On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:


Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the
discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer
isn't the real deal.

-paghat the ratgirl

Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to
degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't
you?

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65582 rec.gardens:259356 misc.survivalism:501075 misc.rural:115429 rec.backcountry:172281

Babberney wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:


Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the
discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer
isn't the real deal.

-paghat the ratgirl


Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to
degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't
you?

She isn't smart at all, just wordy. You shouldn't be
confused so easily.

Greylock wrote:



Good science is apolitical.

Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found
to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts
support or contradict it.

Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates
facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the
pursuit of proving the theory.

No, you've omitted an important first step. Junk
science first starts with a conclusion, usually one
beloved for ideological reasons. Then a bogus theory
is formulated that - quelle surprise! - predicts that
conclusion, and the rest is as you laid out.

See any of the (pseudo) scientific crapola posted in
t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. by the irrational Irish blowjob
artist Lesley, posting recently under the pseudonym
'pearl'.


Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence
to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of
political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in.

Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the
far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the
press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs.


far . . . .

Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political, blah blah blah...
[snip remainder of tedious, WINDY anti-market rant]

So...I just KNEW we'd get a frank admission of your
ardent leftist belief out in the open sooner or later.
You didn't need to write several hundred words in
order to do it, though.

paghat wrote:

In article ,
(George Cleveland) wrote:


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:


On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,

*snippage*

The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of
Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.


That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one.

It would. It's completely dogmatic, UNSCIENTIFIC
leftist tripe doing a shitty job of masquerading as
analysis.

paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...

Maren

Maren Purves wrote:

paghat wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.



If one may define economics as political,


as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...

She isn't describing economics. It's pretty plain she
doesn't know anything about it.

Economists will match and surpass your multiple
regression skills with ease.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:

paghat wrote:
In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing. If psychology is a science
(a highly questionable If), then so is economics.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...
Volker Hetzer wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...

I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.

So what exactly makes him that?

It's a she. 'Frances' is a feminine name; 'Francis' is
the masculine spelling.

It's her raging anti-market beliefs.


Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?

Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?

"veganism", which is a highly poltically motivated form
of vegetarianism, is FUNDAMENTALLY an expression of
collectivist/leftist thinking. As I said earlier to
someone else, if someone tells me he's "vegan", I know
EVERYTHING about his politics; you give me a list of 20
or 30 political issues that generally break down on a
left/right political spectrum, and I'll correctly tell
you the "vegan's" beliefs on well over 80% of them.
You may think I'm kidding, but I have conducted some
informal empirical research in usenet newsgroups before
on this very claim, and I was absolutely right.

Btw, having lived 18 years in east germany I can
happily assure you that vegetarianism didn't play any
role in that system. Nor in Chechoslovakia, Russia
and Poland. I've never visited the other countries.

As I said, leftists aren't always "vegan", but "vegans"
are always leftists.
As I said before in this thread, I have enough counter
examples around myself, to express this clearly, conservative
vegans.
Whatever you state about veganism being political, it's
wrong, because from a statistics point of view those
two issues are simply unrelated.
Volker

"Mike Warren" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:8O2Eb.744054$9l5.242439@pd7tw2no...
"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...
I agree. I also try to eat "different" meat which doesn't produce as
much CO2, like lobster but I still haven't gotten my government to
subsidise this properly.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...
Don wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote

Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?


Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself
in a
corner.

Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent
poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my
contention, because he is a reflexive defender of
Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he
was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on
talk.politics.animals and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely
admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a
"vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls
himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products
in his diet entirely for health reasons.

BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close.

It's spot on.

Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)

There should be no gov't forced military.

2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.

Gov't should control nothing.

3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.

No regulations on anything, that is for the free market, and free people to
decide.

4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.

No laws, period. Laws do not change behavior, they only assign a penalty.

5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.

But of course.

6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.

Subsidies = theft
Theft is a no no.

7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.

Tarrif = theft.
see above

8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.

Employers should pay what they wish.

