Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 8

MJ1970, all you've done is find reasons to avoid discussing any of my arguments. You haven't answered any of them.

No-one in the world outside of a small minority of American right wing people even remotely considers the idea that your wimpy economical centrist President has "fascist" or "socialist" polices.

This is a fact, and I suspect that's why you've chosen to ignore it.

Secondly, you're claiming that Barack Obama is implementing policies that belong to incompatible political philosophies and you're condescending to tell me that I don't know what "fascism" or "socialism" are.

This is embarrassing to you. You must learn what these terms mean before you think to engage in a serious debate with someone who does.

It's a fact that Obama's government is to the right wing of practically every European conservative government. You are absolutely ignorant of the terms you're using and the global political context in which your government operates.

Barack Obama says "I want the trains to run on time." You reply "SEE! JUST LIKE MUSSOLINI!"

You don't know what you're talking about.

As to my point that "wealth" and "standard of living" are different things, and the half-a-dozen reasons I gave as to why, you don't really care.

You just take a stab at my post and stick up a \.

I guess I'll just have to wait until you grow some balls and post up an argument as to why I might be wrong.

You might not be aware of this but simply calling an idea retarded and ridiculous and not worthy of serious discussion and claiming that a whole bunch of people don't agree with the idea or claim and that those who do are simply "pant pissing" something or another, or that a bunch of people really like him aren't really "arguments" in the classical sense.



I've chosen to ignore it because (fact or not) it is irrelevant and not really a valid argument.



I suspect you don't realize how compatible they actually are.



Priceless! In your post you tell me what I've said is retarded and that I haven't really thought about what I'm saying and that only "pants pissing" people would even entertain the idea and now have the audacity to suggest that I'm being condescending to you. Brilliant.



And then more of it.



And still more.



And more.

You are defining wealth as the number of greenbacks you possess. I suppose I can give you that, since it is ONE of the available definitions.
If you define wealth as "general prosperity", then there's a lot more to it than just possession of money. And it does, in fact, equate to one's standard of living.

The standard of living in the countries you mentioned has little to do with money, but the citizens are wealthy because of HOW THEY HANDLE the money they DO have. Living within their means, saving, not feeling entitled to "stuff" they haven't earned. Pretty much, just the opposite of the lower and middle class in America.

But, whatever, ... if wealth, to you, means simply how much money you make, then you're right. A high income does not equal a high standard of living.
But you also have to admit, then, that a low income does not equal a low standard of living.

I will have to explain in the simplest terms, sentence by sentence, why you are wrong, and why what you are writing would be embarrassing to a first year student of politics.

You want me to believe that in this huge world of political leaders, thinkers, writers, activists and ordinary interested citizens, the only people, in the world, who have noticed that Barack Obama is a "fascist" is a small minority of extremely right wing people who detest him on principle.

Now look.

America is the world's largest economy. It is the most powerful military force in the world. It is still a world leader.

We in the rest of the world discuss America. We write about it and talk about it a lot.

If America were to implement fascist policies, we would notice. We would, indeed, be very alarmed. Barack Obama's fascist policies would cause a fundamental realignment of alliances and

(at this point I have to interject that Barack Obama is not a fucking fascist and this whole discussion is, I repeat, FUCKING RETARDED)

would affect the global body politic in the most revolutionary ways.

Has this happened?

No. It has not.

Is anyone discussing Obama's radical new plans for America, and the evil revolution he is planning, anywhere in this world which discusses American politics so obsessively?

No. they are not.

And the reason these things have not happened is because Barack Obama has not implemented fascist policies.

Do you understand this?

When you look at the global context in which your government is enacting policy, and when you go to Wikipedia and actually fucking LOOK UP the term "fascist" and the term "socialist", you will see that:

a) Barack Obama is economically to the right of most centrist European governments, which are not "fascist" or "socialist"

b) Barack Obama's social policies are absolutely in the tradition of wimpy Democrats (Clinton tried health care reform, and he is not a "fascist") and the bill passed is like previous Republican submissions (and Republicans are not "socialists")

c) Barack Obama is bit of wimpy centrist

d) This argument is fucking retarded

e) And now I've spelled out reasons why you are wrong, you may concentrate on the word "retarded" and ignore the other points I've made, because this will be easier for you than actually making a substantive response.

Sorry, are you talking to me?

