertarianism.

 

[konradv]

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Liberalism is based on the lie that people will act in other people's interest. Libertarianism is based on the truth they will act in their own. Liberalism is based on the lie that people in government will protect you. Government cannot protect you from the strong without inherently becoming the strong you need protection from. As is happening in spades.

Libertarianism IS human nature. People act in their own interest. The worst solution is giving government the power to remove choice when government is comprised of people acting in their own interest. The best solution is choice. And choice is libertarianism.

Sure people act in their own interest. Therefore, your rights would be anything I say they are, if I'm stronger. What's a libertarian government going to do about it, anyway, isuue a strongly worded note? Your self interest isn't necessarily mine, which is why we have government, to sort those things out. It's not the greatest system, but preferable to the alternative, imo, which would be a new sort of feudalism where the weak seek out the protection of the strong that government no longer provides.

 

[peach174]

What does that have to do with anything. It's just a distraction from the real topic, which is the progression of the fossil record through the ages, indicating evolution of species. Is that all you have? Are there any land animals you can point to that shows the same thing? The ocean is a big place and coelocanths probably aren't numerous. That's muxh more likely than any sort of proof that evolution is false.

I believe in adaptation and you don't believe in God. Each of us have that right. Nothing is going to make you believe in God. Same as for me, in evolution.

When did I say I didn't believe in God? I believe God set the ground rules when He said, "Let there be light"(The Big Bang). Everything after that was evolution based on the Laws of Nature that were set down.

Sorry, I thought you said you were an atheist in another thread somewhere.

 

[VaYank5150]

Gov. Palin doesn't believe in evolution and, like Bush, is a Christian. I know the left will cry that her beliefs is a threat to liberty and the separation of church and state but look at the first amendment and it starts out with "Congress shall pass no law...". This specifically refers to the actions that the congress can't do and that is pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion or....(you know the rest).

Her expressing her religious beliefs is not passing a law that would bind anyone into obedience to her faith which frees anyone to have disagreeing beliefs. However, the left seems not to realize this and thinks that the personality of the president somehow influences the citizen in such a way that has almost as much power as legal law which is why they decry "separation of church and state" over the idea that a president can have or even express religious beliefs that they themselves may not want to embrace.

Does this not say something about the mentality of our political thinking where the will and personality of the leader becomes as powerful as any law that is passed?

You know you could've just stopped at "So?"

 

[Dr.Drock]

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Where does libertarianism say they don't expect the strong to prey on the weak? That happens in every form of money-ism including capitalism. Any libertarian who says that wouldn't happen is an idiot, however I've never heard one claim it wouldn't.

Then why is it constantly touted? Sounds like a philosophy that needs to thrown on the trash pile of history along with Marxism. Maybe that doesn't bother you because you think you'd be one of the strong, but usually there's always someone stronger. What would a libertarian do about the situation, if a strong government and "men with guns knocking on your door" are such anathemas?

Name a government or money-ism where the strong don't take advantage of the weak.

The point is it's impossible, like you said you can't change human traits, so you make the best you can with a flawed species.

 

[kaz]

Libertarianism is also an ideology. Interestingly it has the same basic flaw as Marxism, i.e. it requires a basic change in human nature to work! Marxists expect everyone to work for the common good, forgetting that without relatively immediate rewards, many will not work very hard or at all. Libertarians expect most transactions to happen on a person-to-pewrson basis with little, if any, interference from government, forgetting that inevitably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Liberalism is based on the lie that people will act in other people's interest. Libertarianism is based on the truth they will act in their own. Liberalism is based on the lie that people in government will protect you. Government cannot protect you from the strong without inherently becoming the strong you need protection from. As is happening in spades.

Libertarianism IS human nature. People act in their own interest. The worst solution is giving government the power to remove choice when government is comprised of people acting in their own interest. The best solution is choice. And choice is libertarianism.

Sure people act in their own interest. Therefore, your rights would be anything I say they are, if I'm stronger. What's a libertarian government going to do about it, anyway, isuue a strongly worded note?

Still not clicking with this? A libertarian government would do nothing. What the stronger can't do is remove your choice to walk across the street to their competitor. Only government can do that.

Your self interest isn't necessarily mine, which is why we have government, to sort those things out.

That's why liberals have government. To sort our both our interests and make a choice for both of us that remarkably ends up being the choice that's in government's interest.

A libertarian totally agrees our self interests aren't the same. So we give both of us the right to make our own choice.

It's not the greatest system, but preferable to the alternative, imo, which would be a new sort of feudalism where the weak seek out the protection of the strong that government no longer provides.

Our making our own choices in a free market is feudalism? Why exactly can't we both be free to make our own choice? How is it more advanced for one choice to need to be made for us both?

 

[konradv]

Where does libertarianism say they don't expect the strong to prey on the weak? That happens in every form of money-ism including capitalism. Any libertarian who says that wouldn't happen is an idiot, however I've never heard one claim it wouldn't.

