The Limitations of Atheism.
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Emeral,
"*Sigh* Yes, but later on when I try to reference Boris's explanation on relativity, or Jehovah's inane ramblings on spacetime (of course, I'm not certain why I would ever want to do such a thing), I would never think to look on the 5th page of the "Limitations of Atheism" thread for it (and I might add that the search engine has proven itself next to worthless time and time again)."
My fear would be the loss of momentum. Boris was on a roll.
------------------
It's all very large.
"*Sigh* Yes, but later on when I try to reference Boris's explanation on relativity, or Jehovah's inane ramblings on spacetime (of course, I'm not certain why I would ever want to do such a thing), I would never think to look on the 5th page of the "Limitations of Atheism" thread for it (and I might add that the search engine has proven itself next to worthless time and time again)."
My fear would be the loss of momentum. Boris was on a roll.
------------------
It's all very large.
Boris,
Here is my attempt at a simplification of your relativity lectures, I doubt my success of accuracy, but if I don’t put it in my own words I won’t be sure I understand it. And I’d appreciate your grading me.
In a nutshell: A unit of time for an object in one frame of reference need not be the same as the unit of time for another object in another frame of reference when the two reference frames are in motion relative to each other. However, within each frame of reference the local unit of time will appear normal.
Comparison of time units between different reference frames: Assume two objects A and B that reside in the same reference frame. B moves away from A at a steady velocity. B is now in a different reference frame. If we could now compare the two different time units from each frame of reference we would see that time unit A is now shorter than time unit B. I.e. time for A now appears to be going faster than time for B. It is also equally valid to state that time for B appears to be going slower than time for A.
The reference to light speed in the discussion is only essential in the respect that it introduces a maximum limit to the time distortion. Changes in relative time units will occur at any speed but at low speeds the magnitude will be close to zero to make the value practically insignificant. The differences increase as speed increases with a maximum difference at light speeds.
Acceleration is not essential to the discussion as that only represents changes in velocity. At any given instant (delta time), whether objects are at a steady velocity or are undergoing acceleration, the time differences will be realized. The real issue is relative motion between two frames of reference.
And that is the end of my homework.
As an aside: Given that light speed is a limit to the maximum speed we can ever attain then to travel between two objects with an apparent speed greater than light speed would require that we change the distance between the two objects. This conclusion gives rise to the science fiction concepts of folding space, or warping space, or hyper space.
Boris, many thanks for your time with this, very much appreciated.
Cris
Here is my attempt at a simplification of your relativity lectures, I doubt my success of accuracy, but if I don’t put it in my own words I won’t be sure I understand it. And I’d appreciate your grading me.
In a nutshell: A unit of time for an object in one frame of reference need not be the same as the unit of time for another object in another frame of reference when the two reference frames are in motion relative to each other. However, within each frame of reference the local unit of time will appear normal.
Comparison of time units between different reference frames: Assume two objects A and B that reside in the same reference frame. B moves away from A at a steady velocity. B is now in a different reference frame. If we could now compare the two different time units from each frame of reference we would see that time unit A is now shorter than time unit B. I.e. time for A now appears to be going faster than time for B. It is also equally valid to state that time for B appears to be going slower than time for A.
The reference to light speed in the discussion is only essential in the respect that it introduces a maximum limit to the time distortion. Changes in relative time units will occur at any speed but at low speeds the magnitude will be close to zero to make the value practically insignificant. The differences increase as speed increases with a maximum difference at light speeds.
Acceleration is not essential to the discussion as that only represents changes in velocity. At any given instant (delta time), whether objects are at a steady velocity or are undergoing acceleration, the time differences will be realized. The real issue is relative motion between two frames of reference.
And that is the end of my homework.
As an aside: Given that light speed is a limit to the maximum speed we can ever attain then to travel between two objects with an apparent speed greater than light speed would require that we change the distance between the two objects. This conclusion gives rise to the science fiction concepts of folding space, or warping space, or hyper space.
Boris, many thanks for your time with this, very much appreciated.
Cris
Cris,
Overall, you got it mostly right. But there seem to be a few hints here and there that you might still be trapped in the absolutist mindset.
