User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 21, 2014 at 6:28pm

    “I say that if we once crushed fascism from without … we can sure as hell crush it from within.”
    Oh the IRONY! XD

    In reply to the contribution Liberals Announce Plan to 'Purge' Christians

    Responses (1) +
  • April 21, 2014 at 6:21pm

    “2. The planet has experienced times when the CO2 levels were 50 times greater than the present level and survived just fine.”
    Well the planet survived–it mattered quite a bit to the life present then, and such an environment would have a devastating effect upon life today, which includes US (a form of life adapted to THIS level of CO2 in the atmosphere, not a level fifty times greater), adapted as it is for DRASTICALLY different conditions.

    So yeah, the planet, and SOME forms of life, will almost certainly survive whatever the aggregate consequences of our influence upon the planet’s ecology turns out to be–the more urgent question that we are concerned with is whether WE can survive those same consequences.

    Responses (5) +
  • April 21, 2014 at 6:17pm

    “Millions of people throughout sub Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia starved from having no way to preserve food. Millions more died from eating rancid meat.

    Billions of dollars and millions of deaths later, here is what we know.

    1. The ultraviolet rays that are filtered out by ozone – UV-B – are not the rays that cause skin cancers. The rays, that do affect skin – UV-A – are unaffected by ozone filtration.

    2. Ozone is not a chemical reaction, but a result of atmospheric dynamics.”
    Same problem with the analysis here–freon or no, people should have enough nutritious food to sustain them. And with or without freon, it’s quite apparent that some people are able to enjoy MORE than sufficient nutritious food to sustain themselves, while others are not. So the real problem is clearly REGARDLESS of the use of freon, why are SOME people able to get sufficiently nutritious food but not OTHERS?

    Responses (4) +
  • April 21, 2014 at 6:14pm

    “In response to Carson’s theory, politicians acted swiftly to save eagles and children. DDT was outlawed. This caused politicians to feel good, but it also contributed to the return of malaria, particularly in poor nations.

    Millions of deaths later, here is what we know.

    1. In 2010 alone nearly 220 million people were infected with malaria and 660,000 died, mostly in Africa.

    2. After 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, The World Health Organization has reversed its position and is telling those living in areas at risk of malaria to paint the inside walls of their home or hut with DDT”
    Which ignores the REAL problem–why such RADICAL disparity of resources between certain “nations’” and others (as with the right resources, apparently the consequences of malaria can apparently be addressed without resort to DDT–as the so-called first world still has it largely outlawed and still largely doesn’t have a malaria problem). If the division of resources were more equitable, NO ONE would have to deal with curable disease causing immense gratuitous suffering and death, and NO ONE would have to resort to DDT to enjoy this result. But conservatives aren’t interested in real solutions to the problems impairing the real welfare of real humans–they’re interested in a nationalistic red herring to distract from the real causes of human suffering at home and abroad, so they can peddle their snake-oil and maintain their privilege.

    Responses (12) +
  • April 21, 2014 at 5:55pm

    It’s also quite hypocritical for such private rights absolutists as modern American conservatives to denounce the results of PRECISELY the only avenue for political expression conservatives deem legitimate–individual choice. It was PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS that put the pressure on Mozilla for Eich to step down, because of what they PRIVATELY believed. This is EXACTLY the same right conservatives think should be the consumers’ ONLY remedy to lawful business practices they disagree with. Conservatives need to learn the difference between their right to have their views, and a right to have their views accepted as legitimate by society writ large (a “right” no one has because it is a privilege, that’s earned, not a right). Conservatives have every right to form and have their views, insomuch as any of us do, but like all of us, merely holding those views does not ensure their acceptance by others or automatically entitle them to serious consideration when setting policy or endorsing cultural values. The fact that the conservative view isn’t being treated as de facto “the” legitimate or default view, or the only acceptable view, is NOT the same as being oppressed for having that view–any more than the fact that many people reject that way of viewing the world is “oppression” of those expounding it.

    In reply to the contribution Liberals Announce Plan to 'Purge' Christians

    Responses (1) +
  • April 21, 2014 at 5:40pm

    “They were always deadly serious about criminalizing Christianity and killing free speech, but now the American left has stopped pretending otherwise.”
    LOL–were we always “deadly serious” about criminalizing Christianity? That’s funny, because I certainly don’t think Christianity should be criminalized (a ridiculous thing to think one could attempt to enforce besides), and I’m about as radical as they get–and no one I know on the Left, whether they share my hostility to religion or not, in endorsing (in practice OR theory) an idea as absurd as criminalizing a religion, let alone the majority religion of America. Would many of us, me at least, certainly PREFER if religious adherents reexamined their beliefs and their bases, or lack thereof, for the same? Absolutely! But are we so deluded as to think criminalizing those beliefs, even if realistically feasible, would result in that reexamination? Of course not–prior to Mr. Barber, I hadn’t seen anyone living seriously propose that as a possibility.

