patrick.net

I'm not sure why Perry doesn't want veterans to vote. Doesn't he know they vote primarily Republican? Great, go ahead and suppress your own vote.

I'm not sure why Perry doesn't want veterans to vote. Doesn't he know they vote primarily Republican? Great, go ahead and suppress your own vote.

This card is for a specific purpose and for a specific population: Only for those who are eligible for VA medical benefits, and only used to expedite entry/treatment in a VA medical facility: http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/VIC/vic.pdf

"The card is only for the purpose of identification and check-in for VA appointments."

The impact on "veterans," (in quotes because clearly your general use of the term is not applicable here) would be so small - if it really exists at all - that this is a non-issue as far as getting veterans to vote. First you have to assume that many veterans are eligible for a "Veterans Affairs ID Card" to begin with - the vast majority are not. Then you have to assume that of those who do have the card, for many it is their ONLY form of ID. That is also very unlikely. And lastly, you have to ignore the fact that the Texas law provides for free an eligible Texas ID if an individual has no other eligible ID.

This is just a good example of political propaganda and exagerated rhetoric to rile up those who already hate Perry for whatever other reasons (some probably real, others probably exaggerated just the same). But what else is to be expected from a "progressive" organization that incorrectly refers to our "republic" as "our democracy."

From the article, "The bill specifically left out ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs, even though it is a government ID, with a photo, like any driver's license or passport."

Also from the article, "Governor Perry knows full well that a Veterans ID Card is a legitimate, government-issued ID. In some cases, it's the only government ID a veteran has."

As for "Texas law provides for free an eligible Texas ID if an individual has no other eligible ID"... WI has a similar law, and that hasn't worked so well.

"An internal memo sent around the Wisconsin Department of Transportation went public this week, sparking controversy over its instructions that employees should not tell state residents they can receive free photo identification for voting unless they ask." Article

I wonder how similar the execution of the law is in Texas. A law, by itself, does nothing. It's all about how the law is enforced.

In any event, the ID in the thread's main article is a legal, federal ID with photograph and by law should be sufficient for voting.

Dan8267 says

In any event, the ID in the thread's main article is a legal, federal ID with photograph and by law should be sufficient for voting.

Your argument boils down to: If a Federal agency (any) issues an ID to a certain user group, for a specific and limited purpose, then that ID is a "legitimate, government-issued ID" for all purposes within and outside of the Federal government.

Sorry, I'll take the description of the ID card in question provided by the VA itself (provided in the link above) than the loose interpretation and conjecture you quote from an "article" published by a self-described "progressive" organization that is obviously mining for anything it can get to use towards someone who is not "progressive."

Dan8267 says

From the [propaganda], "The bill specifically left out ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs, even though it is a government ID, with a photo, like any driver's license or passport."

There are hundreds, if not thousands of federal "government IDs, with a photo" for various specific purposes. Did the law actually list all that were excluded? If it didn't list any of them, then to say that any were "specifically left out," only as a function of not being specifically included, is quite an exaggeration.

Dan8267 says

Also from the [propaganda], "Governor Perry knows full well that a Veterans ID Card is a legitimate, government-issued ID. In some cases, it's the only government ID a veteran has."

Pure conjecture and sophism. First, unless you can show some evidence, we have no idea whether Governor Perry had any idea that a Veterans ID Card even existed, given its extremely limited purpose.

Second, Sure, If Perry knew then (and he must certainly know now) that a Veterans ID Card existed, he probably knows it is a "legitimate, government-issued ID." He probably also knows that the locally produced ID card given to military and civilian employees to get onto a specific military base in Texas is a "legitimate, government-issued ID." The question is, what is it "legitimate" for? No one can argue any government-issued ID is legitimate for all purposes, or even for purposes as a general individual ID.

Thanks for the info re. Wisconsin, though it seems that your wondering about how it would work in Texas is nothing more than begging the question, since you seem to already have the conclusion in advance.

