Insights, Snippets, Quotes, Epiphanies & All That Sort of Things

[Florestan]

And I guess my hatred of parties comes from my hatred of politicians- just a bunch of pricks that want to tell us what to do.

For the democrat it is not enough that we respect what he wants to do with his life; he demands, in addition, that we respect what he wants to do with our life. --- Nicolas Gomez Davila

[jochanaan]

Florestan, your statement is as true for many social conservatives as it is for liberals.  In my experience, it's the extremists on either end of the left/right scale who most want to run others' lives.  The ones in the middle mostly just want to live our own lives.

[Ken B]

Florestan, your statement is as true for many social conservatives as it is for liberals.  In my experience, it's the extremists on either end of the left/right scale who most want to run others' lives.  The ones in the middle mostly just want to live our own lives.

Really? Is there a more broadly supported policy in the USA than drug prohibition? I doubt it. In this case the extremists are people like me who would end the war on drugs immediately.

[EigenUser]

For the democrat it is not enough that we respect what he wants to do with his life; he demands, in addition, that we respect what he wants to do with our life. --- Nicolas Gomez Davila

This is true with both social republicans and fiscal democrats. It never made sense to me why one party wants to tell you how to run your social life yet have more financial freedom (R) while the other is the exact opposite (D).

[ibanezmonster]

Florestan, your statement is as true for many social conservatives as it is for liberals.  In my experience, it's the extremists on either end of the left/right scale who most want to run others' lives.  The ones in the middle mostly just want to live our own lives.

This sums it up... go as far left as possible and as far right as possible and you end up in a similar sort of dystopia.

[Florestan]

Florestan, your statement is as true for many social conservatives as it is for liberals.  In my experience, it's the extremists on either end of the left/right scale who most want to run others' lives.  The ones in the middle mostly just want to live our own lives.

Firstly, it's not my statement. 

Secondly, the mere fact that somebody runs for an office as a party candidate supporting that party's political platform is already a clear sign of his wanting to meddle with other people's life. He might be the most moderate person; once in office he becomes ipso facto a menace to liberty.

Gore VIdal had it right: [Anybody] who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. 

[Wakefield]

Firstly, it's not my statement. 

Secondly, the mere fact that somebody runs for an office as a party candidate supporting that party's political platform is already a clear sign of his wanting to meddle with other people's life. He might be the most moderate person; once in office he becomes ipso facto a menace to liberty.

Gore VIdal had it right: [Anybody] who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. 

A digression:

I recall the striking effect on me when, many years ago, I was studying Commercial Law, and our professor defined "professional" by saying: you're a professional in commercial terms, if you project a certain activity as a permanent source of funds for you.

I guess professional politicians are not an exception. 

[Florestan]

A digression:

I recall the striking effect on me when, many years ago, I was studying Commercial Law, and our professor defined "professional" by saying: you're a professional in commercial terms, if you project a certain activity as a permanent source of funds for you.

I guess professional politicians are not an exception.

Professional politicians are the most dangerous species the Earth has ever known since creation. 

[Wakefield]

Professional politicians are the most dangerous species the Earth has ever known since creation. 

Please, I beg you to avoid these religiously biased comments. 

[Florestan]

Please, I beg you to avoid these religiously biased comments. 

"Creation" to me is not religiously biased at all, but a scientifically established fact --- I am not kidding at all ---, as opposed to "professional politicians being any good whatsoever", a fairy tale that even my 1-year-5-month-son could debunk, with a grin that would make you smile big time, even if you be an atheist...

[Florestan]

the Earth has ever known since creation. 

I defy any atheist here and now on GMG to explain me in no uncertain terms what "Big Bang" means, as opposed to "Creation".

Al Moritz, where art thou? 

[Ken B]

I defy any atheist here and now on GMG to explain me in no uncertain terms what "Big Bang" means, as opposed to "Creation".

Al Moritz, where art thou? 

Perhaps American slang has not made it to Bucharest, but a big bang sometimes leads to creation.

[jochanaan]

Really? Is there a more broadly supported policy in the USA than drug prohibition? I doubt it. In this case the extremists are people like me who would end the war on drugs immediately.

This policy, in my reading, is a good example of an extremist position that becomes mainstream.  And many thoughtful folks in the middle would love to end the war on drugs.  As a bumper sticker I saw in Denver a while ago put it: "Drugs Are Bad.  The War On Drugs Is Worse."

[Florestan]

Perhaps American slang has not made it to Bucharest, but a big bang sometimes leads to creation.

If this be true of men and women, then how much more would it be true of God, who made men and women in His image? ?

[Ken B]

This policy, in my reading, is a good example of an extremist position that becomes mainstream.  And many thoughtful folks in the middle would love to end the war on drugs.  As a bumper sticker I saw in Denver a while ago put it: "Drugs Are Bad.  The War On Drugs Is Worse."

You are right on the history. But it is certainly mainstream now.
Presently, even politicians who support legalizing pot like to burnish their credentials by sounding even tougher on other drugs. So I expect it to get worse.

How nutbar extreme is it now?
You know those daily drug dispensers the people put their medicine in so that you can remember what drugs they've taken not suffer adverse effects from taking too many or too few? Using those is a felony in some states and if one is found in your home with prescription drugs in it your home can be seized.

[Brian]

I defy any atheist here and now on GMG to explain me in no uncertain terms what "Big Bang" means, as opposed to "Creation".

Well, I would assume that "Creation" means absolutely no material or knowable things existed before that point; that is, at the very least, no physical matter.

The "Big Bang" theory is uncertain about this. Perhaps there was a single tiny dot of physical matter, which exploded (creating the bang). Other theorists believe that there are other universes out there, outside of ours. There's no way for a human scientific brain in the year 2014 to answer that.

But I think that the difference which can be explained "in no uncertain terms," is that "Big Bang" means something could have existed before it, while "Creation" means that the thing which existed is divine or unknowable in nature.

[Ken B]

Well, I would assume that "Creation" means absolutely no material or knowable things existed before that point; that is, at the very least, no physical matter.

The "Big Bang" theory is uncertain about this. Perhaps there was a single tiny dot of physical matter, which exploded (creating the bang). Other theorists believe that there are other universes out there, outside of ours. There's no way for a human scientific brain in the year 2014 to answer that.

But I think that the difference which can be explained "in no uncertain terms," is that "Big Bang" means something could have existed before it, while "Creation" means that the thing which existed is divine or unknowable in nature.

Any particular big bang theory will also make potentially testable predictions and so might be proven wrong.

[Ten thumbs]

One should probably leave people alone - as long as they are leaving other people alone.

[Wakefield]

One should probably leave people alone - as long as they are leaving other people alone.

It's true you're alone when you're successful, but you're alone at the bathroom too.

-- Burt Reynolds (I read it several years ago, but I don't recall the exact place) 

[Florestan]

Well, I would assume that "Creation" means absolutely no material or knowable things existed before that point; that is, at the very least, no physical matter.

The "Big Bang" theory is uncertain about this. Perhaps there was a single tiny dot of physical matter, which exploded (creating the bang). Other theorists believe that there are other universes out there, outside of ours. There's no way for a human scientific brain in the year 2014 to answer that.

But I think that the difference which can be explained "in no uncertain terms," is that "Big Bang" means something could have existed before it, while "Creation" means that the thing which existed is divine or unknowable in nature.

Very good.