The local unit of time <u>is</u> what's normal. There is nothing about it that "appears". By definition, time is measured by an observer in the context of his/her inertial frame.
The units of time in any frame of reference are the same. I.e. even if I'm moving relative to you, then "1 second" means to me exactly what it means to you. The laws and constants of physics as defined in your frame will work in my frame without any alteration, as long as both of our frames are inertial. It's just that if I try to measure the rate at which your clock ticks, I will discover that your second is longer than my second. Simultaneously, you will discover that your second is shorter than my second.
The comparison only holds if the observer who is doing the comparing shares A's frame of reference. If you picture yourself in B's shoes, then you would observe the opposite -- that time for A (and everything else that shares A's reference frame) appears to slow down.
Pretty much correct, except that it is not right to say that there is a "maximum" distortion. Mathematically, there is no maximum. As the velocity of the observed object approaches the speed of light, time dilation approaches infinity. The behavior is similar to 1/x as x approaches 0. At exactly the speed of light, time is not defined at all (it's kind of like division by 0.)
Hmm... Yes and no. Acceleration is very significant, since an accelerating reference frame is no longer inertial. A whole new set of much more complex equations kicks in. The inertial reference frames are merely the simplest case. But it turns out that while acceleration complicates such calculations as figuring out just by how much an accelerating clock will differ from a reference clock at the end of the trajectory, the dilation of time still happens. So in that sense, you are correct.
Yes, that's where the science fiction comes from. But you have to remember several things. First, the only way to warp space, according to general relativity, is by creating large concentrations of matter. In other words, distortions in spacetime are merely gravitational wells. And the only way to produce gravity is to pile up matter or energy. To distort space enough to form a wormhole, for example, you would need as much mass as would go into a black hole of an equivalent size. The masses and energies are mind-boggling, and certainly out of reach even by most optimistic estimates. For example, read Mark Millis' "Warp Drive When?" page at http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
On the other hand, nobody knows exactly how it is that matter or energy produce gravity; it could be that a more efficient process for distorting spacetime could be contrived. Also, the speed of information propagation in spacetime rests with some fundamental properties and behaviors of spacetime. What if a sufficiently knowledgeable and well-equipped civilization could manipulate the properties of spacetime to vastly increase the speed of light in the vicinity of a transportation device? There are many other "if"s, and all I really wanted to point out is that sci-fi concepts dealing with space warps and subspaces are but a narrow slice of all possibilities. And the mere fact that there are so many possibilities speaks eloquently of how poorly we understand the universe even at this "advanced" age.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Overall, you got it mostly right. But there seem to be a few hints here and there that you might still be trapped in the absolutist mindset.
The local unit of time <u>is</u> what's normal. There is nothing about it that "appears". By definition, time is measured by an observer in the context of his/her inertial frame.
The units of time in any frame of reference are the same. I.e. even if I'm moving relative to you, then "1 second" means to me exactly what it means to you. The laws and constants of physics as defined in your frame will work in my frame without any alteration, as long as both of our frames are inertial. It's just that if I try to measure the rate at which your clock ticks, I will discover that your second is longer than my second. Simultaneously, you will discover that your second is shorter than my second.
The comparison only holds if the observer who is doing the comparing shares A's frame of reference. If you picture yourself in B's shoes, then you would observe the opposite -- that time for A (and everything else that shares A's reference frame) appears to slow down.
Pretty much correct, except that it is not right to say that there is a "maximum" distortion. Mathematically, there is no maximum. As the velocity of the observed object approaches the speed of light, time dilation approaches infinity. The behavior is similar to 1/x as x approaches 0. At exactly the speed of light, time is not defined at all (it's kind of like division by 0.)
Hmm... Yes and no. Acceleration is very significant, since an accelerating reference frame is no longer inertial. A whole new set of much more complex equations kicks in. The inertial reference frames are merely the simplest case. But it turns out that while acceleration complicates such calculations as figuring out just by how much an accelerating clock will differ from a reference clock at the end of the trajectory, the dilation of time still happens. So in that sense, you are correct.