This is nothing more than a particular group, looking to find anything they can on Perry, finding that a particular hot-button sounding term ("Veteran's" ID) is not included on a particular list, and using it to make a political message by exaggerating the points. Perry must not be so bad, if this is the type of deep mining that people must do in order to discredit him.

Paralithodes says

Perry must not be so bad, if this is the type of deep mining that people must do in order to discredit him.

Perry is from Texas. I don't want another Texan in the White House for a while. That's my simple minded arguement, but it might get traction for a lot of people who were wore out from the Bush administration.

Paralithodes says

Your argument boils down to

It's not my argument. It's the law. See the article.

The bottom line is that the purpose of ANY ID is identify a person, plain and simple. Now if you want to argue that the federal government should streamline its IDs, fine. But an ID identifies. That's why it's called an ID.

Paralithodes says

Thanks for the info re. Wisconsin, though it seems that your wondering about how it would work in Texas is nothing more than begging the question, since you seem to already have the conclusion in advance.

Don't presume to be able to read my mind. Far more intelligent people have tried and failed. Instead ask for clarification if you don't understand what I am saying. In this case, given the shenanigans that WI has played with "free government IDs for voting", I'd doubt that TX, a far less trustworthy state would be on the up-and-up. Texas is, after all, the state that has been proven to execute innocents and then not feel any regret about it.

Paralithodes says

This is nothing more than a particular group, looking to find anything they can on Perry, finding that a particular hot-button sounding term ("Veteran's" ID) is not included on a particular list, and using it to make a political message by exaggerating the points. Perry must not be so bad, if this is the type of deep mining that people must do in order to discredit him.

I did not write the article. The article was published on VetVoice, an oline magazine for "Iraq and Afghanistan veterans". The article was written by Richard Smith, whose bio follows:

Richard Smith was raised in northwest Florida and enlisted in the United States Army at the age of 18. After serving a stint with the 6th Cavalry and the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea, Richard was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In 2007 he deployed with his unit to Afghanistan where he served as an NCO for 15 months. He returned home in April 2008.

In addition to VetVoice, Richard's writing has appeared on Daily Kos, Attackerman, and on the now defunct Wordsmiths blog. His work has been noted in the Wall Street Journal and he's been interviewed by the New Yorker magazine, the Washington Post, the Washington Independent, on Air America Radio, Indie Talk Radio, and several other media outlets across the country.

Now if you want to complain that Richard Smith is just an anti-Perry hippy potsmoker, then fine. But at least Smith has some pretty hard-core credentials. What's your counter source? You offer no evidence to disprove Smith's article.

Dan8267 says

The bottom line is that the purpose of ANY ID is identify a person, plain and simple. Now if you want to argue that the federal government should streamline its IDs, fine. But an ID identifies. That's why it's called an ID.

LOL, yes, this is certainly "plain and simple" since it ignores any and all nuance that nearly everyone who has an ID for anything understands.

Dan8267 says

Don't presume to be able to read my mind. Far more intelligent people have tried and failed. Instead ask for clarification if you don't understand what I am saying.

Yes, I'm sure far more intelligent people have tried and failed. But fortunately for me, a stopped 12-hour clock is right twice per day and it seems that I lucked out and got this presumption correct.

Dan8267 says

I did not write the article. The article was published on VetVoice, an oline magazine for "Iraq and Afghanistan veterans". The article was written by Richard Smith, whose bio follows

An impressive bio no doubt, but it actually provides nothing to the issue that he writes about on behalf of his self-described "progressive" (i.e., politically left-leaning) organization. People as intelligent as you should not fall for appeals to authority.
Dan8267 says

Now if you want to complain that Richard Smith is just an anti-Perry hippy potsmoker, then fine. But at least Smith has some pretty hard-core credentials. What's your counter source? You offer no evidence to disprove Smith's article.

