Heartland

Once again I would remind you that I do believe in evolution and can cite equally compelling examples (peppered moths and dog breeding being the most obvious to my mind). But it's still all just evidence for a very good theory. The events themselves are observed facts. That they are examples of evolution is an inference.

But we're obviously never going to agree on this, are we? Which, in the end, is kind of the point. We're both interpreting the evidence in different ways.

Fancy debating whether black is white now?

OK !!!

stufarq wrote:Once again I would remind you that I do believe in evolution and can cite equally compelling examples (peppered moths and dog breeding being the most obvious to my mind). But it's still all just evidence for a very good theory.

OK, fairy nuff. (Blah blah blah caveat about "belief" etc. etc. etc. )

stufarq wrote:The events themselves are observed facts. That they are examples of evolution is an inference.

Well, I don't see what other inference you can make. Point A in time: population of bacteria that can't digest chemical. Point B in time: population that can. Evolution is "change in a population of organisms over time" by definition. Even if you wish to deny that they evolved by random mutation and natural selection (the Darwinian theory) the fact remains that they evolved.

OK, in science, as Stephen J Gould indeed said, '"fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."' But you're approaching such perversity...

stufarq wrote:But we're obviously never going to agree on this, are we?

obviously not...

stufarq wrote:Which, in the end, is kind of the point. We're both interpreting the evidence in different ways.

Fancy debating whether black is white now?

All just shades of grey

markfiend wrote:All just shades of grey

Or Orange/Yellow?

markfiend wrote:Point A in time: population of bacteria that can't digest chemical. Point B in time: population that can. Even if you wish to deny that they evolved by random mutation and natural selection (the Darwinian theory) the fact remains that they evolved.

No, the fact remains that you have two different populations with different characteristics. Without trying very hard you could come up with all sorts of explanations. Some of them would even make sense.

markfiend wrote:Evolution is "change in a population of organisms over time" by definition.

Only if the theory of evolution is correct. Otherwise it just means "change or development". You can't say that their evolution is a fact if the theory itself is under question.

markfiend wrote:Well, I don't see what other inference you can make.

I know a few creationists who can...

markfiend wrote:But you're approaching such perversity...

You calling me a pervert?

I give in.

That means I win, right? Is there a prize?

(Actually, technically I gave in first but you came back for an encore and I couldn't help singing along.)

Have a cookie.

Without a doubt, the people who buggered up Britain in mind are the people who live there. I'm not saying they intentionally did this, but every time I return the country people's self-contradictory attitudes just mess with my head.

markfiend wrote:Have a cookie.

Ta. They were luvverly.

nodubmanshouts wrote:Without a doubt, the people who buggered up Britain in mind are the people who live there. I'm not saying they intentionally did this, but every time I return the country people's self-contradictory attitudes just mess with my head.

who fecked up usa then?

James Blast wrote:who fecked up usa then?

Don't get me started...

James Blast wrote:who fecked up usa then?

Now that's a whole debate about democratic elections & allowing people to vote when they should have to take an intelligence test first.
In fairness, that's not just in the USA though (UK, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic...etc.).
Allow stupid people to vote & you have a mess on your hands.
The more stupid people, the messier it gets.
Dictatorship anyone?

James Blast wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote:Without a doubt, the people who buggered up Britain in mind are the people who live there. I'm not saying they intentionally did this, but every time I return the country people's self-contradictory attitudes just mess with my head.

who fecked up usa then?

You'd need a list of a lot more than 50 people for that

Pista wrote:Dictatorship anyone?

Nice of you to volunteer me- can I start late Tuesday?

...........I'd leave the country now if I were Robert Smith btw........

Pista wrote:Now that's a whole debate about democratic elections & allowing people to vote when they should have to take an intelligence test first.

I got myself ripped but good for suggesting (elsewhere, obviously) that one should be required to display an understanding of candidates and issues before being allowed to cast votes on them. Lots of ranting about 'disenfranchisement' and 'poll taxes' and whatnot.

So call me an elitist - but disenfranchising the stupid sometimes seems like a damn good idea to me.

Row, anyone?

land of the free, home of the.... Whiit!?

Pista wrote:

James Blast wrote:who fecked up usa then?

