Beng anti-science from a "left" perspective is really no different

than being anti-science from the right. The religious trappings are more extreme and there are more of them on the right, but refusing to deal honestly with scientific evidence, for whatever the reason, reflects a fundy type of mindset.

I expect to see this shit from those on the right. I'm always surprised and dismayed when I see it from the left. The case of the boy with Hodgkin's has illustrated that we have our own anti-science faction around here.

people here denouncing peer reviewed science as part of an evil plot.

by definition and reason d'etre...

THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

Corporations become successful because they focus on the "wealth" aspect of capitalism. They exclude the most important factor; the human factor. They put profit above people and in turn they are willing to sacrifice what makes us humans in the first place.

That isn't to say that we don't gain certain benefits from corporations.We can afford more because larger companies can afford to charge less, for the most part. But at what point are we going to stand up and say that being truly rich comes from the human experience, not from monetary wealth?

Uhh, 2028?

The company I work for was a sole proprietorship and is now incorporated and owned by the same person. Nothing changed in terms of our service, pay, benefits, etc.

They lead down a slippery slope of irrationality. And it's not just one thing, it's many many things, that cover many different viewpoints. I see it in every discussion I partake in here. There's always someone who invokes these shallow ideologies to try to win points.

Don't think that the left is somehow immune from this. I have met the best scientists who have very conservative, hard line viewpoints, likewise I have met very agreeable liberals who have completely convoluted views of the universe.

but I still know when to think rationally in the world I live in. I question reality, but I still know how to function within the reality that I know.

I don't think attacking existentialism, metaphysics and philosophy is a wise thing to do. A lot of social, political and scientific progress has come from those fields of study.

I consider all matters of faith religious in nature.

Sounds like an attack to me.

Detrimental at worst. Can you explain to me what you believe their contribution was to science?

at times when the church held a death grip over science. Those forms of philosophy helped break down the barriers to science we now have today.

Again, if you want to have this open minded sense of liberalism, I highly suggest you don't attempt to discount the benefits of questioning our perceived reality.

Religious questioning is not something that is irrational. To question your place in the universe, your perception of that universe, and the true structure of the universe is among the most rational thoughts one can have.

On edit: It seems that you are confusing the concept of being "religious" with modern religion. That's bad.

I place my value on falsifiability, if you tell me something, but I cannot figure it out for myself, then it is probably useless to me, since, well, it serves no use. If you make a claim and I cannot dig up the information for that claim, then again, it serves little purpose. In that respect I am a rationalist-positivist.

For instance, you claim that they helped bring down the oppression of the church, yet I would argue that it was the free desimination of knowledge that did this, the printing press, and the like. Most historians would agree with me in that regard, especially since these early philosophers were elitists in and of themselves.

There is an inherent distaste I get when I think of the hierarchies prevalent in these various ideologies. This is not to say that science is immune from similar practices, but that for science to truly work requires an open and free inspection of data without any claim to any truth except that which we can deduce for ourselves.

I will not argue with you that the printing press and other forms of information transfer helped bring down control of the church. But they didn't do it alone. Who wrote the information that was being printed in mass? Much of it was written by Philosophers. Philosophy is nothing more than a subset of science. It is the study of a certain subject.

If you are honestly going to openly deny the impact that philosophers have had over the history of mankind, then I have nothing more to say to you because you are denying reality. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Marcuse, Tillich, etc. Those philosophers have had massive impacts on the world in many positive ways. And many of those philosophers were anything but elite. Most of them were considered filthy and rude during their times. Many of them were subjects of the working class.

Again, you ARE confusing the two. Religious thought does not mean irrational answers. If I question my purpose in life, that is a religious question. But my rational answer could be that in a world without knowledge of a God, life is absurd, so that I should do what is pleasurable to myself and to mankind. That is a rational answer. And it's rational because I am not admitting that that is the only correct answer. I am simply saying that that is the best answer I can come to with the information I have at hand.

Philosophizing is being scientific. It's just studying "reality" instead of a test tube.

Philosophy that delves into the untestable is not science.

Aristotle's bullshit astronomical "observations" were the basis for the Church's oppression for almost 2000 years. Two millennia.

Aristotle's claims about gravity, to a scientific thinker, could have been refuted simply by doing the experiment.

Sorry, I get worked up over Aristotle because he is often cited as this great scientific mind when to me he did nothing but perpetuate false claims which he could have, at the time, easily tested.

I have no problem with Plato or Socrates, because they advanced the western method, western philosophy, though I feel it was a natural consequence and would have happened regardless, certainly it was delayed by the oppression of the church.

Marx and Marcuse were influanced by Proudhon whose ideas were more consistant and logical (approaching the problem from a natural perspective rather than sociologically). Marx even stated that Proudhon was "the father of us all."

In the end we can seperate out the scientific thinkers from the philosophizers. Generally those who were actual scientists resulted in progress (Newton's optics, Galileo's observations, Kepler's mathematics, Eratosthenes' diligence, Hipparchus genius, Copernicus' bravery, Aristarchus for his insight).

To be of a scientific mind is to purge ones self of all faith or ego based beliefs. There's a reason Aristotle failed to 'prove' his system of gravity, he never actually went out and tested it, wrote down how he tested it, and then showed his tests to everyone. He claimed. It took nearly two thousand years. Two millennia, before the ideas were rationalized and made logical. Even after several brilliant minds concluded he was completely wrong.

Aristotle arguably impeeded development of science (by being the central figurehead for the Church) more than those others you noted helped.

Man, why did you have to mention Aristotle, he really gets me worked up.

He said pretty much the exact same thing.