It's just that I wrote an entire post saying that wealth is not the same of standard of living, and you didn't read it.

Look. I wrote this:


You see? And this:


And I wrote these words because my argument is that "wealth" (read 'greenbacks') is not the same as standard of living.

I also wrote this:


This is a list of things which make for a better standard of living that having nothing to do with greenbacks and a few reasons about why this might be (" they spend their revenue differently, and invest in public programmes differently, and tax differently, and the wealth is spread around more...")

And the last line of my post was this:


The reason I wrote these words ("Wealth and "standard of living" are not the same thing") is because my argument is that wealth and "standard of living" are not the same thing.

If you go back to my post and re-read it, you will have to agree that that was the point I was trying to make.

Yes you will. When do you plan to do that?


Because this:


Is not that.

Now back to Darwinism.

I suspect he did, it's that you haven't read his.



And so? You declaration that: No, wealth is not "standard of living." doesn't make it so.



Now we're actually getting somewhere. You do think wealth is money (green pieces of paper). This is the fundamental problem in your understanding.




It may be the point and argument you were trying to make. However, you did not make it very well.

Now back to Darwinism.

Congratulations on finding a reason to avoid addressing any of the points I actually made in anything approaching a thoughtful, substantive way.

I will have to give you credit then when it comes to pussying out a genuine back-and-forth, you are something of a master.

The most thoughtful ans substantive thing that can be said about the points you have made is to explain to you that they are irrelevant to actually demonstrating that Obama does not have both economic fascist and socialist tendencies.



I will have to give you credit for using insult as your primary means of "arguing." You are something of a master.

EDIT: But hey, I will give you some things to read on the subject of economics of fascism that might help you understand: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

And here's another excellent essay that summarizes the issues around economic fascism (BTW it also points how how popular and highly admired Mussolini was specifically for his economic policies): http://www.thefreemanonline.org/colu...nomic-fascism/

Now back to Darwinism.

I made a bunch of points.

You ignored them.

You pussyed out.

I called you on it.

If you don't like the feeling associated with being called on pussying out of an exchange, next time, don't pussy out.

And now back to Darwinism.

(Just don't expect to get a response from MJ1970 if you spend any time making an argument, because he pussys out.)

Because they are irrelevant.



Yes, you have stated your opinion of my response.



If you're asking whether or not I'm bothered by your repeated attempts to insult me and use name calling (or as near as you can get without actually doing it), the answer is no.



Don't expect responses to non-arguments as Mumbo Jumbo has offered.

Wealth and standard of living are entirely different things. It is possible to live in a place where you are extremely wealthy yet have a poor standard of living, comparably, is it not?

And you missed the important word in my statement:

Lopsided wealth.

As Mumbo said, if you honestly think wealth and standard of living are the same, this is extremely embarrassing to you. I don't think even the most conservative or libertarian of college professors could hold back a snicker hearing you make such a statement.

If this is your reasoning then it is absolutely reasonable to say that taxes do not affect your level of wealth.

To a point, true.

Obviously, if one's effort is taxed at 100%, then one no longer has any spare effort to create wealth.

It also means that a flat tax rate would work out just fine from a socio-economic viewpoint.
A person making 20k per year and taxed at 15% can still become wealthy... Can still have a high standard of living.
At the same time, a person making 500k per year taxed at that same 15% could have a very low standard of living and no wealth.

Wealth is much more than just dollars (or euros, or pesos.) Standard of living is all about personal wealth and is not directly related to amount of income.


And, to get back near topic, we have evolved a mind that is able to argue these ideas... Just because a study has adjusted our understanding of evolution certainly doesn't invalidate the theory.
God exists within the human mind, there has never been any evidence of it's existence in the physical world.

It is you and Mumbo who should be embarrassed by this artificial separation.

But let's get down to nuts and bolts. Define both terms as precisely and objectively as you possibly can so we can see what you think they mean.

New brain research shows repeatable sensations with imagined beings when a small amount of magnetism is applied to the right hemisphere in a sensory depravation chamber. The subject will feel the presence of beings outside of the body and most of the subjects have reported that they found these beings to be pleasant and have expressed their desire to repeat the experiment.

It is clear that some humans may have increased right hemisphere activity and believe they are communicating with beings they can not only see but hear and feel. However these beings are created by their own brain. Since this is science and can be repeated by anyone with the proper equipment it offers a first step toward explaining god/angels/demons/ghosts/and the like ... as a mental phenomena. It is even conceivable that these illusions can be created by the brain constantly and can drive people to draw irrational conclusions.

