Dragonwriter

He won't be. That's the point. The goal isn't to persuade the one troll I'm arguing with - the goal is to show him for what he is (and, much more importantly, to show his bad arguments for what they are) to all of those that are silently watching the conflict who might yet be persuaded. If I can effectively eviscerate this icon of popular culture propaganda publicly in front of everyone, I still won't convince the troll, but I might just be able to get some others to start thinking outside the box.

That is certainly a useful counterpoint, and one that I've made before, but it alone is not enough to be a strong and definitive counter-argument. At most, I can usually get people to acknowledge it as "worth noting."

Does anyone have any good strategies for taking apart Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? I mean, I know it was written by a devout socialist, and I know the government jumped on it as an excuse to regulate, so I'm sure that the conflict-of-interest is there, but I'd like to check and see if anyone has done the legwork on this topic before I go and do days or weeks worth of research on it. Are there any good fact-checking sources that would be useful in determine just how bad conditions in meat-packing plants actually were, assuming they actually were horrible? Also, if anyone has any efficient and effective counter-arguments against people simply whipping this book out all the time, I'd really love to hear them.

Okay, awesome. Thank you for that clarification. You have my blessing (not that it means anything, but still). Carry on.

Soooo... in all of that, is there any point at which you are going to outright state that I am required to change my mind, whether I want to or not? Are you going to come out and state that you do not respect my right to hold these ideas at all, even peacefully? Because if all you are saying is that you believe me deranged, or that I do not fit within the bounds of your definition of virtue, or that you do not wish to associate with me because of my beliefs, then that's all fine; more power to you in that, I support your right to say, believe, and do such. What I have a problem with is the unspoken implication that I am not allowed to believe at all; that my mind is not mine, and that if I peacefully choose to disagree with the most common evidence, then I run the risk of being compelled to change.

It is a self-evident truth that people have the right to choose what they want to believe. I am continually astounded by how people who hold the concepts of freedom, choice, and self-determination as paramount values can so easily fall to the temptation of disrespecting the ethical and moral agency of other human beings who ALSO promote those very same moral values. The whole issue speaks far too much of tribalism to me. I will never force my religious beliefs on anyone, nor simply expect them to share them. I also will not attempt to change anyone's mind on the issue without their consent. But I feel it fair to expect the same in return.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/town-entire-population-made-up-4113722 At first I found the existence of this small town, and it's associated problems, rather fascinating to think about, economically-speaking. But now I just can't stop laughing.

Two words: "Brain wallets."

The recent death of Robin Williams has got me reflecting on the question of the morality of man's pursuit of biological immortality. To my mind, it seems completely implausible for anyone to NOT desire for man to find the key to defeating death - death is the ultimate involuntary act, why shouldn't we want to at least render it a voluntary experience rather than some inevitable predator that comes for us all at an unknowable time and place and takes away everything we were and are. And yet, I worry that I may be missing something in my (admittedly) rather emotional outrage. Is there any reason man SHOULDN'T pursue the defeat of death?

'It was just a statement of sympathy, I wasn't trying to make any particular argument.-----I'm glad things are looking better for you, Kason. Good luck.

I have a problem with the idea that atheism is a "non-belief," because framing the discussion that way presumes that non-belief is possible. Which is to say, it presumes that it is possible for certain ideas to be beyond doubt. I disagree with this concept, firstly because to my mind it seems logical that doubt is omnipresent in all human thought, even if it goes unacknowledged - there is no knowledge or idea that is so true as for it to be universally and completely impossible to be wrong. But more than that, I find this proposition disturbing, because real truth - absolute, inviolable, universal truth that is completely beyond all doubt - such as the "truth" implied in the stament "atheism is a non-belief" - is possibly the one and only thing that could be used as a reasonable justification for the initiation of force. Any person or group claiming it, therefore, is automatically not just suspect in my eyes, but quite frankly dangerous. Now, atheism as a form of "minimal belief"? Atheism as an outlook/worldview that takes as it's goal the minimization of "leaps of faith"? Atheism as a type of skepticism, where the lack of belief in the idea of God or other deities/supernatural beings/forces is couched in a (very logical) lack of evidence? That makes total sense to me, and I completely get it. I may not necessarily choose to share that worldview myself, but I completely understand it and respect it.

As a christian, I'm truly sorry to hear about you being treated that way - I believe that it is not a very Christ-like quality to disconnect from or otherwise descriminate against someone because of their personal beliefs (or lack thereof). I hang out about the Dallas area, if that fits your particular flavor of "southern."