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.

Just like the free market.

10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.

All people should control their lives, completely and be responsible for
their behavior, completely.

Now, which side of the aisle do I stand on?
(I'm painting you into a corner with a very narrow brush)

"paghat" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wrote
"Jonathan Ball" wrote

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for
schools,
public health programs, etc?

Why should YOU pay to school MY kids?
Once YOU approve of paying for MY needs, YOU will be broke in short order.

In article , "Don"
wrote:

"paghat" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wrote

Paghat wrote nothing quoted by Don.

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for
schools,
public health programs, etc?

Why should YOU pay to school MY kids?
Once YOU approve of paying for MY needs, YOU will be broke in short order.

A certain cretinish moron with a mandrill's blue ass forged comments in my
name which I never made & you apparently fell for it. I did address this
issue in an actual post of my own, but didn't use the school system as an
example. I asked, instead, how it would serve citizens if the fire
department put out fires only for people who could afford to pay ten
thousand dollars (minimum) for the service, or if the police department
only answered phone calls for paid-up subscribers.

Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, which alas has no more
practical applicability than any random Jesus freaks belief that if we'd
all love Jesus it would be a perfect world. I am by & large a civil
libertarian AND progressive, but the broader conservative libertarian
claptrap is simply no more likely to function than ever was the idealised
theory of communism or even of pure anarchy -- all such systems have at
their heart a beauty & perfection that makes sense only when divorced from
humanity's actual nature. There is no chance of it working because people
do not abide by the theory & never care so much about the world as about
their own country, never as much for their country as for their immediate
community, nor as much about their immediate community than their
immediate family, nor as much about their family as about their own
personal SHORT TERM gain, since for the majority immediate always takes
precidence over future outcomes. I want to **** NOW; i want to eat NOW; i
want to sit where you're sitting NOW; I will not help put out your burning
house because mine doesn't need putting out NOW. Everything but Self is up
for grabs without legal systems of penalty & rewards, & taxation to
enforce at least a moderate level of sharing of resources for roads & fire
departments & suchlike, no such sharing would occur, & a caste system
would soon fill the void where law & taxation vanished, with anyone
stepping outside the caste system (outcastes) utterly banished if not
sumarily slaughtered.

When its tested, it fails. We already have pay-as-you-go medicine in
America that permits the poor to drop dead with inadequate care. And even
people who have shitloads of money -- if they have a RARE disease there
won't be treatment advances because there's no profit in medicine for
dozens as there is in medicine for the common ailments of thousands. So
despite having the best theoretical medicine of any country in the world,
Americans do not rank on top for such things as infant mortality. Or
despite that advances in treatment of tropical diseases could save
millions of lives, there is no research into it because in our
pay-as-you-go system, it isn't profitable to treat people who have no way
to indebt themselves to the nth degree.

The Libertarian concept of a self-restrained society which keeps its own
long-term wellbeing uppermost in mind, of a pay-as-you-go society without
taxes or environmental protection laws & whatnot, would lead
instantaneously to a sinister pecking order of the most deadly kind. But
it's fun to play Imaginary Land in which libertarian self-interest of the
One leads logically to a defacto kindly protection of the All, with no
excesses of behavior to use up all resources in a trice & never have
access to them ever again, since everyone knows that'd be stupid in the
long run & simple self-preservation dictates that we all be careful about
such things. The reality is there is no "in the long run" without societal
restraints, because the needs of society as a whole DO NOT match up with
the needs of the individual who never really thinks long-term. For each of
us as individuals there's NOW and MINE, at any cost to the whole.

It's equally fun to have playtime in which communism results in equal
sharing of combined resources out of the goodness of everyone's heart &
everyone's a song-filled Musketeer with blissful tankards of one for all &
all for one. Fat chance that'd ever happen outside of a group of ten with
blood ties or a specialized shared goal, & even one of that jolly ten
would in tme kill one of the nine others over one extra blueberry or a
mating priority. It's also great fun to quote Ann Frank's opinon of
humanity's inherent goodness & try to believe THAT for a while, at the
same time trying to sort out her ashes from those of millions of others.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article , "Don"
wrote:

"paghat" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wrote

Paghat wrote nothing quoted by Don.