Yes, that's where the science fiction comes from. But you have to remember several things. First, the only way to warp space, according to general relativity, is by creating large concentrations of matter. In other words, distortions in spacetime are merely gravitational wells. And the only way to produce gravity is to pile up matter or energy. To distort space enough to form a wormhole, for example, you would need as much mass as would go into a black hole of an equivalent size. The masses and energies are mind-boggling, and certainly out of reach even by most optimistic estimates. For example, read Mark Millis' "Warp Drive When?" page at http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
On the other hand, nobody knows exactly how it is that matter or energy produce gravity; it could be that a more efficient process for distorting spacetime could be contrived. Also, the speed of information propagation in spacetime rests with some fundamental properties and behaviors of spacetime. What if a sufficiently knowledgeable and well-equipped civilization could manipulate the properties of spacetime to vastly increase the speed of light in the vicinity of a transportation device? There are many other "if"s, and all I really wanted to point out is that sci-fi concepts dealing with space warps and subspaces are but a narrow slice of all possibilities. And the mere fact that there are so many possibilities speaks eloquently of how poorly we understand the universe even at this "advanced" age.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Well.....
That was psychedelic, if nothing else...
Dare I say some improvement? Then again, quantity does not equal quality.
Keep trying though. Perhaps one day you'll learn to write coherently and with a particular point in mind. Perhaps then you'll be someone worth talking to.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
That was psychedelic, if nothing else...
Dare I say some improvement? Then again, quantity does not equal quality.
Keep trying though. Perhaps one day you'll learn to write coherently and with a particular point in mind. Perhaps then you'll be someone worth talking to.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Boris,
OK Great. I was intentionally trying to avoid the absolutist perspective, but in retrospect I don’t think I made it as you suspect. I had imagined myself standing outside the universe looking down and then comparing the units of time in the two target reference frames. That seems to be an incorrect and misleading approach. If I read you correctly I can only ‘safely’ compare times between my reference frame and the other, if I could. If I stick to that idea I should be OK, I think.
The relationship between lightspeed and time not being defined is an important new point that I had not realized. This is quite intriguing.
I think for now I have absorbed enough to keep me going for a while. Many many thanks.
Cris
OK Great. I was intentionally trying to avoid the absolutist perspective, but in retrospect I don’t think I made it as you suspect. I had imagined myself standing outside the universe looking down and then comparing the units of time in the two target reference frames. That seems to be an incorrect and misleading approach. If I read you correctly I can only ‘safely’ compare times between my reference frame and the other, if I could. If I stick to that idea I should be OK, I think.
The relationship between lightspeed and time not being defined is an important new point that I had not realized. This is quite intriguing.
I think for now I have absorbed enough to keep me going for a while. Many many thanks.
Cris
That was a good link. I searched for more info on the subject on Special Relativity/Spacetime: <a href = "http://dir.hotbot.lycos.com/Science/Physics/Relativity/Special_Relativity/&MT=special+relativity&RPN=1&SQ=1&TR=67982&AM1=MC"> Maybe this link will work </a>
------------------
It's all very large.
------------------
It's all very large.
Jehovah,
Your pronouncements concerning energy and entropy betray a basic ignorance of physics. I am not going to get involved in this thing with someone who would rather imagine themselves enlightened than actually crack open a textbook. Whatever pseudoscientific trash comes out of you henceforth will get no response from me. If you want a two-sided conversation, I suggest you stick to facts and/or something you are actually competent in.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Your pronouncements concerning energy and entropy betray a basic ignorance of physics. I am not going to get involved in this thing with someone who would rather imagine themselves enlightened than actually crack open a textbook. Whatever pseudoscientific trash comes out of you henceforth will get no response from me. If you want a two-sided conversation, I suggest you stick to facts and/or something you are actually competent in.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
JEHOVAH,
"ps..........I do believe that the idiots in Californiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa will die soon, as they truly are a part of the land of fruits & nuts ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"
The mendacity in CaliPornYa is like a festering disease which both hates itself and desires to spread itself to the north. Just ask the liberals in Washington State.
------------------
It's all very large.
"ps..........I do believe that the idiots in Californiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa will die soon, as they truly are a part of the land of fruits & nuts ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"
The mendacity in CaliPornYa is like a festering disease which both hates itself and desires to spread itself to the north. Just ask the liberals in Washington State.
------------------
It's all very large.