    In reply to the contribution Liberals Announce Plan to 'Purge' Christians

    Responses (1) +
  • April 21, 2014 at 5:35pm

    “Did Christians Really Steal the Idea of Easter and Jesus’ Resurrection From Pagans?”
    ‘STEAL’ is such a STRONG word–I prefer to think they were influenced by, and borrowed from, preexisting beliefs and myths in shaping their own…not unlike ANY belief system.

  • April 21, 2014 at 5:33pm

    Nobody is going to care that the casing is still on–it’s a stylized political poster.

  • April 19, 2014 at 2:18pm

    Dying people lie all the time–or they’re delusional, because they’re DYING…

    God, people and their credulous idiocy…

  • April 19, 2014 at 2:15pm

    The problem is you’re projecting your (human) notions of what it means to “rule” or “control” and your belief that you have that onto reality–a reality that doesn’t necessarily reflect your beliefs about it. You say all that–but we could be wiped out by an undiscovered (or mutated from a preexisting discovered) microscopic life-form tomorrow, or one of thousands of other possible fatal events we know could happen (and even have happened before on Earth–we would not be the first massive and sudden extinction)–who is superior, and who is really “in control”? Is “control” even something that means something real, beyond just vague feelings we have about a certain state of affairs (i.e. a FEELING of “control”)?

    Evolution, properly understood, like all science is humbling–religion is always self-aggrandizing.

  • April 19, 2014 at 2:07pm

    lol

  • April 19, 2014 at 2:06pm

    “Well, one certainly wouldn’t want to be part of a fringe group. Considering that “46 percent of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form; 15 percent believe humans evolved without God’s guidance” ”
    (1) Yes–sad but true.
    (2) Although many Americans (WAY too many) deny evolution was sufficient to bring about human existence from the first forms of life, VERY FEW of them would go as far as Ken Ham’s ilk and declare BOTH that the Earth and cosmos (presumably) could only be thousands of years old (as opposed to billions) AND that evolution is COMPLETELY untrue, and that all species sprung into existence as they are. MOST Americans who deny the sufficiency of evolution would claim some vague and confused (like their understanding of the theory of evolution, and arguably science writ large) compatibilist belief that evolution happened, and happened over a long time, but happened with and needed God’s intervention.

  • April 19, 2014 at 1:52pm

    You and your FACTS–Ken Ham is so clearly not interested in those, so why don’t you just take them somewhere they matter, like a science classroom.

    ;D

  • April 19, 2014 at 1:51pm

    “Ham went on to write that he believes Nye is purposefully trying to get the public to see his organization as “some sort of cultic fringe group.””
    Those are your words, not his–and they’re surprisingly (coming from the speaker they are) accurate.

    And sorry if Nye didn’t realize a (Christian) CREATIONIST APOLOGIST who is head of, among other things, a website called ANSWERS IN GENESIS wasn’t a “religious” leader (I think he can be forgiven in such a situation where ANY of us could have been confused about the religious leadership credentials Ham is claiming…or disclaiming). XD

  • April 19, 2014 at 1:46pm

    The freedom of speech has never protected things like defamation, or outright falsehoods. It protects good-faith acts of expression (one’s which the person making them sincerely and reasonably believes are congruent with the truth and with the proper course of action). People who purposefully lie to defraud others are not protected. People who defame the reputation of others, publishing wild claims and accusations widely with little to no regard for even minimally reasonable standards for verification of veracity of those claims, are not protected. People whose speech is part of a criminal act (like declaring “hijack” on a plane, or ordering someone’s murder) are not protected.

    It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch, and it’s certainly something I can live with, to say that this individual and his organization’s “right” to spread lies which his organization either MUST know are lies, or else would know are lies if it had bothered with even the most cursory attempt to verify the accuracy of its claims, are not protected–or worth protecting.

