Post by Johannes

Posted: 8/31/2011 7:36 PM

Post subject: Patriotic Tyranny

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

As many of the people on IRC might know, I am very outspoken about my political views. I have talked about many controversial issues, and much of what I have claimed have been labeled conspiracies. In truth, yes, a lot of the times I have stated things without citations, and although that is acceptable in casual conversation, it doesn't exactly help my case. I recently had the opportunity to study the history of WWII at Cambridge University through a study abroad program. Upon my arrival home, I was expected to write a paper on the subject. After making a case for my topic to my adviser, I came up with the following: Patriotic Tyranny: Startling Similarities between the Third Reich and 21st Century America I welcome you all to read it, discuss it, question your knowledge on the subject, and, most importantly, question what I am claiming. I would love to be wrong about the things I have stated, but considering I have three pages of citations here, it is safe to say this is my most well founded discussion on the topic yet. Before reading, please remember the following:

I am the grandson of two Holocaust survivors.
Yes, I know who Alex Jones is, and am a frequent viewer of his work.
A human that has a position of power is as capable of evil as any other human. If you don't believe a president can do wrong and commit crimes, then you also don't believe that there are serial killers and mafia in the world. If so, please refer me to your drug dealer as I would love to frolic with the unicorns.

Past that, I welcome all civil questions and comments. Enjoy!

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 8/31/2011 7:42 PM

Quote

Dada

Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

I'll give this a read later. Should be interesting. Frankly, the last thing I want right now is to have another highly divisive debate (after virtually exploding in the other topic, though I insist that hasn't happened to me in a long time), but I'll say this: the United States and Europe have a long and bloody history of oppressing foreign nations that continues to this day. People are often jittery to compare anything to the Third Reich, and while I think every situation is unique and deserving of its own explanation, we should not be afraid to point out the parallels that do exist.

Posted: 8/31/2011 7:44 PM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

Dada wrote:

(after virtually exploding in the other topic, though I insist that hasn't happened to me in a long time)

Which was this again?

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/1/2011 1:59 AM

Quote

p4wn3r

Player (42)

Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany

That was an interesting read, Brandon. I especially liked your comparison between the 9/11 and the Reichstag fire, I'd never have thought of connecting them. Your other comparisons are also great and really interesting, but I can't stop thinking that the parallel between the current US and Nazi Germany is a little inaccurate, the main reason: intensity. In the 1930's the world was a much more complicated to live, politically wise. As they entered the 20th century, people were driven by the philosophy that democratic governments, the progress of science and the spread of the western ideologies to the rest of the world would ultimately lead to a better world. However, in their "noble" mission to transfer the "superior" culture to the less evolved peoples, the powers started an imperialism race, that led to conflicts between them and collapsed into WWI. After the war, Germany was taken by winner's logic as the country to be blamed for starting it, the future 1929 crisis made it go down even more and there was communism that survived the crisis fine and was spreading through Europe, that considered it a threat to their culture. In this scenario, it could at the very least be expected that a party like the Nazis would emerge. People lost their faith that a democratic world would be better. In response came a regime based on militarism, nationalism, anti-intellectualism, control of the media and totalitarism, I view the racial question as a way to get the majority of people to agree with the government, I don't know a better way to convince a group of countless different ideologies that to say that they're a superior race and should be united. And there was communism too, that was afaik the only reason Europe decided to let Hitler militarize Germany, thinking he would fight the Soviet Union. It makes sense when they declared war to him shortly after he signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin. Anyway, the scenario at that time was much more open to fascist governments. About the US taking off civil rights after 9/11, all governments do this, in fact many constitutions say that the government can do this when the country is threatened and even if it isn't there, they still do it. In moments of danger, civilians always turn to the military for help, the same applies when the country is threatened, they turn to the government and are willing to sacrifice some rights in order to be safe. During the cold war, the most popular excuse to put dictatorships in latin american countries was exactly that, having communists as the biggest threat. So, while I agree that after 9/11 a similar trend took place, I don't think it had the same intensity to be compared with Germany. The US's economy was stable and Islam isn't even close to the threat that the USSR was at that period. Also, the democracy in the US is probably the most well estabilished and organized in the entire world. It's been there for hundreds of years, many countries with large economies have democracies with little more than 20 years and have a lot of corrupt politicians, which are a much bigger issue than the influence the US president might have on the congress on a particular matter. About the foreign policy, it's the most controversial subject of the US when seen from the outside world. In fact, when people from other countries follow the elections there, they want this to be changed. It's undeniable that the US has significantly influenced politics in lots of countries, since Roosevelt with his "big stick" policy. This is by no means a modern trend. Also, the UN has subsequently failed to address even small conflicts in Africa, let alone the ones where the US is involved, its security council is completely useless. In short, it's needed much more than a terrorist attack and the Patriot Act to compare it with Nazi Germany or other hard dictatorships. By much more, I say a huge economic crisis, and not one where some investors go crazy because of some unemployment rates, I'm talking about hyperinflation, with inflation rates reaching 2000% a month, where you receive your paycheck today, and know that tomorrow this money will be worth much less, like when you go to the bank and find your account emptied because the government took it to contain inflation, or when they need to change the currency because they can no longer print the necessary amount of bills. And by more than the Patriot Act, I mean a situation where military are absolved from killing workers by saying "they were holding communist flags", where officers go to a professor's house and accuse him of being a communist because he had a math book by a russian author, when some students choose a professor with disagreeing ideas as their graduation ceremony paranymph and get expelled from the institution one month before graduation, and many years later after the regime is over and the rector of this institution (that's related to the air force btw) decides to give those students the diploma, this rector is thrown out of his position the very next day. Well, wall of text is over. I don't know much about social sciences and most of what I wrote was what I got from my own experience, and I had nothing to do, so... Anyway, I find it nice that you're interested in these subjects, they're pretty interesting.