Though I don't think I would say that I'm necessarily influenced by him as I came to my views before having read his stuff.

how easily "science" falls out of favor and the new "all-knowing" science takes its place.

I also enjoy Ellul's work, The Technological Society, and his critique of the technique and our over reliance on it in all arenas.

The scientific method is useful but very constraining at the same time.

Edit: spelling

Excellent post. Thank you.

The history of science is largely a history of people being wrong about stuff, and then eventually someone else figuring out they were wrong, and yet still being wrong in a different way. The very concept of scientific experiments was not available to Aristotle, so I wouldn't judge him too harshly.

of performing science. The important thing to understand is that he still attempted to figure out the function of the world around him through observation; albeit limited observation.

That is vastly different than the functions of the church leaders who did not want people to question the world but to simply "believe".

NT!

Again, you guys are casting judgment on a man that lived thousands of years ago. It's actually quite pretentious and annoying.

I'm casting judgement on a man who no doubt created a lot of problems for science and progress for nearly 2000 years (in the western world).

Believe me I have things to say about, say, Newton, and others, such as Bacon, but I reserve that judgement for some other discussion.

Nobody really had any idea what was going on physically. In order to get something right, we have to get it wrong first--usually many times over. I don't think we'd be better off without the first, seemingly stupid steps that Aristotle made. It's something like critiquing cave paintings as crude or sophomoric.

We were getting it right, most of it was garbage, but we were figuring things out. Aristotle determined that the moon was spherical and even that the earth was spherical. He even thought of a heilocentric model of the solar system but refused to accept it due to his own biases.

Are you really trying to blame the history of human egomania on one guy? Yes, Aristotle was limited, imperfect, and got a lot wrong. On those fronts he is no different from nearly everyone in history. Galen thought the liver was the heart. Einstein couldn't accept quantum theory. BFD. I really don't understand the source of your grievance against Aristotle here.

You cannot manipulate real science, especially in an open and free environment where people can determine the truth for themselves. Post-printing press and the like.

Aristotle 384 BC – 322 BCE

He was a magician and time traveler also?

Was the mere idea that the physical world was susceptible to rational understanding.

The notion of testing through experiments came later.

Again, it seems like you don't really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Aristotle. His scientific accomplishments have been held as great advancements in human history. His scientific methods,much of his astronomical observations, and philosophy are all very proper.

Aristotelian Physics is another story. His theories on physical matter and energy are, for the most part, inaccurate. But that doesn't mean that what he did was anything near what the church did. To suggest that is to shit on his legacy. See the major difference is that he came to his conclusions through scientific study, not wild assumptions like the church did. And I'm sure he didn't want to put people to death who disagreed with him; which the church took great pride in doing. I can't even believe you are trying to say that he was somehow a central figurehead of the church. He held close connection, but he himself was not of the faith.

In the end, you are bashing the man for constructing inaccurate science in a time of limited scientific capabilites. But his scientific methods are the basis for modern scientific study.


And it was actually about 1000-1200 years before people began questioning Aristotelian physics.


I still think you have some sort of ill will against philosophy. It seems that if someone doesn't seem "rational" to you, they are idiots. Yet you are acting quite irrationally in here.

You, and apparently many other people in here, have this idea that people that lived more than 2000 years ago somehow had the same research capabilities and knowledge that we do. Yeah compared to today, Aristotle looks quite naive. But back then, that was the best they could do.

He was a genius of HIS time.

I know of no evidence that he actually attempted such an experiment. He just claimed, unsurprisingly his words helped the Church and its literalist interpretation of the Bible. Unsurprisingly he seemed confident in his "observations."

He just didn't. The Greeks really weren't into experimentation. Archimedes was the exception that proved the rule, and most of his inventions were made in spite of the BS "science" of the period, and nobody would get as far as he got with mathematics until Newton and Leibniz, his greatest work, a primitive form of calculus, died with him, largely forgotten. Experiment is a very Western idea, really.

Aristotle was the shallow "know-it-all", at least when it came to science. The only stuff of his that comes across as truly excellent research is his political science stuff.

NT!

Obviously there should be a theorem to explain this by now?...

Please, elaborate... science guru.

:+

I think that if one cannot clearly define a falsifiable contention, one is dealing with religion, which is pernicious.

I think that I agree with Wilde who said that the history of science is the story of dead religions. "Prove it" is a tough task for things that are built on sand. And if you accept that contention, you must agree that it is the scientists that brought the reduction of religious influence in the west, not philosophers. One might say that Aristotle and slavish teaching of his various principles was a severe impediment to rational thought.

Like a hierarchy, rules of conduct, and belief in things that are explicitly supernatural (as opposed with only non-falsifiable).

And I am anti-hierarchical, because that's how I believe science best operates.

It narrates the birth and evolution of the "Hacker Ethic," which is, in a great part, just that. Highly recommended.

The notion of a backwards dark ages is kind of outdated; religion has fostered science as much as it has hindered it.

"I have nothing more to say to you because you are denying reality"



The question is:

"Is our children learning?"



When did "science" get killed and pinned to a board?

"if you tell me something, but I cannot figure it out for myself, then it is probably useless to me, since, well, it serves no use."

You should consider how that sounds. Either you're the smartest person in the world, or you have no use for a great deal of knowledge that exists because you're not going to be personally able to figure it *all* out on your own. :wow:

when you can cherry pick snippets from wikipedia and sound like a dilletante?

It's not about either.

It's about existence. And absurdity. And if you don't see a correlation... then you're too busy with a productive job whose "usefulness" to the world you have no doubt of because... you're a friggin idiot.