That's right. A festering disease. Self-hating. Damn liberals. 
I guess if we dehumanize our opponents enough and make their description into a swear word, then all our problems will go away and the world will be a better place. Don't you miss the good old Nazi days?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
I guess if we dehumanize our opponents enough and make their description into a swear word, then all our problems will go away and the world will be a better place. Don't you miss the good old Nazi days?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Curious; I have lived in California all my life. (mock if you must). What is it about Californians that merits such disgust and contempt? Personally, I'm glad I live here. First, geographically, we have everything. Second, socially, we have everyone. There are so many types of people here, it's great! All kinds of restaurants, cultures, philosophies, ideaologies, etc. I know that living here has opened my eyes to all kinds of life styles. Not to mention the fact that almost everyone is accepting the various lifestyles. Living here, I've met many gay peple and that is why I know exactly who these people are and what kind of lives they lead. Usually, they are educated, creative, and fun. What is wrong with that? How dare someone be interesting and intelligent!
I can't imagine living in the South or Midwest, where you actually do have to fear for your life if your beliefs are at all different from the majority (usually traditional, fundamentalists). Basically, what I'm looking for are some examples of why you look down upon liberals and homosexuals (I just got out of the "It's ba-ack" string). - Bowser? Jehovah?
As far Liberals go; they are an essential part of the diversity of people. By the way, what is a "Liberal"? We all here them referred to; but what do you consider to be a "Liberal". What political views and actions make someone a "Liberal Wacko"?
I can't imagine living in the South or Midwest, where you actually do have to fear for your life if your beliefs are at all different from the majority (usually traditional, fundamentalists). Basically, what I'm looking for are some examples of why you look down upon liberals and homosexuals (I just got out of the "It's ba-ack" string). - Bowser? Jehovah?
As far Liberals go; they are an essential part of the diversity of people. By the way, what is a "Liberal"? We all here them referred to; but what do you consider to be a "Liberal". What political views and actions make someone a "Liberal Wacko"?
SciGuy--
Being a bleeding liberal from Washington, I'll chime in. Personally, part of the problem is that, outside of California itself, it seems that California = Los Angeles. Bear that idea in mind throughout, however ill-founded.
As property values soared in California in the mid- to late-1980's, we received among us what seemed a veritable exodus of people. At first, this seemed very good for the economy; home starts were up, companies appeared to accommodate new workers, &c. But it quickly goes afoul. Near Seattle, for instance, the biggest image of "Californication" comes in the southern part of the county, in the towns of Kent and Renton. Even in my 27 years, this area was largely dairy land and small-town. Quickly came the townhouses, the condos, and what would eventually be a dividing attitude.
People who escaped California began publicly complaining that the place they came to wasn't enough like California for their tastes. As our property levels skyrocketed (200% on my family's house when I was in high school), and our schools became crowded, some amazing complaints came about.
* We never had problems like this in California schools.
* We never handled things like this in California.
* This isn't how we did it in California.
* It rains too much here. (Which is a crock; after all, as this process continued, I watched Seattle go through a water shortage; things are better now, but the idea of alternate car-washing or lawn-watering days still seems obscene to me.)
With development threatening several local sites of interest (including a heron-nesting ground, &c.), environmentalists responded with growth-reduction measures on the public ballot. They lost, but two things stick with me from that election:
* The argument that a piece of land equals a cash value which is the rightful claim of a property developer (that a strip mall is "worth more" than a certain environmental concern), which was just unfortunate timing since we were fully engaged in the debate over spotted owls.
* The fact that the reduction measures, the grass-roots environmentalists outspent the local opposition, mainly contractors, but were crushingly outspend by a cadre of property developers and financiers from ... you guessed it: California.
But that was 10 years ago. We had great anti-California commercials for potato chips and local beer; my two favorites were a Nalley's commercial for potato chips in which a guy went around carding people for potato chips and making them prove that they weren't California imports, and an "ours-theirs" campaign that parodied Bud Light and "California", as such. You know, "Their dogs" (a toy poodle on a leash belonging to a spandex-clad 40+ idiot-woman), and "Our dogs" (a big red hound sitting in a barn, watching the rain while its flannel-clad masters played basketball and drank Ranier).