Posted: 9/1/2011 4:21 AM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

I can agree that comparing the intensities isn't accurate, but you also need to consider that we have yet to exit out of this trend. You cited hyperinflation, and many economists claim that this is a mathematical inevitability if the trends continue. Also, whether or not our democracy is well established doesn't matter; if a tyranny is being constructed under the guise of a democracy, it's really just a slicker form of a dictatorship. So, in a short response to your wall of text: yes, we are currently not Nazi Germany. Only time will tell if we make it that far! I'm glad you found my work to be interesting. Thank you for reading it.

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/1/2011 4:35 AM

Quote

BadPotato

Joined: 1/26/2009
Posts: 558
Location: Canada - Québec

It's usualy good to have such discussion once in while, since when it involve progressive dictatorship, must time I just get the feeling this end up by a direct questioning about our human nature, etc. So far, as said above the repercussion comparaison with 9/11 and the Himmler Operation is pretty interesting. When thinking about it(this specific event), it's all about finding a situation to create a fear/hatred climate in order to gain enough support from the population to start a war campaign or wathever. Any gouvernement should have a secret boot such as the Patriotic Act to react quickly in case of emergency. Maybe this act could require a better revision for better control? But here a question, did the Bush administration made right plan after those event? Sometime some people would claim that serious change can't happen without serious clean-up, so would there be any better/realistic solution? The current situation in the airport might look like an annoying follow-up, but I beleve it could be much worse. Just look at London, camera are everywhere and the general security in public place is much much more serious than in the US. I don't think it can be helped, but in the futur we might have better and faster way to do security check other than manually molest people such as an electronic chips inserted somewhere in you...

Posted: 9/1/2011 5:41 AM
(Edited: 9/1/2011 6:06 AM)

Quote

dunnius

Active player (422)

Joined: 9/7/2007
Posts: 329

Brandon wrote:

Also, whether or not our democracy is well established doesn't matter; if a tyranny is being constructed under the guise of a democracy, it's really just a slicker form of a dictatorship.

One correction: Our form of government is a (constitutional) republic. It annoys me when people get it wrong, there is a huge difference between the two. I agree with you that we are headed in the wrong direction in terms of freedom and protection of the Constitution.

Posted: 9/1/2011 5:45 AM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

dunnius wrote:

Brandon wrote:
Also, whether or not our democracy is well established doesn't matter; if a tyranny is being constructed under the guise of a democracy, it's really just a slicker form of a dictatorship.
One correction: Our form of government is a (constitutional) republic. It annoys me when people get it wrong, there is a huge difference between the two. I agree with you that we are headed in the wrong direction in terms of freedom.