More appeal to authority despite it not being relevant. If he had hard core credentials related specifically to ... credentials ... then he would not have written the article as such. And unless you know many pro-Perry "progressives," it is a particularly safe assumption that Richard Smith is "just ... anti-Perry" (I have no idea where the "hippy potsmoker" comment comes from...). Otherwise, he would actually come up with a real issue. As it sands, there is no evidence needed to disprove anything, since the article itself proves absolutely nothing. Conjecture != facts.

Paralithodes, I think your confusing credentials with authority. I don't believe in "authority" as you put it, but I do take into account real world experience when it comes to weighing a person's advice. And as I stated Richard Smith, the author of the article you denounce, has in the very least a notable background in both military life and the press. I have to weigh that against you, an anonymous source with absolutely no credentials. How could any rational person give more weight to your assertions than an article backed by those fore mentioned credentials? It's like weighing a coin, however small, against nothing.

Paralithodes says

As it sands, there is no evidence needed to disprove anything,

Wow, I guess you and I are just going to have to disagree about that on a fundamentally philosophical level. I can't prove to you that evidence or the scientific method has any merit. You got to understand it for yourself or you'll never get it. Evidence is always important. Platonist may have made poetic arguments that the entire universe could, in principle, be understood simply by thinking in an empty room. But Platonist didn't walk on the moon or cure Smallpox. It takes the scientific method, including observation and evidence gathering, to do that. But I'm not going to try to change your worldview because I know there is no point in trying.

Paralithodes says

self-described "progressive" (i.e., politically left-leaning)

Truth and justice are "left-leaning" because the right has become so bat-shit crazy. The right you so champion believes the world is 6000 years old. The liberal truth is that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The right believes that humans did not descend from apes. The truth, being so left-leaning, is that humans are apes and are descended from other apes as well as rodents, fish, and single-celled organisms.

If acknowledging reality makes me a liberal, then I'm a god-damn liberal. I reserve the right to be a liberal and fiscally responsible. And if I seem so far-left to you, it's because you on the right have moved so far right that you ended up in la la land. Funny how I'm a "left-winger" when I would reduce the income of the Federal government to about 10% of its current levels and still balance the budget. But then again, I know the Earth is older than 6000 years.

You, sir, are acting like a nut job (and a quite presumptuous one at that). But hey, if you think putting your faith in someone's distortions of what appears to be an excessively trivial non-issue is going to further enlighten you and others, and advance your own political cause, then go for it.... Although one would think that a person who promotes evidence, scientific method, and all that stuff that clearly no one on the right appreciates, would at least find out the following before allowing themselves to get so emotionally spun up about the issue:

1. Was the Veteran's ID card (used solely for treatment in VA medical facilities) "specifically excluded" as described in the "article"? I.e., Does the law actually state that the Veteran's ID card is not accepted? and
2. If yes, then what was the stated reason?

Your hatred of the right is not really a great excuse for your own unwillingness to put your emotions aside and try to examine a situation objectively, especially if you're going to invoke the scientific method, evidence, etc., etc., arguments. Have you even given either of these questions a thought, or do you just blindly follow the thoughts of someone else on the matter because he hates Perry too and happens to be a combat veteran despite having no discernable authority on this specific issue?

Clearly if a veteran's ID card was specifically excluded, there must have been a specific reason. Otherwise, why would any politician of any party support such a measure? Scientific method and the quest for evidence would dicate that if something on the surface seems to be as odd as this appears, it maybe worth finding out more information. But I, being the alleged young earth creationist (despite not even being Christian), should be the last person to remind you, the enlightened "left winger" (as you describe yourself), of this simple concept.

That's all I've got. Sometimes it's fun arguing trivial issues But clearly this one has pushed you over the edge a little. Probably a best bet at this point to let you just continue stewing about what you think is Perry's obvious hatred of veterans, and the particular political value of this non-issue.

Paralithodes says

You, sir, are acting like a nut job (and a quite presumptuous one at that).

Sorry, but I don't believe in feeding trolls. Conversation terminated.