Presently, there seems to be a West-coast identity struggle taking place. Portland hates Seattle, but Seattle hates L.A., and San Francisco just sits there, shaking from time to time. I don't understand the current split, except as residual pride. But up here, a recent import (from I don't know where) has began putting stupid ballot measures up here designed to shatter Seattle's transportation and revenue infrastructures. There's also the Redmond-Silicon Valley rivalry.
But Kent and Renton are now the type of towns with rows of condos and townhouses spilling back from the freeway, where there was once trees. In my day, we blamed California for the gang problems we had, instead of blaming the gangs or the inept law enforcement that didn't think a bunch of young undesirables could mess things up too badly.
And, of course, there's the artists. We took a cultural beating up here between '92 and '00. The declared demise of Pearl Jam unofficially ends what started here when Nirvana exploded like an unforked potato. There's something there about having to deal with bad pop bands, with Compton rap, and other contemporary California-based expressions of pop culture, all the while watching your heroes die off and the recording industry eat alive the something-wonderful that blossomed in your backyard. I mean, crap ... after the way California-based music labels handled Grunge, we can rest assured that square-dance music will never dominate the Billboard Top 40 on the grounds that nobody in Los Angeles can get away with selling OshKosh for $400.
But I do have to admit that it puzzles me how the North and South of our coast will find a way to fight. What happened to property values has little to do with what happened to music and art in this town, and so forth. So it seems that as we bring one regionalist dispute to an end, we find another to fill the vacuum because life gets boring otherwise.
I recall reading somewhere that ... was it Paul Provenza, who replaced "Dr Fleischmann" on Northern Exposure? As the show is filmed in the Washington Cascades, well ... so goes the story that as Provenza crossed northward across the California border through the Siskyous, he called his agent on his cel-phone and said: "Guess where I am? I'm leaving California and I may never be back!" Cute, but more of a vignette for gossip columns, I suppose.
Don't know, though ... maybe the reason we fight with California is that it's just too damn easy to pick on Idaho.
Two cents, and then some ...,
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Being a bleeding liberal from Washington, I'll chime in. Personally, part of the problem is that, outside of California itself, it seems that California = Los Angeles. Bear that idea in mind throughout, however ill-founded.
As property values soared in California in the mid- to late-1980's, we received among us what seemed a veritable exodus of people. At first, this seemed very good for the economy; home starts were up, companies appeared to accommodate new workers, &c. But it quickly goes afoul. Near Seattle, for instance, the biggest image of "Californication" comes in the southern part of the county, in the towns of Kent and Renton. Even in my 27 years, this area was largely dairy land and small-town. Quickly came the townhouses, the condos, and what would eventually be a dividing attitude.
People who escaped California began publicly complaining that the place they came to wasn't enough like California for their tastes. As our property levels skyrocketed (200% on my family's house when I was in high school), and our schools became crowded, some amazing complaints came about.
* We never had problems like this in California schools.
* We never handled things like this in California.
* This isn't how we did it in California.
* It rains too much here. (Which is a crock; after all, as this process continued, I watched Seattle go through a water shortage; things are better now, but the idea of alternate car-washing or lawn-watering days still seems obscene to me.)
With development threatening several local sites of interest (including a heron-nesting ground, &c.), environmentalists responded with growth-reduction measures on the public ballot. They lost, but two things stick with me from that election:
* The argument that a piece of land equals a cash value which is the rightful claim of a property developer (that a strip mall is "worth more" than a certain environmental concern), which was just unfortunate timing since we were fully engaged in the debate over spotted owls.
* The fact that the reduction measures, the grass-roots environmentalists outspent the local opposition, mainly contractors, but were crushingly outspend by a cadre of property developers and financiers from ... you guessed it: California.
But that was 10 years ago. We had great anti-California commercials for potato chips and local beer; my two favorites were a Nalley's commercial for potato chips in which a guy went around carding people for potato chips and making them prove that they weren't California imports, and an "ours-theirs" campaign that parodied Bud Light and "California", as such. You know, "Their dogs" (a toy poodle on a leash belonging to a spandex-clad 40+ idiot-woman), and "Our dogs" (a big red hound sitting in a barn, watching the rain while its flannel-clad masters played basketball and drank Ranier).
