lyghtningrod

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2013/04/10/goldman-sachs-lowers-gold-forecast-for-2013-2014/

I agree. But even if that were happening in Somalia, which in some ways it is, it isn't a reflection of anarchy. From what I can tell things have settled down a lot, and the Somalia in the leftist's imagination disappeared about 10 years ago. But yeah, what happened/is happening is chaos not anarchy, with competing thugs duking it out for control of the appratus of State. But the distinction between chaos and anarchy is lost on all who don't like the idea of anarchy in the first place. They just conflate the two and walk away. Intellectually dishonest but there ain't much you can do but shake your head in awe and wonder at how hard we hold onto our beliefs, against all evidence to the contrary.

I think that's what they think Somalia is like.

AFAIK, standard time came about because of railroad schedules. Towns followed the sun, so one town might be 9:10 the next town might say it is 9:18, and they were both right, according to the sun. That made it hard for the railroads to schedule, hence time zones. One of my favorite absurdities is the reference to the mythical beast known as "unfettered unregulated capitalism." Thing is, they aren't talking about the 19th century, they are talking about the time since Reagan. Always makes me wonder if we are speaking a common language. And I wonder how many know that Jimmy Carter was the one who deregulated air travel, trucks and beer, which is the reason for the explosion of microbreweries. So all those lefties quaffing their favorite brew can thank 'unfettered unregulated capitalism'(or our best substitute) for their high.

There are so many assumptions embedded in your assertions that there's no way to unravel it all. In essence, you are saying "People see things they can't explain, and I can find no other explanation than supernatural events." That isn't a very persuasive argument. One of your assumptions is "Most people give eyewitness testimony the benefit of the doubt." But that is simply not true. I am extremely skeptical of eyewitness accounts. Google 'Gorilla in the midst" to find out just how incredibly unreliable eyewitness testimony is. If you can't see the gorilla in your midst, then maybe just maybe eyewitness accounts are not the accurate accounts of reality you insist they are

Well, I wouldn't describe myself as a 'committed materialist.' In fact, I don't know what that is. I am open minded about supernatural and extraordinary claims, in that I expect to be surprised by science. When I was a child I read DIck Tracy and his special TV wristwatch. I read the other day there are more cellphones in use than toilets. That seems pretty extraordinary to me. If some creature suddenly appeared in front of me, just appearing out of the ether, it wouldn't mean he was god, only that something beyond our experience has happened to us. Sounds exciting. In fact, considering that scenario, that a person that looks exactly like God (which god?) appeared in front of me, all I would have is his word. Consdering that the supernatural has never been the explanation, and that indeed, science arose out of debunking 'received wisdom' I am quite comfortable in being skeptical about a supernaural explanation for anything. As a previous poster mentioned, research may indeed find answers but we aren't there yet. Also, if there actually are supernatural events then science immediately becomes meaningless. If the rules of the universe can be overridden by some critter's whim then we are in much more danger than even the most oppressive government could ever hope to be.

If someone tells me he can fly, it doesn't matter how 'trusted' the person is. If they don't they go up against gravity, then they are either lying or mistaken. As for Stef's 'mystical' experience it assumes that Stef is assuming that his experience is mystical. But 'mystical' is simply a concept used to explain an experience. Not to put words in Stef's mouth, but I find it highly unlikely that Stef would have an experience he would consider mystical or supernatural. Ascribing an unexplained experience to 'mysticism' or 'supernatural causes' is not how a rational person approaches the world. And if Stef did talk to God, I pray to God Stef would share God's phone number. I think most of us would have some bones to pick with her.

Eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable. Confirmation bias is strong. That's why science was created. "...Lying or mistaken..." Yes, and they are mistaken or lying until proven otherwise. They may very well have heard a voice, it doesn't mean the voice was God. They may think or claim to have seen a ghost. But it can't be proven. There's no sense trying to prove a negative, which is why they say extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. If you say you can fly, start flapping. Otherwise, well, we all have our delusions. As for the 71% believe factoid, 96.54% (an actual percentage) of people believe government is necessary. Doesn't mean they are right nor is their delusion binding on me.

And yet not in all of history have we a single verifiable proven supernatural event. How would you know if there weren't any supernatural events? To be scientific, a claim needs to be falsifiable. If you can produce a repeatable 'supernatural event' then I'll listen. Nope, you just went off the logical rails there. First, you are begging the question. You are investigating the validity of supernatural claims, then you assume the validity when you exclude the non supernatural ["it's a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe"] coupled with a False dichotomy. You have posited only two choices when there is at least one more, namely that neither extraordinary claim is true. EDIT: and I hate to add, but you are also equivocating on the word 'extraordinary'

Back when I was that age in the 60s there were certainly people who thought like that, who made crude cruel jokes, but not a single one of them had a YouTube or Twitter account, I see all these comments ("if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have been drinking") and know that people have always thought this, but now it is tweeted for all to see, and stored for posterity. Agreed. I see a mentality that says the Institution is more important than the people the institution serves. "Football is important, therefore football players are important therefore any slight on our players is a slight on us. Anyone who says our Heros are not Perfect is a slut and deserved what she got." This same attitude extends to Bradley Manning ("he was a soldier, hence his only duty was to follow orders"), Catholic Church (Who cares about those boys, it's the Church we must protect) and the list goes on.

And you call yourself a philosopher. Yet you admit to rudeness. So please explain to me how you justify your rudeness with your philosophy, The reason I ask is the one consistency I've seen with you is your willingness to insult ( be rude to) other people, so I want to hear how you justify your rudeness and lack of manners.

So instead of addressing the points, you simply change the goal posts. The point is 'all voluntary trade benefits both parties.' If true, this destroys your previous argument that capitalism is all about losers and winners. You are ignoring this in order to distract us from the fact that you don't have a counter to this, nor to the fact that capitalism is as much cooperation as competition. As far as your insistence that trading freely leads to a State, well that is nothing more than an assertion that you havn't backed up with any proof other than "I say so, so there."

P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } It is foundational for economics that all voluntary trade has two winners and no losers. As Balo said, he wants the iPod more than the money, while the merchant wants the money more than the iPod. Another example. You would probably see no reason to trade a $10 bil for a ten dollar bill. It would just be a waste of time. But if I asked you if you had a five and five ones for my ten, then you might make the trade knowing that the only 'profit' you will make is the satisfaction of helping me pay the parking meter. But is is still a win win situation. Also, there was no talk about stealing, so again you equivocate. We are talking about the fact that all voluntary economic activity is good for all the participants, while you prat on about stealing things. You are really good at that equivovation It grows tiring. And to finish up, you also talk about capitalism as competition without acknowledging the other obvious fact about capitalism, namely the cooperation inherent in the division of labor.

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics. If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions.

Y U feed the troll? He has demonstrated that insults are his stock in trade. He accused me of being rude for not watching 17 minutes of the most hopelessly boring, muddled and illogical video, then said that since I didn't watch ALL of his tripe, I was rude AND that justifued his name calling and insults then decided I was too stupid to understand how brilliant he is. Ya'll posting in a troll thread...