Now that's a whole debate about democratic elections & allowing people to vote when they should have to take an intelligence test first.
In fairness, that's not just in the USA though (UK, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic...etc.).
Allow stupid people to vote & you have a mess on your hands.
The more stupid people, the messier it gets.
Dictatorship anyone?

I don't believe that. To a certain extent, it's all a big deal and sale, anyway.
Excluding anyone from voting wouldn't change a thing ... or change things
rather to the worse (since any sort of prerequisite test could be instrumentalised
to fend off unwelcome potential participants ...) - for example

aye, but I don't think that was the question, are you Amerikan?

James Blast wrote:aye, but I don't think that was the question, are you Amerikan?

No. I'm serious ...

7anthea7 wrote:I got myself ripped but good for suggesting (elsewhere, obviously) that one should be required to display an understanding of candidates and issues before being allowed to cast votes on them. Lots of ranting about 'disenfranchisement' and 'poll taxes' and whatnot.

Whilst I'm inclined to agree it seems (especially in the us but increasingly in western europe) that the voting public are influenced by a right-wing press and a televisual media which bows to the influence of large corporations. It is tiresome arguing politics irl and I feel it takes a great deal of effort to change anything on grassroots level as you have to fight past walls of apathy and that the type of person wanting to do this has to have an unbelievable sense of self-belief and patience. Its easy to blame the electorate but when they feel so rightly disenfranchised I have some sympathy for those who feel that if voting changed anything then they would make it illegal.

anyways in the states it's electoral college..does that sound like the popular vote?

sziamiau wrote:anyways in the states it's electoral college...

Only for presidential elections - thank gods...

Just to clarify about my comment, I wasn't necessarily talking about the way British people cast their votes (although that's a part of it).

I find the problem with the UK to be the contradictory. I mean, here's a few, that really p*ss me off:

* They love to make money, but there's an engrained sense that anybody who is rich or "makes it" deserves to be shot down.

* They expect everyone to carry their own weight, but couldn't stomach a poll tax.

* They hate high taxes (in all its forms, such as VAT), but believe in a large number of government services.

* They want good medicine, but believe in Socialized Medicine.

* They believe in demoacracy, yet still have a, albeit powerless, Royal Family.


Not that everyone will believe any or all of the above, but there's just enough contradiction to make it impossible for a government to something useful.


(By the way, before any one dissess the Electorial College system, please remember that the UK system is evern worse -- anybody here remember voting out Thatcher? Nope, thats coz nobody did, it was done soley by the MPs).

nodubmanshouts wrote:* They love to make money, but there's an engrained sense that anybody who is rich or "makes it" deserves to be shot down.

This is an oft-repeated "fact" but I've never found any evidence to prove that British people do this any more or less than any other nation.

nodubmanshouts wrote:* They expect everyone to carry their own weight, but couldn't stomach a poll tax.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Yeah, we threw the poll tax out (and rightly so, IMHO) but I don't see how a poll tax equates to "carrying your own weight". A fair tax is one which is based on ability to pay, and staggered accordingly. The poll tax wasn't fair.

nodubmanshouts wrote:* They hate high taxes (in all its forms, such as VAT), but believe in a large number of government services.

Find me a people that doesn't hate high taxes!

Actually there's a clear acknowledgement in the UK that you need to tax higher in order to provide better services. One of the (many) reasons the Tories failed to get elected a few years back was that many people believed they would cut services in order to cut taxes.

What matters is who you tax and how you tax.

nodubmanshouts wrote:* They want good medicine, but believe in Socialized Medicine.

"Socialized" only dictates how medical treatment is paid for - not the quality of the service.

A poor person in the UK will get better ("socialized") medical treatment than a poor person in the US (who has no health insurance).

A rich person in the UK can pay for private treatment, just as a rich person in the US can.

Sounds to me like the UK system is better for everyone.

nodubmanshouts wrote:* They believe in demoacracy, yet still have a, albeit powerless, Royal Family.

I think you answered that one yourself. If the monarchy is powerless then it's just a tourist attraction to fleece visiting foreigners out of more money. Tourist attractions are not an impediment to democracy, so there's no contradiction.

They've generally kept quiet since we sorted out Charles I. Still, I'd be happy to see the Windsors have to pay for themselves rather than living on benefits, the lazy workshy bunch of inbreds.