Existentialism has NOTHING TO DO WITH ETHICS... that's one on the stupidest theories I've ever heard.

Albert Camus was an existentialist that attempted to explain how the absurdity of life can be used to construct ethical actions.

By examining the absurdity of life, you can figure out how to truly live a proper and good life relative to others. That's true ethics.

Because the good and proper life relative to others that one figures out... is just as absurd as any other kind of life.

If he wants to play ethics games to pass the time, that is fine by me... but that is using existentialism as a tool in ethics... the existentialism itself has nothing to do with ethics in and of itself... it's the ethics that Camus apparently decided to sprinkle on top of his existentialism, like chopped nuts on his intellectual fudge sundae, that has a lot to do with ethics.

As humans, we have for centuries clung to things out of fear, and made things up to make us feel better about our apparent inability to completely control our surroundings. I find it fascinating. Anything tangible that comes from the spiritual belief system has it's basis in science. Science and religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, despite the stupidity you will find.

It's not "woo woo" to believe in spirituality any more than it is to believe in science. In the end, they are one in the same.

Then why do you have a medicinal herb for an avatar? :shrug:

You don't need to have any beliefs regarding possible medicinal benefits of cannabis to enjoy a good bong hit.

I've often been struck how people who state that they are "spiritual, not religious" manage to nevertheless construct a patchwork religion-like belief system that is as filled with superstition and willful ignorance. It may represent a more benign worldview than that of the fundamentalists, but it is no less rigid, proscribed, and hostile to rational challenge.

and meta-discussions of knowledge, how we acquire knowledge and what knowledge is.

they can deal with religious topics, but they aren't religious pursuits.

i shouldn't need to mention google, but you get the picture.

Because *some guy* says *some thing* does not mean it actually matters to me.. For instance, I reject the Map-Territory relationship because as far as it concerns me it is completely and utterly irrelevant (especially since it sets a higher standard than is necessary for progress or utilization).

And I find your silly metaphor of a "slippery slope of irrationality" laughable.

"Scientist" superciliousness is always an amusement to me. I would actually argue that "science" itself is a religion. It has it's axioms, theorems... and it's own methodology for determining ... well, if I were religious I'd have a handy word... but in the meantime, I'll use heterodoxy. Science takes details on faith (two point make a line.. that's a definition without a proof, sir) and other descriptions on even more faith (just because the math is easier if the Earth rotates around the Sun... the Earth must rotate around the Sun...)

Ironically, I've found that scientists are the most dense idiots when presented with poetry, as a general rule... and yet they seem content with that fact... as if poetry were irrelevant... well, if that be so... you'll not mind being attacked poetically?... your abacuses and pocket protectors no help as you are treated to a liberal helping of ... your math is bad... try again.

Now you'll be expected to do a dance hall number. Bertold Brecht choreography will be acceptable...

you could rightly claim that some people approach science with a religious fervor, but science itself is almost the opposite of religious belief. It is not faith based, but rooted in rigorous methodology.

... but I think you may be onto something there.

Ok, I will no longer call science a religion.

I will, however, continue to argue that "some people approach science with a religious fervor". I would even call it zealotry in many many cases.

I will, further, hereby admit that I was not aware there was anything more to religion than the fervor, and some funny stories ... if there is indeed more to religion than the fervor... ok, I'll let science off the hook for whatever else there might be. At least until I am able to determine what else there is to religion... at which point I do reserve the right to file a motion to have science re-conflated with religion.

I apologize for any misunderstandings...

It just says existence precedes essence. That is the same as science. There is no soul and no meaning. It is individually socially created. So, why would you put existentialism in there?

You need a coffee enema and a chiropractic realignment.

:sarcasm:

My herbalist switched me to green tea (with ginkgo extract) enemas instead.

What a difference!


But I still can't get used to adding the lemon wedge. :eyes:

I swear by them.

As far as I'm concerned, opposing modern medicine for ideological reasons is pretty much the same, whether the ideology is religious; post-modernist ('science is just another belief system'); anti-government; or based on opposition to profits by Big Pharma (I oppose profiteering by Big Pharma too, but I don't extend it to the whole of Western medicine).

People have the right to their beliefs, and to refuse treatment for themselves. But where children are involved, or where people try to influence public policies in a direction that restricts access to modern medicine- whether this be banning stem cell research on religious grounds, or opposing the funding of vaccination programmes - then I will fight against these views. Just as I will fight against Pharma profiteering that makes medicine unaffordable to many, or right-wing governments and insurance companies that refuse to spend on health care.

Althought the "anti-science" brigade is the most obvious, the reality is to me that there is the larger inclusive set of merely "anti-logic". The most hostile question I can seem to ask is psuedo-political or confrontational/social conversations is apparently "why?". When someone takes a stance, especially when they couch it in the expression of "I believe", apparently (based upon the hostile reaction I get) the most rude thing I can do in response is ask "why". People, on both sides of the ideological spectrum, are not typically prepared to defend a point of view. It is to merely be accepted. "Making their case" is something many folks are not experienced at doing. Try it around here some time. Ask someone to make their case. If you don't immediately see the logic or wisdom, or how it aligns with progressive/liberal thought, then you'll be labeled as some sort of troll. The 9/11 group is probably the worst (on both sides). But the guns groups has similar dwellers. You've either "drank the juice" or you haven't and either way, folks often aren't interested in "making their case".

It's pro-liberty.

And on wither you think he needs to be aware of the facts before being allowed to make that choice etc.

This is objectively a form of child neglect, but people can't see it objectively because "religious beliefs" are involved and our society has BS taboos against criticizing "religious beliefs".