Earlier in the paper:

After all, the U.S., a proud constitutional republic (Which some sadly refer to as a democracy), would never accept such rhetoric.

I suppose these statements clash a bit. I don't know, this wasn't the best constructed paper I could have written. The important thing are my points and facts are cohesive.

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/1/2011 6:34 AM

Quote

Kyrsimys

Former player

Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1286
Location: Finland

I read the text. The things you mentioned, using propaganda and false-flag operations and expanding the government's control in the name of something good aren't really exclusive to the Nazi regime, but have been widely used in most dictatorships. There is nothing really new about comparing current administrations to the Nazi regime or other dictatorships, and I think it actually kind of works against itself: the Nazi/Hitler card, for me, is a huge "turnoff" when reading argumentative texts. In my opinion it's much more effective to simply present facts about the PATRIOT act, for example, and let the reader make the connection (and any educated/intelligent reader probably will). Also, a final piece of criticism: having sources in your text doesn't automatically make it more convincing or reliable. Citing websites like blacklistednews.com actually makes it seem less so. Despite my criticisms of the text, however, I think the things you write about are indeed important and alarming. From what I know about the PATRIOT act, it's a very extreme example of the government infringing on peoples' constitutional rights and privacy in the name of something good or holy, but similar developments can be seen all over the western world. In Britain, they actually used this poster as part of an advertising campaign for CCTV. How much more orwellian can you get? In my opinion, the scary part is not that the government is doing things like this, but that people are simply letting it happen without putting up any kind of a fight. Here in Finland, ever since we joined the EU, more and more of our legislation is being drafted AND voted through by people we did not elect and cannot change. People just don't care, they seem to be happy as long as there's beer and chips available. After the massacre in Norway, several politicians, including ministers, have suggested limiting anonymity on the Internet to restrict "hate speech". I'm sure everyone here realizes the impossibility of such restrictions, so I won't get into that, but in any case the proponents of restrictions seem to greatly outnumber the defenders of free speech. People are panicing, and as you said in the text, in times of panic it's easy for politicians to push through whatever agenda they want. Many politicians feel strongly that the current hate speech legislation should be tightened, and the ombudsman for minorities has suggested that "even statements that do not fill the criteria of hate speech laws should be punishable". So basically anything she feels is offensive should be punishable, whether it's illegal or not. I'm sure everyone sees the similarities to the Soviet Union, where saying certain things or criticising certain groups or individuals publicly (or even privately) was a sure way of getting a one-way ticket to a labor camp in Siberia, regardless of how well founded the criticism was. This woman is now running for president, although thankfully she doesn't really have a realistic chance. Oh yeah, you criticized the media for not explaining why Ron Paul is "unelectable". I don't know much about American politics but I think it's kind of obvious why someone proposing the legalization of prostitution and marijuana would be considered unelectable. Finally, I have to mention this hilarious (terrifying) thing I came upon yesterday. I found an ethics textbook targeted at 10-11-year-olds, published last year by the ministry of education itself. It included a section dealing with racism and oppression, and it had instructions for teachers on how to use the book. A quote from those instructions: "Children's prejudices and racism can succesfully be influenced by taking the following simple but persistent actions: 1) highlighting positive examples and stories and disregarding all negative experiences completely 2) highlighting examples of positive development and making impressive documentaries and big news stories out of positive experiences 3) this brings up more positive examples which are also given lots of publicity 4) thus we are collecting evidence for the fact that change in attitudes and behavior is possible, that there are positive examples of change and that the members of the group that I belong to, specifically, have changed their attitdes and have positive experiences" Is it just me, or does this kinda sound like brainwashing? And I kid you not, these instructions were actually under the subheading "free thinking"!

Posted: 9/1/2011 8:52 AM

Quote

Flygon

Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria

I am a man for few words, but that was a fucking fantastic read, good sir. I am glad I read through it all, and find the subject matter intriguing. I'll whack this off to my friends.

Posted: 9/1/2011 2:52 PM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

I agree with most of what Kyrsimys said, but let me clarify something for non-Americans:

Kyrsimys wrote:

Oh yeah, you criticized the media for not explaining why Ron Paul is "unelectable". I don't know much about American politics but I think it's kind of obvious why someone proposing the legalization of prostitution and marijuana would be considered unelectable.