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for
schools,
public health programs, etc?

Why should YOU pay to school MY kids?
Once YOU approve of paying for MY needs, YOU will be broke in short order.

A certain cretinish moron with a mandrill's blue ass forged comments in my
name which I never made & you apparently fell for it. I did address this
issue in an actual post of my own, but didn't use the school system as an
example. I asked, instead, how it would serve citizens if the fire
department put out fires only for people who could afford to pay ten
thousand dollars (minimum) for the service, or if the police department
only answered phone calls for paid-up subscribers.

Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, which alas has no more
practical applicability than any random Jesus freaks belief that if we'd
all love Jesus it would be a perfect world. I am by & large a civil
libertarian AND progressive, but the broader conservative libertarian
claptrap is simply no more likely to function than ever was the idealised
theory of communism or even of pure anarchy -- all such systems have at
their heart a beauty & perfection that makes sense only when divorced from
humanity's actual nature. There is no chance of it working because people
do not abide by the theory & never care so much about the world as about
their own country, never as much for their country as for their immediate
community, nor as much about their immediate community than their
immediate family, nor as much about their family as about their own
personal SHORT TERM gain, since for the majority immediate always takes
precidence over future outcomes. I want to **** NOW; i want to eat NOW; i
want to sit where you're sitting NOW; I will not help put out your burning
house because mine doesn't need putting out NOW. Everything but Self is up
for grabs without legal systems of penalty & rewards, & taxation to
enforce at least a moderate level of sharing of resources for roads & fire
departments & suchlike, no such sharing would occur, & a caste system
would soon fill the void where law & taxation vanished, with anyone
stepping outside the caste system (outcastes) utterly banished if not
sumarily slaughtered.

When its tested, it fails. We already have pay-as-you-go medicine in
America that permits the poor to drop dead with inadequate care. And even
people who have shitloads of money -- if they have a RARE disease there
won't be treatment advances because there's no profit in medicine for
dozens as there is in medicine for the common ailments of thousands. So
despite having the best theoretical medicine of any country in the world,
Americans do not rank on top for such things as infant mortality. Or
despite that advances in treatment of tropical diseases could save
millions of lives, there is no research into it because in our
pay-as-you-go system, it isn't profitable to treat people who have no way
to indebt themselves to the nth degree.

The Libertarian concept of a self-restrained society which keeps its own
long-term wellbeing uppermost in mind, of a pay-as-you-go society without
taxes or environmental protection laws & whatnot, would lead
instantaneously to a sinister pecking order of the most deadly kind. But
it's fun to play Imaginary Land in which libertarian self-interest of the
One leads logically to a defacto kindly protection of the All, with no
excesses of behavior to use up all resources in a trice & never have
access to them ever again, since everyone knows that'd be stupid in the
long run & simple self-preservation dictates that we all be careful about
such things. The reality is there is no "in the long run" without societal
restraints, because the needs of society as a whole DO NOT match up with
the needs of the individual who never really thinks long-term. For each of
us as individuals there's NOW and MINE, at any cost to the whole.

It's equally fun to have playtime in which communism results in equal
sharing of combined resources out of the goodness of everyone's heart &
everyone's a song-filled Musketeer with blissful tankards of one for all &
all for one. Fat chance that'd ever happen outside of a group of ten with
blood ties or a specialized shared goal, & even one of that jolly ten
would in tme kill one of the nine others over one extra blueberry or a
mating priority. It's also great fun to quote Ann Frank's opinon of
humanity's inherent goodness & try to believe THAT for a while, at the
same time trying to sort out her ashes from those of millions of others.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"paghat" wrote
"Don" wrote:
Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be
advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic,

I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less
presumptuous.
And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my
childrens education?*