OBVIOUSLY, I child is too young and too much under his parents' influence to decide matters of life and death.

chemo effects a cure 90% of the time, and no other treatment comes close. Without chemo this child will die. With it his odds of living are very, very good.

People make quality of life vs. duration of life decisions about cancer treatment all the time. This one is problematic because it's a kid and the decision is being made by the parents.

Nothing a 13 year old enjoys more than having a giant lump of painful flessh growing out of them.

There is absolutely no reasonable QOL vs duration of life debate in this case. He has his entire life ahead of him and the chemo works.

That is not the reality of the case.
Such factors are taken into account by the courts. Their decision was correct. No Quality vs. Duration argument exists in this particular case.

to believe illogical things "anti-science."

They can believe what they want; but they can't abuse their child because of it. They want to withhold life-saving treatment; it's abuse, in the same way that a severe beating by them that left him fighting for his life would be abuse.

And he can't make the decision himself, because he's illiterate - which is their fault too.

between beating him and allowing him to take a form of treatment that will almost certainly result in death. The measure is not the result but the process. He can't decide. So, are the parents or the state going to decide. I prefer the parents, even though I know the result of their choice.

And unless I missed something, it was my recollection that his illiteracy is the result of his having either retardation or autism-not something that was his parents' fault.

Just home-schooling:



The 'church elder' claim seems right:



I think they've brought him up to be so ignorant, that he is brainwashed.

So, are the parents or the state going to decide. I prefer the parents, even though I know the result of their choice.

Why should the parents have the power of life and death over him? They want to treat him in a way that will likely kill him, where there is a way to treat him that will likely make him live. If they wanted to feed their child on a starvation diet, rather than a healthy one, would that be OK with you? Do you really think the state should not be able to protect the health of minors when their parents would harm them?

The measure is not the result but the process.

Why? The result, let's remember, is a preventable death. This is not some abstract case; the boy may well die.

to try to confirm something about my recollection regarding his illiteracy. I think we are both right in part. Certainly he was homeschooled. It also appears that he is illiterate. Apparently he was tested for admission to a charter school and could not recognize the word "the." I came across a couple of blogs that referred to court documents indicating that he is "learning disabled." Did not find the court documents. Found a column at the Minneapolis Star Tribune that made the same reference to a learning disability. So I don't know what the entire sourc of his incompetence is.

When their beliefs start harming others, then other forces must step in.

I can go out and say I hate conservatives--that's fine--but if I started shooting every Republican I met, do you agree that would be a problem?

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

when it's 25 degrees outside, based on their illogical, irresponsible, hocus-pocus woo-woo belief system and the child quite predictably DIES - is that pro-liberty?

What utter bullshit.

...that he sees this as the thin end of a wedge opposing parental consent restrictions on abortion. That's why he won't let it go.

system that you do not find believable? That is not a very broad view of liberty. In fact, its a rather authoritarian view, where liberty is dependent upon orthodoxy.

endangers the lives of other people.

If your belief system requires you to drive at 150 mph, or walk down a crowded street throwing bricks at everyone, you will pretty soon be arrested.

No society has ever permitted absolute freedom of action.

Liberty does not include the right to force one's own beliefs onto another who is not competent to make an informed decision on a question of fundamental rights.

But below, you have clarified that you do not believe children are Constitutional "persons" and do not have individual rights superior to the interests of their parents.

While a radical anti-Constitutional position, it is certainly one you are entitled to have.

I said that I don't think they have the right to trump a parental decision and have the law enforce their decision to trump a parental decision. While that view might be properly regarded as "radical" as you suggested below, it likely would be supported by most parents. After all, in this very case, Mom and child did not appear in court on Monday. And so, Mom, at significant personal risk of arrest, etc. has pdecided that her right to decide what is in the best interests of her child trump the privilege of the state to attempt to trump her right to decide.

IMHO it diminishes the personhood of the child under the Constitution.

The prevailing weight of authority on this point is that the child's rights under the Constitution do trump parental authority on a fundamental liberty interest.

I credit your reasonableness to what must have been your very fine parents.

With whom I often disagreed on a lot of things. But, as I have said elsewhere in this thread, unless the parental proposed course of action is an inimical action, such as a human sacrifice, I do think that the parental decision should trum the privilege of the state to intervene.

Actually, I think that the most difficult case would be one where the Hauser kid was quite bright and capable of making his own decisions. Suppose he wanted chemo and Mom and Dad are syaing no, based on religious reasons. I'd think the kid would have to sue to be emancipated. And I really do believe that that does not trouble me.

...independent of their parent's religious beliefs.

You necessarily do not.

The end.

The patient's right of self determination and right to refuse medical treatment are INDEED 14th Amendment liberty interests.

Applying the legal standard of "best interests" to an incompetent minor patient is how that individual right gets exercised.

You want to take away the rights of children and assign those rights to their parents, and THAT is anti-liberty.

I do not view state intervention on behalf of "the best interests of the child" and in opposition to the parental interest as pro-liberty. You do. We shall disagree on that.

What the parents role is relative the child's fundamental liberty interest as an individual.

Had this child been found competent, he indeed could have refused the care. You know that, right? But your position in that situation is that he should be forced to receive the chemo if his parents decide otherwise.

Forget about disagreeing for a moment. Expand on the outcome of your position in the situation where a competent child wants to refuse the care, and the parents force him to have it.