Presently, there seems to be a West-coast identity struggle taking place. Portland hates Seattle, but Seattle hates L.A., and San Francisco just sits there, shaking from time to time. I don't understand the current split, except as residual pride. But up here, a recent import (from I don't know where) has began putting stupid ballot measures up here designed to shatter Seattle's transportation and revenue infrastructures. There's also the Redmond-Silicon Valley rivalry.
But Kent and Renton are now the type of towns with rows of condos and townhouses spilling back from the freeway, where there was once trees. In my day, we blamed California for the gang problems we had, instead of blaming the gangs or the inept law enforcement that didn't think a bunch of young undesirables could mess things up too badly.
And, of course, there's the artists. We took a cultural beating up here between '92 and '00. The declared demise of Pearl Jam unofficially ends what started here when Nirvana exploded like an unforked potato. There's something there about having to deal with bad pop bands, with Compton rap, and other contemporary California-based expressions of pop culture, all the while watching your heroes die off and the recording industry eat alive the something-wonderful that blossomed in your backyard. I mean, crap ... after the way California-based music labels handled Grunge, we can rest assured that square-dance music will never dominate the Billboard Top 40 on the grounds that nobody in Los Angeles can get away with selling OshKosh for $400.
But I do have to admit that it puzzles me how the North and South of our coast will find a way to fight. What happened to property values has little to do with what happened to music and art in this town, and so forth. So it seems that as we bring one regionalist dispute to an end, we find another to fill the vacuum because life gets boring otherwise.
I recall reading somewhere that ... was it Paul Provenza, who replaced "Dr Fleischmann" on Northern Exposure? As the show is filmed in the Washington Cascades, well ... so goes the story that as Provenza crossed northward across the California border through the Siskyous, he called his agent on his cel-phone and said: "Guess where I am? I'm leaving California and I may never be back!" Cute, but more of a vignette for gossip columns, I suppose.
Don't know, though ... maybe the reason we fight with California is that it's just too damn easy to pick on Idaho.
Two cents, and then some ...,
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Sciguy,
My guess: a "liberal" is anyone who 1) thinks current situation can be improved by changing old policies, 2) refuses to accept grotesque inequality as a necessary evil, 3) rails against attempts at institutional brainwashing, 4) puts the long-term above the short-term, 5) does not long for the "virtues" of laissez-faire capitalism, 6) is not a warmonger, imperialist, or closet autocrat at heart, 7) laughs at the notion of religion as the ultimate source of wisdom and knowledge, 8) does not engage in ancestor worship, 9) respects no authority other than reason, 10) in general, is not one of the following: a) rich greedy bastard who will die rather than earn a meager 10% return on investment as opposed to 100%, b) an idiot dolt who is too lazy or too dim to search out the real facts and too happy to eat propaganda served by rich greedy bastards, c) an opportunistic, parasitic egotist, likes mostly to eat, drink, waste, screw and kill time no matter the consequences -- and is otherwise perfectly happy and content to live like a base pig in compatriots' collective puddle of shit.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 18, 2001).]
My guess: a "liberal" is anyone who 1) thinks current situation can be improved by changing old policies, 2) refuses to accept grotesque inequality as a necessary evil, 3) rails against attempts at institutional brainwashing, 4) puts the long-term above the short-term, 5) does not long for the "virtues" of laissez-faire capitalism, 6) is not a warmonger, imperialist, or closet autocrat at heart, 7) laughs at the notion of religion as the ultimate source of wisdom and knowledge, 8) does not engage in ancestor worship, 9) respects no authority other than reason, 10) in general, is not one of the following: a) rich greedy bastard who will die rather than earn a meager 10% return on investment as opposed to 100%, b) an idiot dolt who is too lazy or too dim to search out the real facts and too happy to eat propaganda served by rich greedy bastards, c) an opportunistic, parasitic egotist, likes mostly to eat, drink, waste, screw and kill time no matter the consequences -- and is otherwise perfectly happy and content to live like a base pig in compatriots' collective puddle of shit.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 18, 2001).]
Jehovah--
So it is--as I have learned from others--with your dog.