Nomograph says

Anyone who isn't competent enough to obtain a state ID is probably not competent to vote.

One could make the argument that voting should be an earned privilege rather than a right. Our entire basis of government presumes that voting is a right, but we could change that.

The question then becomes who decides what conditions are required to earn the privilege of voting. If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting. After all, I consider such delusions to be a form of mental illness, and such a weak grasp of reality cannot lead to good decision making. Why bother protecting the environment of the planet if this life is only a precursor to a better one?

So tell me, would you want me to decide who merits the voting privilege? If not me, what makes you think you'll be happier with the decisions made by whatever politicians wrestle that power from others?

Nomograph says

The guy who is just "down on his luck" doesn't stay homeless for long.

Exactly, give as many criticisms of Malcolm Gladwell as you like (because there are some valid ones), but one of the things he mentions in his article about Power Law with respect to the homeless is documented -- that the most common period for someone being "homeless" is one day. The down on your luck people want to stop being homeless, so they find a way.

The street people most of you are talking about either don't want to stop being homeless or are incapable of not being homeless. Or maybe they're just freegans. :)

Dan8267 says

If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting

I have to part company with you there. On the one hand, religion can often be counter to the intellect and maybe among the ignorant it is often used to manipulate.

But there are plenty of people who believe in God, and a soul, and who have far more faith than I do, who I respect.

To declare them wrong in absolute terms seems arrogant to me. I guess that's why I would label myself agnostic rather than an atheist.
Actually, I am really a believer in my way, it's just that I don't try to pin things down, I guess in the interest of truth.

"I don't know." Truer words were never spoken.

marcus says

I have to part company with you there

The point, which I would think we both can agree upon, is that if you make voting a privilege rather than a right then its up to some dictator to decide who gets the privilege and who doesn't. Unless you happen to be that dictator, you'll probably not be pleased with the results.

As for discussions about a god, that merits its own thread. I would just add that assuming a single god is a far greater presumption than assuming no gods. All monotheists are atheists who reject all gods except one. If monotheists understood their reasons for rejecting all other gods, they would take it a single step further and reject their own.

shrekgrinch says

I like having Paralithodes around. Takes the burden off me.

For some reason that makes me feel better for brushing off Paralithodes as a troll.

I welcome honest, rational arguments about issues. However, I do not waste my time on people who resort to attacking the messengers instead of the issues, and who try to put words in other's people's mouths and heads. Such conversations are non-productive.

marcus says

To declare them wrong in absolute terms seems arrogant to me.

That's a strange interpretation. From my perspective, accepting that man is a product of random events and evolution, with no divine origin, and a very limited existence seems intensely humble compared to the religious views of humanity. Made in god's image? Now that seems arrogant.

However, I have no problem with declaring some things as absolutely right or wrong when the evidence supports them. It is not arrogant to say that the "flat world" hypothesis is absolutely wrong, or that the square root of two is absolutely certainly an irrational number, or that we are absolutely sure the age of the universe is 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years. Absolute certainty is not arrogance if it is based on a preponderance of evidence or mathematical/logical reasoning.

Dan8267 says

Absolute certainty is not arrogance if it is based on a preponderance of evidence or mathematical/logical reasoning.

MY point was not that absolute certainty is arrogant. It was that absolute arrogance about matters that are beyond our comprehension, is arrogant.

Even in modern physics, ultimately things become bizzarre and at least at this point beyond our comprehension. So, it's not like we understand everything with certainty. Even people like Einstein had some kind of belief in God.

I am not a man of faith, and I am relatively agnostic (if that makes sense). But there are far too many respectable people who are believers who do have faith, for me to judge them all with such an absolute generalization.

At the same time, I think that religion is a dangerous force, that often leads to evil and ignorance. In our country, Christion fundamentalists are basically making our swing towards outright fascism possible. And many of these fundies are extremely ignorant people who haven't a clue what's happening. They are far to easy to manipulate by Fox and talk radio.

marcus says

It was that absolute arrogance about matters that are beyond our comprehension, is arrogant.