My position is that the child does not have an individual interest superior to the intererest of the parents. Only if the parents were acting in a way that would unlawfully, actively harm the child would I allow the state to intervene. If they parents wanted to offer the kid up as a human sacrifice to their god, I'd let the state intervene. That would be acting to kill the kid. Acting to provide the kid with an alternative therapy that is almost certainly going to be ineffective, however, is not the same thing. That is acting in the child's best interests, consistently with an utterly stupid religious belief, that the lot of them are and should be free to adopt if they wish.

Okay, I thought your thing was about State v. Individual, I didn't realize you had written children right out of the Constitution.

"My position is that the child does not have an individual interest superior to the intererest of the parents."

That's quite a radical position.

So the whole "Prayer of Allegiance" thing, for example, in which it has been the law for decades that a child has a right of conscience, would be negated if a parent said, "Johnny, you have to say the prayer of allegiance in school."

Children are indeed "persons" under the 14th Amendment. There is nothing about age in the Constitution at all. They are humans, and those born or naturalized here are citizens. In fact, there are many children who are citizens of the United States whose parents are not. Gov. Jindal, for example, was born a citizen of the US at a time when his parents were merely legal residents.

Would you say that Jindal's parents could have revoked his US citizenship, too, since he did not have individual rights superior to his parents?

You realize that birthers argue this invalid point about the president's mother's second husband.

Parents have "parental authority" and there is a lot of jurisprudence on that, as well as parental obligations to the child. But parents are not the arbiter of the child's Constitutional rights which, as stated, apply to persons.

There has never been a Supreme Court decision to the effect that children are not Constitutional persons, and there never will be.

You have an interesting opinion, but it is anti-Constitutional. I'm surprised you use the word "liberty" in connection with a position that would deprive millions of Americans of it.

Does this apply to child support after divorce? If a religion doesn't believe in it, then parents are freed of financial support obligations to the child? You do realize that child support is about the child's right to support, which is indeed superior to the parents' interests.

I'm going to guess that you support parental consent laws relative to abortion, yes?

The school "strip search" case that has received a lot of attention. Can her parents step in and say the minor in that case is not allowed to sue under the 4th Amendment?

You are stretching what I actually said into a parade of possible horribles instead of paying attention to what I said.

I said nothing about the rights of children vis-a-vis anyone in the workld other than the parents.

That's why I asked how you believe that parents are some sort of "conduit" of the child's Constitutional rights.

Parents have authority which is broader than, say, the police power of the state, but they are not assigned as proxies for children's Constitutional rights.

The individual in question here is the child, and the issue is the child's right to refuse medical treatment, which is a fundamental individual liberty interest. The parents do not own the child's Constitutional rights. If mom & dad disagree, do we flip a coin?

It is the same nexus of rights that is tightly coupled to a lot of other things - such as reproductive rights.

That is why parental consent laws on abortion have an "or a judge's order" exception. They HAVE to. Otherwise, your point is that parents may absolutely exercise their religious beliefs on the question of their child's choice relative to pregnancy.

You can't do laser surgery on this long-established set of liberty interests in medical decisionmaking without upsetting a much larger apple cart than I believe you appreciate.

Yes or no - can a 15 year old girl get an abortion without parental consent and with judicial approval as to her competence? It should be a simple 14th Amendment question.

That's what the law is. But I would not be troubled by having the answer be in the negative-that the parents had the ultimate decision, unless the child sued for emancipation.

...and that's fine. I appreciate that you have thought it through and come to a conclusion.

Let's all fight for the liberty to kill our children. Yay!!!

The boy is a minor, who can't even read the word "cat." The State was being PRO LIBERTY by stepping in.

:eyes:

an oxymoronic statement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You wish to hurl insults and personal attacks because someone has the audacity to disagree with you. You are not worthy of my time.

The Right has the religious nuts. The Left has Postmodernist clap-trap, pseudo-enviromentalist luddite romantics, and New Age BS. It's all part of a vicious assault on reason. In the minds of many on the Far Left "Science" is just another form of corporatist propaganda it seems. :eyes:

You can be a perfectly rational, science-minded postmodernist.

In what way is postmodernism irrational in its relation to science or religion?

IS the scientific point of view. It's the 21st century Odin. How can smart people get so hidebound in what is field of possibility? And so vicious about it?

It's not rational.

It's not contemporary. It seems the sciences got veered off into conservativeland at some point, from the hostile attitudes expressed here, the talking points. Where did this indoctrination start? Is it really the scientific tradtion? When did science stop expanding?

I don't believe it has. The stale POV we see here is a subset of a much broader and breathing science, dynamic and connected to reality.


:hi:

If a statement is unfalsifiable it is not science. Testing falsifiable hypotheses is the only source of objective knowledge and scientific theories are only tentative, things cannot be proven with absolute certainty, only disproven. The problem is that the popular woo-woo is unfalsifiable, or was falsified and then reworded is such a way that makes it unfalsifiable. Popper himself used Freudian Psychoanalysis, Astrology, and deterministic theories of history (such as the one that Marxism is based on) as examples.

in relation to the ill behaviors that always seek to detract and hide behind that............

Your post echoes the whole thing.

Thanks for your insights, Odin2005 :toast:

:hi:

rather than making science into a religion. Are you saying it is not factual that sometimes corporations use the word science to sell crap that is really not good for people? Deepak Chopra, for example, is an MD and he loves to bandy about the name Einstein and the word quantum. Why aren't you genuflecting before that Scientist? Are YOU an MD?

And as we know, reality has a liberal bias.

that sometimes resides here. It makes me weep for the state of education in this country. It's this kind of ill-logical, irresponsible, indefensible, immature fantasy thinking that leads to situations like this where some woo-woo nutbag of a mother brainwashes her kid into sacrificing himself at the altar of insanity, complete with hocus-pocus herbs and snake oil.