I hear Basset hound is tasty in a butter-cream and shallot sauce.
--Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
So it is--as I have learned from others--with your dog.
I hear Basset hound is tasty in a butter-cream and shallot sauce.
--Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
"I guess if we dehumanize our opponents enough and make their description into a swear word, then all our problems will go away and the world will be a better place."
Like..."bigot" or "homophobe?"
"Don't you miss the good old Nazi days?"
They live still, but under guise of a liberal thinker (bigot/heterophobe).
------------------
It's all very large.
Like..."bigot" or "homophobe?"
"Don't you miss the good old Nazi days?"
They live still, but under guise of a liberal thinker (bigot/heterophobe).
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser--
"Faggot", "Nigger", and "Kike", among others, are descriptions made into swear words.
The word bigot refers to someone who believes in the unfounded justifications used to promote these words.
A homophobe is a person who fears homosexuality.
Incidentally, in case you missed it, we figured out a long time ago that there is a definitive connection between unfounded fears about people and bigotry.
Now, I can't help it if the current round of bigots are so out-of-touch with society that they can't see the paradox. We the people who oppose bigotry do so because it is demonstrable through history that society operates better, more harmoniously, and more profitably, when people aren't wasting their time on stupid fears.
Society works better without bigotry, just like it works better without murders, rapes, embezzlements, &c.
We choose to reject bigotry because it is beneficial to do so. Bigots are generally selfish people. So selfish, in fact, that they paradoxically demand double-standards repeatedly. That the society views bigotry as a negative state because history shows that it harms both individuals and the greater human endeavor pretty much supersedes any bigot's argument about rights. One may use their own rights to destroy their own rights; one may not use their own rights to strip away the same rights from others.
This is exactly what I mean when I invoke Angry White Male Syndrome parallels (such as in our other debate in Current Affairs before the election).
What the hell is so hard to understand about the notion that it is not your First Amendment right to force someone to shut the hell up? What is so hard about the idea that "equal protection" does not mean, "protect these people more than these people"?
Homophobia is generally considered unacceptable because it comes down to arbitrary standards. There is yet to arise a compelling enough argument to convince me that homosexuality is negative, much less negative enough to purge by law. Homophobes have no objective reality motivating their fear and resulting bigotry. Homophobes have yet to provide an answer which does not either collapse under scrutiny or indicate wholesale changes in the liberties of all human beings. After about ten years of hearing homophobes prove themselves completely incapable of progressing beyond idiocy, it wears thin.
Bowser, you're just sick. Get help. I'll settle this stupid liberal/conservative idea right now:
* Liberal: We need to do what's best for everyone.
* Conservative: If we let everyone do what's best for their own self, things will work out beautifully.
Conservatives don't care what happens when two interests overlap; hell, just let them fight it out, and blame the gays or the musicians, or Hollywood, or the novelists, or the painters, or the dancers, or anyone else but our conservative selves, for the fact that people are fighting.
Liberals think that sort of thing is fine, but wonder why we don't skip the fighting part that only begets more fighting.
* Liberal: You cannot take away my right to speak freely
* Conservative: That you speak at all is a violation of my free speech rights.
Bowser, I need you to demonstrate how you're serving anyone's rights by deciding who has them or not.
Neither you nor Mabon nor Wildmon nor Schlafly nor Phelps nor sun-moon-or-stars have the right to enforce your own selves at the stake of others.
Of course, I find conservatism to be so conformist, it's entirely possible that conservatives have forgotten the value of being your own self.
* Mabon's conservatism: I demand the right to be an individual so that I might force everyone to conform.
Geez, Bowser, when you get to the point that the liberation of people is a violation of your liberty, you've got serious trouble.
I mean, really: Orwellian propaganda aimed at affecting the development of a state-full of children, defended by the notion that it's brainwashing children to teach them that people are equal, and that society is free.
The Bigot Brigade really needs to pick itself up out of the ditch.
It really needs a new argument; one that has not been stale for a hundred years.
It should look at itself in the mirror; I think if it saw someone else in this condition, it would not respect that person. The behavior of the conservative body-politic is similar to that of an individual with no self-respect. I would even go so far as to pity conservatism, but conservatives have demonstrated that compassion is weakness. Conservatism as a history and as an organic collective have both forfeit their right to sympathy in the arena of human affairs.