Sadly, on my part, just a quick reply to this fascinating research/topic. I heard about this in a limited way, maybe a year ago or so. Very interesting stuff and now will be the time I try to understand more about the research. I've heard there are sometimes "lay lines" etc that have strong magnetic fields and sacred sites are often located where they cross, in the UK anyway, at least. Science, may be catching up a bit. Somehow, sometimes, maybe people open up in some ways and interact wih these energies. Like I say, fascinating.

You mean... A scientific reason for the psychosis of "god" ??
... The more we learn, the less reliant we seem to be on myths and magic.

Consider the implications for the gaming industry. I will be the first to invest in the "godbox".
A simply helmet with a coil and a cool looking blindfold and off we go.... $ 399.- at Best Buy. yeah baby.

The magnetic field of the earth is a "living" thing. The earth iron core is in motion and these fields can build "knots" were they are extremely strong. So if you see god surrounded by angels you just stepped on one.
Oh yeah I am going to build the magnetic church. Come see god live. yeah baby. $$$$$
now that's evolution in action.

Fascinating stuff. So would it be possible for several different people to have hallucinations about the exact same thing at the exact same time?

powered by solar panels of course. What would god be if not the sun.

There are reasons. Sorry to be whatever the word is, but there are and there real, "alive" to put it simply. There's more to this than sometimes, all the time, we know. Magnets do not act individually, so to speak. There's so much more. Best Buy would be worlds off from true life.

Especially when they are coached ahead of time on what they should expect to see.
(ie: spending a lifetime exposing themselves to the same themes over and over again every Sunday morning... or Saturday if that's your thing)

I believe that every experience will be personal yet similar, but yes it would be possible to induce these experiences to more than one individual at the same time. However in the current setup of the experiment they would not know of each other.

Why. Why should I make substantive points that demand a response from you if you're only going to ignore them?

When you actually do provide "substantive points that demand a response" then maybe they won't be ignored. Until then you're just blowing hot air.

MJ1970, given that the United States of America is the world's biggest economy and has the world's biggest military, do you believe that if Barack Obama were to implement fascist policies that they would pass without causing a radical realignment in international politics?

MJ1970, why do you think that this has not happened? Why do you think that diplomatic relations with virtually every single nation on the planet have improved under Barack Obama? Why do you think that no one has noticed, passed comment, been given any cause for alarm at the new fascist policies being implemented in the United States of America?

MJ1970, do you believe that Barack Obama's administration is to the right of the conservative coalition running Germany, in that he is a "fascist? Or is he to the left of the government of Sweden, in that he is a "socialist"?

MJ1970, do you believe that anyone in the world other than a small minority of extremely right wing Americans believes that Barack Obama is implementing "fascist" policies?

I asked all of these questions, and more, in several different ways.

Here is your opportunity to answer them properly, for the first time. Go on.

And how does this relate to "Evolution is debunked"??

People who don't support Obama are more highly evolved than those who do?

<- click this is a link!

The educated are 80% liberals. The higher the education level the less conservative people are.

Conclusion: Yes people who support Obama are more highly evolucated. (Just like Palin and Sheakespear I enjoy making up new words also see "Christinsanity".)

Please answer this: The stuff that ran down Jesus legs when he lost control of his sphincter, was that holy shit?

My bad... that actually makes sense!

<---Click on the smilie that is laughing in your face. It's a link.

Priceless!

I suppose nothing. We got in to it. Like you do.

MJ1970 asserted that Barack Obama's policies were "fascist." He doesn't have the balls, or the will, to actually argue it through.

Here are the points I made:


He won't answer them. He can't.

I suspect that if he actually tried to answer these, and I have others, he would be forced to realise the absolutely absurd nature of his position.

Correction: Could but won't. Because, as I've said repeatedly, these are not relevant arguments.


Right.

Not RELEVANT?

OK. Make up your own definition of "fascism". Make up your own understanding of global politics. Make up your own version of the global context in which Barack Obama's administration is enacting policy.

And then refuse to discuss it.

You want to be able to call Barack Obama a "fascist".

But the only way you can do it is by making shit up and refusing to defend it.


DAMN fucking right.