Americans, by and large, are smarter than you might think. Every day, people are realizing that cannabis prohibition is completely unworkable, highly discriminatory, and yet another tool for the government to profit off of the misery of the people. A recent poll has shown that support has been growing consistently for years now. Nearly everyone educated on the subject supports legalization, but that's not the main point here. If the numbers for legalization are about dead even, and Ron Paul's foreign policy is widely popular, then most people who know about him would support him. That said, the media is actively working against him. They have talked primarily about undeclared candidates and uninteresting ones, such as Sarah Palin and Rick Perry respectively. Medias can win elections, and if they gave Paul the same level of publicity they gave the other two, there'd be no competition: one's a real conservative, the others are puppets and horrible governors. The statement of "unelectable" does more than predict the outcome of an election: it hurts confidence. A lot of people, regretfully, vote for the person they think will win. I mean, look at this: Link to video He essentially won the Straw Poll (Well, he did, considering Bachmann stole 4000 votes), and he doesn't stand a "hoot in hell's chance" of becoming president, so they are going to ignore him? This is a fascist confidence game, and it quite frankly might cost Paul the election even though many think he's the best candidate. As I've said before, most Americans are smarter than you'd think, and people who care about politics probably wouldn't fall for such tricks, but apolitical people still vote, which is a problem.

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/1/2011 4:07 PM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

Kyrsimys wrote:

Oh yeah, you criticized the media for not explaining why Ron Paul is "unelectable". I don't know much about American politics but I think it's kind of obvious why someone proposing the legalization of prostitution and marijuana would be considered unelectable.

I don't understand. Are there two Ron Pauls in the United States running for president? Because I thought Ron Paul is a pro-life creationist who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, nor in the theory of evolution. (Not that that latter thing has anything to do with prostitution or marijuana, but it's a very typical feature of an American young-earth creationist fundamentalist.)

Posted: 9/1/2011 4:25 PM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

Warp wrote:

Kyrsimys wrote:
Oh yeah, you criticized the media for not explaining why Ron Paul is "unelectable". I don't know much about American politics but I think it's kind of obvious why someone proposing the legalization of prostitution and marijuana would be considered unelectable.
I don't understand. Are there two Ron Pauls in the United States running for president? Because I thought Ron Paul is a pro-life creationist who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, nor in the theory of evolution. (Not that that latter thing has anything to do with prostitution or marijuana, but it's a very typical feature of an American young-earth creationist fundamentalist.)

You're oversimplifying his positions. He believes abortion should be a states' right issue, because although his definition of life begins at conception, there's no way the entire country can agree on such a controversial definition? Great solution? No. Is there a better one? Probably not. On church and state, he has stated that although the first amendment protects the right of an individual to worship or not worship as he pleases, it does not allow the government to prohibit worship, either. As such, he again designates the right to allow / disallow public prayer to the states, which is the most accurate interpretation of the constitution whether you like it or not ("Congress shall write no law"). Lastly, believing in the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the ability to govern, but he has stated he personally doesn't accept evolution, though he doesn't see absolute proof on either side. He also mentioned that asking him of his beliefs on the issue is inappropriate as he isn't a scientist, nor did he ever claimed to be one. Whether or not he believes in creationism, and it's very possible that he has his doubts and merely withholds them as it'd be political suicide in his electorate, his stances on the issues you have brought up are the most reasonable out of any politician I have ever heard of, and that's exactly the point: the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with these things. I also don't see any connection with the issues you have raised and cannabis prohibition, not to mention he talks about cannabis prohibition more than your issues combined. He's for personal liberty, and he personally is a religious man. inb4majorderailment

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/1/2011 4:51 PM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

Brandon wrote:

On church and state, he has stated that although the first amendment protects the right of an individual to worship or not worship as he pleases, it does not allow the government to prohibit worship, either. As such, he again designates the right to allow / disallow public prayer to the states, which is the most accurate interpretation of the constitution whether you like it or not ("Congress shall write no law").

Wow, that's really astute, I must say! The United States constitution basically dictates that the country cannot become a theocracy, but since the text only mentions "congress", not the individual states, that means that the states themselves can be as theocratic as they want, and it's not a violation of the constitution. So as long as the congress does not pass theocratic laws, everything else is permitted within the states themselves. Talk about obeying the letter of the law, rather than its spirit. It's almost frightening.