    In reply to the contribution Rejecting Canada's Anti-Free Speech Practices

    Responses (2) +
  • April 19, 2014 at 1:36pm

    “LaBarbera holds to a firm Biblical view of homosexuality and marriage and, as you might expect, has many secular critics.”
    He’s also head of an organization that knowingly, or at least with flagrant disregard for whether or not it is true, disseminates misinformed false propaganda about non-heterosexuals. Canada could execute him (not saying they SHOULD) and the human race would be net better off. It’s CERTAINLY within Canada’s right to refuse the little fascist entry into their country–Canada isn’t the US, and while a facade of national sovereignty remains, it’s totally Canada’s prerogative to determine its own laws and its own rules for permitting or denying individuals entry into it (not unlike conservatives usually argue America is entitled to), and if Canada happens to have less tolerance for letting fascists run amok in its borders than we do, then more power to it–if only those monopolizing power in our country had half as much concern about our welfare as the Canadian government apparently does for its own society.

    In reply to the contribution Rejecting Canada's Anti-Free Speech Practices

    Responses (2) +
  • April 19, 2014 at 1:28pm

    “#ImmigrationReform indicated strong support for amnesty, but organic chatter was slim as were individual accounts tweeting support. In other words, it was the same handful of people or groups re-tweeting news content that supported their positions. While it requires a deeper look, the top line analysis indicates that individual Americans are solidly opposed to amnesty in greater numbers than those that support.”
    …based upon a narrow survey of Twitter hastags at a particular time. No wonder conservatives have a hard time with science–they have such a piss-poor understanding of what evidence is sufficient to constitute reasonably satisfactory “proof” of a claim!

    Responses (2) +
  • April 19, 2014 at 1:19pm

    “Then again, there is no guarantee that those latter two groups, left to their own devices, would have ensured tens of millions of Democrat votes for generations. But unions sure can.

    Having the newly legalized owe you their livelihood is a pretty easy way to own their vote. Not to mention the votes of those dependent on them. And if that is your goal, what better weapon to have in your arsenal than labor unions?”
    Recent immigrants, legal or no, have a strong preference for voting Democrat (as the general trend). So you can pretend that the GOP is this principled group whose only concern is ensuring immigration is lawful, not self-interested politics with peoples’ livelihoods, but the fact of the matter is that legal immigration hurts the GOP just as bad, if not worse (since they legally can, and are statistically far more likely to, vote), than illegal immigration. Thus they can hardly characterize themselves either as the party of immigrants, or even a pro-immigrant party–at least, not while retaining their current policies. In other words, amnesty for current illegals or no, immigration reform that makes it substantially easier for immigrants to America legally will be as fatal to the GOP if they stay their course politically–the GOP you want, must of NECESSITY be an anti-immigrant party through and through, despite pathetically obvious attempts to smokescreen them as only against “illegal” immigration.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 2:45pm

    The significance of all that is that not all “rules” of legislative procedure have the same effect for noncompliance–SOME are much more clearly relevant to the validity of laws passed by the legislature under its procedures (like quorum, etc.), than others (like time for floor debate, etc.). The noncompliance with ONE is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be found to invalidate a law than noncompliance with ANOTHER.

    It’s true, the point I was making goes beyond this case (which indeed as you point out the conservatives lose regardless, because even IF the rules they argued were violated were essential enough to have the legal force to invalidate a law that otherwise complied with rules of legislative process, they WEREN’T in FACT violated because the waiver of them by Cuomo was found to be effective by the judge) to hypothetical scenarios were rules of like kind were violated IN ABSENCE of any waiver. I was mainly trying to explain the distinction between the kinds of legislative procedure rules which the legislature adopts for their own administrative convenience, and the kind which are, in fact, fatal to the validity of a law if not complied with–and trying to clarify to those who might not know, that not EVERY technical violation of legislative rules is a legal grounds for total invalidation of law(s) passed under those rules (at least, this is how US courts currently handle such challenges).

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:36pm

    Parliamentary procedure (which a three day waiting period for passage of a law is) may or may not be “constitutionally mandated” depending upon whether or not it is a formal procedure adopted according to legislative procedures which make it constitutionally binding. A good example of this (which would be constitutionally binding) is the Senate filibuster rules and cloture procedure, modification of which is subject to full force of law behind legislative enactments simply because THOSE parliamentary rules (to my knowledge) were adopted by a legislative procedure that gives them the full force of law. But they are still mere parliamentary procedure (that is, self-adopted rules governing the internal affairs of the legislative body). And if, for example, those rules were NOT adopted by formal legislative procedure, but rather custom and common practice/understanding, than while they might still be just as effectively binding on the day-to-day operations of the legislature, they would not, de facto, have the same “constitutional” (legal–constitutional only refers to their source, as distinguished from common law or statutory in this case) force behind compliance, and technical noncompliance or modification would have no legal effect on the outcome of the proceedings.

123 To page: Go