Thanks for posting this Cali.

I've been taken aback on the sizable minority that engages in conspiracy theory crap to disregard solid scientific evidence.

It's always dismaying to see how that kind of-- well, "woo-woo" is a good word for it-- congeals around this end of the spectrum. I have to agree with Cali, they're like the mirror image of the irrational fundamentalists of the right. Same product, different flavor.

And I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Also, read this book.

Society can't seem to function efficiently if it exists. I don't mean the men and women, black and white, all working for the same corporation type diversity. I mean real difference. That's why might has, does, and will, always make right. Whoever or whatever can force the other to conform to their standards, however it needs to be done, wins. That goes for religion, corporations, governments, parents, science, or just people in general.

People being anti-science, or anti-anything, is a form of diversity. If diversity is a good thing, then some portion of the population being anti-science has to be a good thing. You're either pro-diversity, or anti-diversity. If someone is pro-diversity, and someone is anti-diversity, that's diversity, which is good. Also, men and women, black and white, all working for the same corporation is a form of diversity, so it must be good, especially if I don't think it's all that diverse.

Diversity is very messy. Or, of course, maybe it isn't. I guess it depends on your point of view. Or, of course, maybe it doesn't. No wonder we're all a little crazy. Or...

by your sad standards, eugenics is just diversity of thinking and not a criminal endeavor. And diversity, like anything else, can be good- or not. depends what you're talking about, not that entertaining anti-science crap imposed on others is about diversity.

"by your sad standards, eugenics is just diversity of thinking and not a criminal endeavor"

We don't like doing it to people, but we specifically breed other species to fit our requirements of maximum productive capacity. Is anyone prosecuted for that? No. We've been doing it for thousands of years. Our current reality wouldn't exist without doing it. Might makes right yet again. Plus it was done to people, until wars were fought and won, with might making right one more time.

"And diversity, like anything else, can be good- or not. depends what you're talking about"

Exactly.

"not that entertaining anti-science crap imposed on others is about diversity. "

It's the definition of diversity, from every point of view involved in the situation.

You knew what species he was talking about and are intentionally distracting from the issue.

Criminal or not, it's a point of view that is different from other points of view, so it is a thread of diversity.

I just don't think raising the issue of domesticated animals in relevant to the discussion.

If diversity is a good thing, then some portion of the population being anti-semites has to be a good thing.

Se how that works?

Now get off the computer and pray for the Great Bear In The Sky to magically get your thoughts on this website.

You can add anything in there that you want. If there are anti-semites, then there are also pro-semites. That's where the balance comes in. Then whichever side is able to make the other see how things are going to be, that side wins. Might makes right. Always has, always will.

you're now blindly touting bigotry as diversity. it's not. it's hate pure and simple and it's ugly, dangerous and destructive. the rest of your post is just nonsensical blathering.

It may be just that, but that doesn't mean it's not a form of diversity. If something is different from you, that is diversity. That's why we have endless conflict on any number of topics.

The altruism of those in positions of power?

For good or bad, the reality that we live in today wouldn't exist without might making right. America wouldn't exist without it. Very few nations would exist without it. Economics wouldn't exist without it. Governments wouldn't exist without it. Corporations wouldn't exist without it. Humanity wouldn't be where we are today without it. The way we impose ourselves on every eco-system. Do the non-human members of those eco-systems get to vote? No. So how do we end up doing it? Because no species can stop us from doing it.

Which issue has been resolved without the backing of force?

:shrug: Or were you under the impression that scientists work out their competing theories in the boxing ring?

Which is fine. They can, and will, do whatever they want(and I know that they need my permission). Discovery just isn't forceless. Even if you don't believe in it, you're forced to support it through taxes under threat of penalty. The same way many may not believe in the wars we have going on now, but you're going to support it through taxes, or you're going to jail. The non-humans that are experimented on, they don't get a vote as to whether or not they want to be included. Which, again, is fine. The prey doesn't get a vote as to whether or not it wants to be eaten at any given time either. The theories themselves may not need force, but the foundations upon which the structure is built is backed by force.

on DU they do

The philosophy of "Might Makes Right" is talking about physical force, not the force of an intellectual argument. But then fundamentalists in this country do have a vested interest in conflating intellectual disagreement with violent persecution. We all know how much they love to play the oppressed victim.

is the big deal with READING a post and SEPARATING from whatever dialogue or diatribe you've got in your head?!!!!!!!


I said what I said. I QUOTED WHAT I WAS REPLYING TO.

There's a joke there -- do you really need a damn smiilie to figure it out?

Yet another example of how irrational this behavior is. :crazy:

Another pathetic example of discussion as fisticuffs.

As in BOXING RING.

As in READ THE DAMN POST BEFORE GOING OFF.

I generally try to read a post within the context of the discussion and carry a thought or an argument through with some degree of consistency. Am I to understand that you would prefer your posts to be taken on their own, out of the context of the larger discussion? In that case, you're right, these threads do tend to become a boxing match of sorts. I don't feel like I was really going off there though. I'm laying back here against the ropes taking the punches. There's a name for that, what was it again...

:eyes:

while the pro-semites are having a "Hannukah for Goyim" workshop, then what?

This is a ridiculous argument you're trying to make.

Worked for America.

*Enforced* homogeneity is a bad thing (or, to be more exact, a thing with a cost - enforcing non-murderousness is good because the benefit outweights the cost); so is enforced diversity.

what every society has been doing for at least the last few thousand years?

because their differences with us constitute a desirable source of diversity.

and compare them to those of every other personal interest group. Only the cupcake lovers come in second, and a far second at that.