Oh, help, the nasty faggot Nazi won't let me hurt him ... can you imagine the nerve of the little pincushion?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 19, 2001).]
"Faggot", "Nigger", and "Kike", among others, are descriptions made into swear words.
The word bigot refers to someone who believes in the unfounded justifications used to promote these words.
A homophobe is a person who fears homosexuality.
Incidentally, in case you missed it, we figured out a long time ago that there is a definitive connection between unfounded fears about people and bigotry.
Now, I can't help it if the current round of bigots are so out-of-touch with society that they can't see the paradox. We the people who oppose bigotry do so because it is demonstrable through history that society operates better, more harmoniously, and more profitably, when people aren't wasting their time on stupid fears.
Society works better without bigotry, just like it works better without murders, rapes, embezzlements, &c.
We choose to reject bigotry because it is beneficial to do so. Bigots are generally selfish people. So selfish, in fact, that they paradoxically demand double-standards repeatedly. That the society views bigotry as a negative state because history shows that it harms both individuals and the greater human endeavor pretty much supersedes any bigot's argument about rights. One may use their own rights to destroy their own rights; one may not use their own rights to strip away the same rights from others.
This is exactly what I mean when I invoke Angry White Male Syndrome parallels (such as in our other debate in Current Affairs before the election).
What the hell is so hard to understand about the notion that it is not your First Amendment right to force someone to shut the hell up? What is so hard about the idea that "equal protection" does not mean, "protect these people more than these people"?
Homophobia is generally considered unacceptable because it comes down to arbitrary standards. There is yet to arise a compelling enough argument to convince me that homosexuality is negative, much less negative enough to purge by law. Homophobes have no objective reality motivating their fear and resulting bigotry. Homophobes have yet to provide an answer which does not either collapse under scrutiny or indicate wholesale changes in the liberties of all human beings. After about ten years of hearing homophobes prove themselves completely incapable of progressing beyond idiocy, it wears thin.
Bowser, you're just sick. Get help. I'll settle this stupid liberal/conservative idea right now:
* Liberal: We need to do what's best for everyone.
* Conservative: If we let everyone do what's best for their own self, things will work out beautifully.
Conservatives don't care what happens when two interests overlap; hell, just let them fight it out, and blame the gays or the musicians, or Hollywood, or the novelists, or the painters, or the dancers, or anyone else but our conservative selves, for the fact that people are fighting.
Liberals think that sort of thing is fine, but wonder why we don't skip the fighting part that only begets more fighting.
* Liberal: You cannot take away my right to speak freely
* Conservative: That you speak at all is a violation of my free speech rights.
Bowser, I need you to demonstrate how you're serving anyone's rights by deciding who has them or not.
Neither you nor Mabon nor Wildmon nor Schlafly nor Phelps nor sun-moon-or-stars have the right to enforce your own selves at the stake of others.
Of course, I find conservatism to be so conformist, it's entirely possible that conservatives have forgotten the value of being your own self.
* Mabon's conservatism: I demand the right to be an individual so that I might force everyone to conform.
Geez, Bowser, when you get to the point that the liberation of people is a violation of your liberty, you've got serious trouble.
I mean, really: Orwellian propaganda aimed at affecting the development of a state-full of children, defended by the notion that it's brainwashing children to teach them that people are equal, and that society is free.
The Bigot Brigade really needs to pick itself up out of the ditch.
It really needs a new argument; one that has not been stale for a hundred years.
It should look at itself in the mirror; I think if it saw someone else in this condition, it would not respect that person. The behavior of the conservative body-politic is similar to that of an individual with no self-respect. I would even go so far as to pity conservatism, but conservatives have demonstrated that compassion is weakness. Conservatism as a history and as an organic collective have both forfeit their right to sympathy in the arena of human affairs.
Oh, help, the nasty faggot Nazi won't let me hurt him ... can you imagine the nerve of the little pincushion?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 19, 2001).]
And P-freakin-S ... How did we land this debate in this forum? (Sorry to everyone else; we'll try to drag it back to its proper battlefield.)
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)