Lastly, believing in the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the ability to govern

It tells something about his ability to govern on subjects regarding science and education. If he stays out of matters regarding things like deciding school curricula and scientific research funding, then his beliefs are inconsequential. However, if he does affect those, then it becomes worrying. (The Texas school board of education is a good example of this.) (OTOH, why am I worrying? I don't live in the US...) Anyways, my point in mentioning that was not that it would affect his capacity as a state leader, but that it's a typical symptom of a fundamentalist young-earth creationist, which seems at odds with wanting to legalize prostitution and cannabis.

He also mentioned that asking him of his beliefs on the issue is inappropriate as he isn't a scientist, nor did he ever claimed to be one.

Actually he has said he is a scientist. Direct quote: "On abortion, I just recognize as a physician and a scientist, that life does exist prior to birth."

Posted: 9/2/2011 12:35 AM

Quote

Flygon

Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria

Warp wrote:

(OTOH, why am I worrying? I don't live in the US...)

Because, ultimately, what happens in the US affects other countries due to the US's sheer dominance. That, and you might have friends in the US that you might care very deeply about, I sure as hell do. For example, I'd hate to see BrandonE convicted for something that happened to him unjustly, even though he's not Australian. Besides, you wouldn't have said that about the US and Russia during the Cold War, despite the fact you're in neither country.

Posted: 9/2/2011 1:48 AM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

Warp wrote:

Brandon wrote:
On church and state, he has stated that although the first amendment protects the right of an individual to worship or not worship as he pleases, it does not allow the government to prohibit worship, either. As such, he again designates the right to allow / disallow public prayer to the states, which is the most accurate interpretation of the constitution whether you like it or not ("Congress shall write no law").
Wow, that's really astute, I must say! The United States constitution basically dictates that the country cannot become a theocracy, but since the text only mentions "congress", not the individual states, that means that the states themselves can be as theocratic as they want, and it's not a violation of the constitution. So as long as the congress does not pass theocratic laws, everything else is permitted within the states themselves. Talk about obeying the letter of the law, rather than its spirit. It's almost frightening.

Because public prayer = a theocracy.

Lastly, believing in the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the ability to govern
It tells something about his ability to govern on subjects regarding science and education. If he stays out of matters regarding things like deciding school curricula and scientific research funding, then his beliefs are inconsequential. However, if he does affect those, then it becomes worrying. (The Texas school board of education is a good example of this.)

OK, so you have no evidence to point in either direction. Speculating will get us nowhere.

Anyways, my point in mentioning that was not that it would affect his capacity as a state leader, but that it's a typical symptom of a fundamentalist young-earth creationist, which seems at odds with wanting to legalize prostitution and cannabis.

If there's any one thing I wanted people to take from my work, it is that if we are to degenerate in the same way that Germany did in the Third Reich, it will come from the meaningless two party system. People give themselves a label, and then the average American votes for them because of said label, even though we know nothing about their actual beliefs. Don't pidgeon-hole him; show me one article / video of him talking about evolution / creationism, and I will give you ten of him talking about ending prohibition. His personal beliefs mean less to him than his policy, and his policy is ending prohibition on a federal level.

He also mentioned that asking him of his beliefs on the issue is inappropriate as he isn't a scientist, nor did he ever claimed to be one.
Actually he has said he is a scientist. Direct quote: "On abortion, I just recognize as a physician and a scientist, that life does exist prior to birth."

I was talking about evolution, and you're jumping to abortion. He's not claiming to be an expert on the theory of evolution, but he is a former medical doctor. Was the term scientist too general a term in both uses? Perhaps. Sue him.

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/2/2011 4:46 AM

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (308)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein also In every game and con there is always an opponent and there is always a victim, the more control the victim thinks he has, the less control he actually has.

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 9/2/2011 4:52 AM

Quote

Flygon

Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria

Everyone's a victim in a game. You're a puppet, the opponent is a puppet, and in the end, everyone is being forced to do things that they may or may not want to do. Think on that for a second there. Does free will exist?

Posted: 9/2/2011 5:00 AM

Quote

pirate_sephiroth

Active player (308)

Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil

yep, someone may be forced to enslave you.