Stark and willful scientific ignorance knows no party. This place is infested with wide-eyed and sometimes belligerent Believers in past lives, repressed abuse memories, Indigo Children, crystals, homeopathy....You name it.

is that this community has a closeminded contingent of "rational" DUers who are obsessed and fixated on monitoring and trashing other DUers based on a chauvinistic "scientific" POV that theirs (and of course they all share it in exactly the same way because it is "rational" and "scientific" and "Indivisible" -- oops, kinda like a fundy God) is the ONE and ONLY correct and acceptable worldview for the 140,669 DUers.

It defies logic that a truly rational and science based world view would be so monolithic, so set in its ways, so restrictive, exclusive, incurious and hostile/paranoid. A truly rational and science based world view would be curious and flexible, continuing to investigate, study, consider, maybe even connect the dots.

That's not possible if the Anointed Arbiters of Rational DU Behavior spend all their time making noise, clacking the dots they've already got, jealously guarding and worshiping those dots and bashing anyone who goes off the talking points over the head with them.

This noise prevents the broader community from discussing common interests in a living and breathing science that is being explored every day. Certainly many DUers (we are an interesting bunch) have cross disciplinary interests -- that's usually where the really interesting ideas and dialogue may be found.

It's the 21st century and it's sad to see the hostility with which the "rational" defend their one note position. Esp. in an OP like this one which divides the community, sets up yet another Us vs. Them, without specifying what the OP is referring to.

It appears like another call for a purge and that attitude is dangerous on many levels. The sway it holds here is already a problem as it stifles rational discussion in various forums.

The behavior often appears irrational and at times, off the chart bizarre. The HATRED that comes through is strange. It is related to the "we know and you're all worthless scum" attitude, including the talking point language that is used to berate others, the prepackaged attitudes and arrogance.

Are 140,669 DUers really that homogeneous?

The illogical insistence on a Indivisible and Unchanging Always and Forever Our Way or the Highway Science appears a lot like -- sorry -- Yahweh. So there is not a little irony in this stale and hidebound, hostile attitude defending an exclusive an static Rationality. It's the 21st CENTURY for gawd's sake.

Also ironic is the claim someone made here that "To be of a scientific mind is to purge ones self of all faith or ego based beliefs."

The truth is the "faith" is in a science so certain that it is exclusive and rigid, which is absurd -- and nothing like the reality that ya'll are supposedly so rational about. The "ego" is in full sway when the Scientifically Correct Contingent uses their certitude to exclude, attack and dehumanize others.

It's the education that I wonder about. How can people be educated and rational and science oriented and turn out so incurious, inflexible, domineering and apparently afraid of unknown ideas; and so certain that if those ideas are unknown they must be burned at the stake?

(Oh and don't tell anybody, but when they're amongst themselves in their Safe Place, they openly share with each other ideas and experiences that they consistently attack and demean -- and marginalize -- everywhere else).

It would be reassuring if someone as certain and certified in historic references as another in the thread is, did not spell the word "influanced." Science is about nothing if not about the influence of one thing upon another.............. how can one be rational and righteous about all this and still miss such a basic component?



If there is a specific complaint in a specific thread or forum where the OP and others find their inspiration, that would be the place to address it, rather than other Divide and Conquer DU thread -- another with no reference to the actual topic.

"belligerent."

:rofl:

Their ability to demean and marginalize others is part of their holiness. No one dare try to bring actually rationality to the discussion. Or try to HAVE a discussion.

This poster replied without reading my post, like the previous replier. There was no time.

The same questions remain about a jealously guarded, rigid POV that is somehow threatened by other ideas and obsessively attacks and marginalizes whatever doesn't fit the ideology. Viciously, contemptuously, occasionally insanely; way beyond "belligerent."


Curious.

Until you can provide any scientific evidence of your fantasies AT ALL, your spittlefests are not very interesting. It is like the creationists' museum...fun for a few minutes, but it never really goes anywhere.

No.



You also are missing the point of the OP due to your assumptions, which is another reason the behavior my post describe doesn't seem rational.

Maybe it's the whole "kill it and pin it to the board" thing, but you have no idea what topics people here might discuss in different forums, amongst different disciplines, in an atmosphere that wasn't poisoned by a posse of Scientifically Correct self anointed sheriffs;



It would be interesting.

prove my point with your arrogant willful ignorance.

Three syllables. Not hard.

Asking for evidence is "a form of bullying."

Now you pile on that BS and further prove the point that the chauvinism clouds any rational thought or discussion. Anything that doesn't fit the talking points and prepackaged attitudes is disregarded.

Thanks pron, another good example. :thumbsup:

shall we post links to all your endorsements of rape?

Just another false claim you can't substantiate.

Well, at least I'm not like you and punch mentally retarded children and steal their baseball helmets.

:crazy:

I mean, let's be open minded here. There is a possibility that you do, in fact endorse rape.

And you're making your own little reputation right now.

I was there the last time you did it, remember?

You and a little clique of PMing woo woo crybaby losers like to accuse me and others of being "pro-rape" and "pro-child molestation."

It's what you do whenever you lose an argument. It's just like calling people "bullies" and falsely, hypocritically, accuse other people of breaking the rules. Only taken to a ridiculous extreme.

I don't take it seriously. It's pretty funny, in a sad sort of way, when you get right down to it.

Especially considering your own poor opinion of women.

My opinion of women is fine, thank you.

Not sure what paranoid episode you had. I stay out of threads that are going to clearly be misogynist flamefests.

Your accusations are truly bizarre and reflect a dangerous way of thinking.

Nuff said.