Then why is it constantly touted? Sounds like a philosophy that needs to thrown on the trash pile of history along with Marxism. Maybe that doesn't bother you because you think you'd be one of the strong, but usually there's always someone stronger. What would a libertarian do about the situation, if a strong government and "men with guns knocking on your door" are such anathemas?

Name a government or money-ism where the strong don't take advantage of the weak.

The point is it's impossible, like you said you can't change human traits, so you make the best you can with a flawed species.

Of course they will. I just don't believe in endorsing a philosophy that makes it easier for them.

 

[kaz]

Where does libertarianism say they don't expect the strong to prey on the weak? That happens in every form of money-ism including capitalism. Any libertarian who says that wouldn't happen is an idiot, however I've never heard one claim it wouldn't.

Then why is it constantly touted? Sounds like a philosophy that needs to thrown on the trash pile of history along with Marxism. Maybe that doesn't bother you because you think you'd be one of the strong, but usually there's always someone stronger. What would a libertarian do about the situation, if a strong government and "men with guns knocking on your door" are such anathemas?

Name a government or money-ism where the strong don't take advantage of the weak.

The point is it's impossible, like you said you can't change human traits, so you make the best you can with a flawed species.

Exactly, and with liberalism there is one all powerfully strong central government removing our choice and making our decisions for us. To desire that over a market of the strong who have to compete is inane.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Then why is it constantly touted? Sounds like a philosophy that needs to thrown on the trash pile of history along with Marxism. Maybe that doesn't bother you because you think you'd be one of the strong, but usually there's always someone stronger. What would a libertarian do about the situation, if a strong government and "men with guns knocking on your door" are such anathemas?

Name a government or money-ism where the strong don't take advantage of the weak.

The point is it's impossible, like you said you can't change human traits, so you make the best you can with a flawed species.

Of course they will. I just don't believe in endorsing a philosophy that makes it easier for them.

That's where we disagree.

Socialist governments and pseudo-capitalist/fascist governments (like we have in the US) rely on government to "make things more fair" and regulate companies who they are consistently bribed by.

I prefer to rely on individual men and women than rely on government to do what's right. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the system I'd prefer.

 

[kaz]

Then why is it constantly touted? Sounds like a philosophy that needs to thrown on the trash pile of history along with Marxism. Maybe that doesn't bother you because you think you'd be one of the strong, but usually there's always someone stronger. What would a libertarian do about the situation, if a strong government and "men with guns knocking on your door" are such anathemas?

Name a government or money-ism where the strong don't take advantage of the weak.

The point is it's impossible, like you said you can't change human traits, so you make the best you can with a flawed species.

Of course they will. I just don't believe in endorsing a philosophy that makes it easier for them.

Actually you believe in the ultimate in what you oppose. One, single, all powerful entity making all our choices for us. You just can't logically process what you're saying. You see government as a kindergarten teacher, kind, making sure all it's citizens work and play together. That is just completely and utterly the opposite of the obvious truth if you look at the dragon you are creating. The dragon which is the ultimate in what you oppose. An enforcer of choice, but unlike my system removed from competition and with guns to enforce obedience.

 

[kaz]

I prefer to rely on individual men and women than rely on government to do what's right. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the system I'd prefer.

OMG, that's hate speech. You are so racist. Rush Limbaugh is programming you

 

[konradv]

Liberalism is based on the lie that people will act in other people's interest. Libertarianism is based on the truth they will act in their own. Liberalism is based on the lie that people in government will protect you. Government cannot protect you from the strong without inherently becoming the strong you need protection from. As is happening in spades.

Libertarianism IS human nature. People act in their own interest. The worst solution is giving government the power to remove choice when government is comprised of people acting in their own interest. The best solution is choice. And choice is libertarianism.

Sure people act in their own interest. Therefore, your rights would be anything I say they are, if I'm stronger. What's a libertarian government going to do about it, anyway, isuue a strongly worded note?

Still not clicking with this? A libertarian government would do nothing. What the stronger can't do is remove your choice to walk across the street to their competitor. Only government can do that.

Your self interest isn't necessarily mine, which is why we have government, to sort those things out.

That's why liberals have government. To sort our both our interests and make a choice for both of us that remarkably ends up being the choice that's in government's interest.

A libertarian totally agrees our self interests aren't the same. So we give both of us the right to make our own choice.

It's not the greatest system, but preferable to the alternative, imo, which would be a new sort of feudalism where the weak seek out the protection of the strong that government no longer provides.

Our making our own choices in a free market is feudalism? Why exactly can't we both be free to make our own choice? How is it more advanced for one choice to need to be made for us both?

Walk across the street? You're assuming there's one to walk to. Sorry, I drove them out of business, you're going to have to deal with me.

What free market? That's only amongst equals. I didn't say someone has to make a choice for you, but if unelected people have too much power, you don't get choice either. At least with democratic government you get the opportunity to vote the bums out. With great wealth and its power handed down through the generations, how are the vast majority supposed to substantially better their life style when the powerful put up roadblocks in order to preserve their own wealth?