"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate

Bisqwit wrote:

Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.

Posted: 9/2/2011 5:00 AM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

Flygon wrote:

Think on that for a second there. Does free will exist?

Not if life is deterministic, and I believe it is (goldfish disagrees), but if you're interested in that, start a new topic.

All the best, Brandon Evans

Posted: 9/2/2011 6:18 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

Brandon wrote:

Warp wrote:
Talk about obeying the letter of the law, rather than its spirit. It's almost frightening.
Because public prayer = a theocracy.

Why does it stop there? Does the constitution say "public prayer is ok, but no other laws endorsing any religion is"? The argument you presented was "the constitution only talks about the laws that congress passes, not the laws that individual states pass". So what exactly stops this at public prayer? Unless public prayer is mentioned explicitly as an exception to the rule (which it isn't), the interpretation can only be that either everything goes or nothing goes: Either the governments of the individual states can endorse a religion or they can't.

Don't pidgeon-hole him; show me one article / video of him talking about evolution / creationism, and I will give you ten of him talking about ending prohibition. His personal beliefs mean less to him than his policy, and his policy is ending prohibition on a federal level.

You are missing my point. My point was that the same person both holding fundamentalist Christian beliefs and endorsing the legalization of prostitution feels like a multiple personality disorder, which is what I found curious.

He also mentioned that asking him of his beliefs on the issue is inappropriate as he isn't a scientist, nor did he ever claimed to be one.
Actually he has said he is a scientist. Direct quote: "On abortion, I just recognize as a physician and a scientist, that life does exist prior to birth."
I was talking about evolution, and you're jumping to abortion. He's not claiming to be an expert on the theory of evolution, but he is a former medical doctor. Was the term scientist too general a term in both uses? Perhaps. Sue him.

Seems like we have a fanboy. You didn't say "he isn't an expert on the theory of evolution, nor did he ever claimed to be one". You said: "he isn't a scientist, nor did he ever claimed to be one". He has claimed to be a scientist. Even an MD is not a scientist, unless he is active in an actual research field of medicine (which, in fact, is much closer to biology than most other branches of science, which would put him much closer to being an expert in evolutionary science). Anyways, none of this is about my original point.

Not if life is deterministic, and I believe it is

Quantum effects introduce absolutely non-deterministic elements, by the very nature of them being purely stochastic and unpredictable (which doesn't just mean "extremely hard to predict, too hard for us to do", but truly unpredictable in that it's impossible even in theory to predict). Quantum effects can escalate to macroscopic levels.

Posted: 9/2/2011 6:23 AM

Quote

Kyrsimys

Former player

Joined: 4/16/2004
Posts: 1286
Location: Finland

On evolution/creationism: I agree with Warp in that being a creationist tells a great deal about a person. It tells me that this person rejects scientific thinking and ideologically sticks to a position that is supported by no evidence whatsoever, even though there is a widely accepted scientific theory available. People like that who will accept no position except their own even though they are shown mountains of evidence to the contrary just make me want to punch them in the dick. Of course I see your point, Brandon, that those kinds of people might still respect other peoples' positions and not force their own ideology on others, but that still doesn't mean I would want them running my country.

Brandon wrote:

Don't pidgeon-hole him

This I whole-heartedly agree with. People should think about each issue individually and not adopt ideas in chunks. Sadly, this is one of the things that in my eyes makes Ron Paul unelectable: most people DO adopt ideas in chunks. For Paul the problem is that democrats will be put off by his conservatism and republicans by his liberalism.

Posted: 9/2/2011 7:13 AM

Quote

Flygon

Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria

Kyrsimys wrote:

For Paul the problem is that democrats will be put off by his conservatism and republicans by his liberalism.

Reading this just brings another contrast to how Australian politics is to America... here, he'd be seen as Conservative regardless.

Posted: 9/2/2011 7:24 AM

Quote

Brandon

He/Him

Editor, Player (190)

Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee

Flygon wrote:

Kyrsimys wrote:
For Paul the problem is that democrats will be put off by his conservatism and republicans by his liberalism.
Reading this just brings another contrast to how Australian politics is to America... here, he'd be seen as Conservative regardless.

This.

All the best, Brandon Evans