The thread just the other day, were you confused sexuality with sexism demonstrated a rather poor opinion of women, in that they're supposed to be asexual, and constantly victims of male sexuality.

And one of your bizarre threads about that Susan Boyle woman you lauded her for her "virginity" and attacked her opponents as "hookers."

Really creepy shit.

"Your accusations are truly bizarre and reflect a dangerous way of thinking."

Well now there's the pot calling the kettle black.

You could learn to read and stop misrepresenting what others say. :think: Too much for ya?

Where would you be without your poor comprehension. Is it intentional?

Thanks for the reminder of how twisted some misrepresentations can be. Like I said, dangerous thiinking.

And there's all your violations of the rules, dragging shit from thread to thread AND pretending it's true.

You actually said those things.

"And there's all your violations of the rules, dragging shit from thread to thread AND pretending it's true."

Claiming I endorse rape is a violation of the rules. Linking to another thread to respond to your question is not.

Those are your misinterpretations of my words.

Your self serving link is against the Rules and was not a answer to a question.

Please keep your illness to yourself.

I linked to a post you made, where you made a claim but refused to provide evidence for it.

It wasn't even a reply to you and and you're pretending that's what the other poster meant --- by dragging in other threads.............. :puke:


we're done here

2. You were replying to me.

Your convoluted, ill logical justification does not justify violating the rules, __________ _____ .

I didn't ask you to answer for the other person; neither did they. The "question" was rhetorical b/c that post/er wasn't making any sense.

#82 was bullshit.

Pretending you knew what they meant was bullshit.

Claiming I made any "claim" was bullshit.

Pretending it was up to you to answer is bullshit.

Using that as justification is bullshit.

Linking and calling out and dragging in another thread violate the rules.

Your behavior is moronic. Your thinking is dangerous. Your reputation precedes you.

Without links.

You can count but you can't read.




"Evidence of what? The poster isn't serious and the reply had nothing to do with my post.

"Now you pile on that BS and further prove the point that the chauvinism clouds any rational thought or discussion. Anything that doesn't fit the talking points and prepackaged attitudes is disregarded."

"I didn't ask you to answer for the other person; neither did they."

You asked me what claim you're unwilling to support, I gave you one valid answer.

Would you like more?

"#82 was bullshit."

Post #82 was apparently a reference to your belief in "indigo children." That's another example of a claim you're unable to support.

"Claiming I made any "claim" was bullshit."

Actually, it was right there in the link. You claimed the consciousness existed outside the brain. When you were asked to support that claim, you refused to and accused others of bullying. When you were just now reminded that you failed to support the claim, instead of supporting the claim you've once again falsely accused me of breaking the rules.

Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

"Linking and calling out and dragging in another thread violate the rules."

Linking is not against the rules. Calling people out IS against the rules, but you were not called out, you were already posting in this thread. Continuing a flame war from another thread IS against the rules, but this is not the continuation of a flame war from another thread. This is not a discussion about consciousness existing outside of the brain, which was the topic of that other thread. The topic is your refusal to substantiate your claims.

This is not complicated.

You would see all your mistakes in my previous post -- IN FACT you would not have linked (yes it's against the rules according to Skinner's thread), presumed to answer someone else's bullshit, CALLED ME OUT by linking and continuing YOUR bullshit from another thread.

You don't comprehend the reason for the guidelines, you are a waste of time.

Skinner didn't say it was against the rules to link threads.

Skinner said it was against the rules to link for abusive purposes. It's abusive purposes which are against the rules.

See, here's a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913#5529983

Talk about issues with reading comprehension.

"You would see all your mistakes in my previous post -- IN FACT you would not have linked (yes it's against the rules according to Skinner's thread), presumed to answer someone else's bullshit, CALLED ME OUT by linking and continuing YOUR bullshit from another thread."

No, see, calling people out means starting threads, or subthreads, for the purposes of attacking people.

Seeing as how I responded directly to your question, I could not have been calling you out.

If you didn't like me providing an example of how you make claims but don't substantiate them, maybe you shouldn't have asked, huh?

Maybe you shouldn't drag your ill stuff from thread to thread and be delusional enough to pretend you were asked a rhetorical question WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD and use it as an excuse to LINK TO ANOTHER THREAD.


Which Skinner addresses as a need for a "return to a zero tolerance policy" as anyone can see in his reply to my question in his thread.



Buh bye
:puke:

1. This thread is about anti-science.

2. You asked me the question, and the link contained a valid answer.

"you were asked a rhetorical question"

If it was a rhetorical question, why are you upset at the answer? A rhetorical question implies the answer is obvious.

I think instead of being a rhetorical question, you were asking a question you weren't expecting me to be able to answer.

And that's why you're so upset and abusive.

"use it as an excuse to LINK TO ANOTHER THREAD."

You're the one who brought up that other thread. There's no harm in linking it. Technically, you just called out Skinner. Although not in an abusive way, so it's not a rule violation.

:rofl:

:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5456460

This one?

The one that everybody can read for themselves?

No, the only thing that got proven in that thread is that when some people lose arguments, they make up phony accusations about other people defending rape.

I think you've proven that three or four times now.

...to sex.

Because that's not what that thread says.

Who woulda thunk?

:evilfrown:

You realizes that just proves my point, right?

your reputation speaks for itself as do your posts as does your presence.


If you were inspired to prove your reputation incorrect, that would be most welcome. :hi:



Bye now.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your extraordinary claim.

I brought a crossword puzzle. And I might work some more on that perpetual motion thing. :)

Not just be nasty?

Do you know more syl la bles?

That might help

prove your point how can you delude yourself that they do?