The statement "absolute arrogance is arrogant" is a truism.

The assumption that anything in the universe is "beyond our comprehension" has not been supported by the long history of science.

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. - Albert Einstein

How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? - Albert Einstein

For the past two and a half thousand years, mankind has asked questions about the universe, found the answers, found more questions under the answers, and found the answers to those new questions. This process of refinement and deepening of understanding has not only been ongoing for over two millenia, with only one albeit large setback caused by religion, but has also accelerated exponentially in the last two centuries.

There have been many mysteries, but there has never been any reason to believe that any aspect of the universe cannot be explained by laws of mathematics and physics that are comprehensible not only to me and you, but also to any sentient life this universe produces. That, indeed, is the true beauty of the universe.

Dan8267 says

The statement "absolute arrogance is arrogant" is a truism.

Picking nits. IT was early. I meant absolute certainty about matters beyond OUR CURRENT comprehension. That is currently, we don't know everything yet, nor can we prove that there are no supernatural forces at play in our universe. Besides, belief in God doesn't necessitate belief in supernatural phenomena. By some definitions God basically is the intelligence behind all we do understand.

Also, in modern physics we know that some popular hypotheses imply the possibility of parallel universes. This might mean that even once we do understand everything in this universe, we still might not know everything.

I'm not up for this argument.

Even though I am not a staunch atheist, who declares with certainty that God does not exist, I have no problem with people who have that belief.

What I am taking issue with is your apparent insistence that it is such an absolute fact rather than a belief, that you declare those who do believe in God to be defective.

This is arrogant, but I don't wish to prove that it is. Let's call it my belief. Although I think I could prove it, far more easily than you could prove that God does not exist.

(edited)

marcus says

we don't know everything yet,

That is irrelevant. Lack of omniscience no more implies that we can not figure out what happens after death than it implies that we can not figure out what happens to a computer after it is turned off. Discovery is done on the edges of knowledge. You don't have to know everything to know anything.

The argument that lack of omniscience means we have to accept the possibility of a god, and only one god at that, is as ridiculous as it is old. I most certainly can have limited knowledge and still understand that unicorns don't exist and Big Foot was a hoax. By the same token, I can tell that every theological belief was simply pulled out of someone's ass, usually a drug-induced bronze aged ass. I can be as certain that an all powerful, all knowing monotheist god is make believe for the exact same reasons that you know that Zeus and Thor are b.s. Unless, of course, you are "agnostic" about the existence of Zeus and Thor. Are you?

marcus says

nor can we prove that there are no supernatural forces at play in our universe.

The supernatural is by definition that which does not obey the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.). We must certainly can prove that the supernatural does not exist. Newton's Third Law of Motion is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This means that anything that interacts with the universe, i.e. nature, leaves evidence of its existence. That evidence is by definition natural phenomenon and is subject to the laws of nature. Therefore, anything which interacts with nature must be a part of nature and not supernatural, unless you choose to reject Newton's Third Law of Motion. Btw, I like doing three impossible things before lunch everyday.

marcus says

By some definitions God basically is the intelligence behind all we do understand.

That ain't the god people pray to. That ain't the singular god of monotheism. That ain't the god politicians talk about. That ain't the god preachers pontificate about. That ain't the god that "hates fags". That ain't the god that imposes some arbitrary moral code on humanity. That's the god people resort to when backed into a corner.

marcus says

What I am taking issue with is your apparent insistence that it is such an absolute fact rather than a belief, that you declare those who do believe in God to be defective.

Defective if your word not mine. Please refrain from putting your words in my mouth and I will refrain from putting my penis in yours.

Whether or not one and only one god exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. Belief in a falsehood is not something to be respected like a philosophical belief.

Some people may think Spiderman comics are a greater form of literature than Shakespeare. I don't agree with that statement, but it is an opinion and therefore neither correct nor incorrect. The statement "the Earth is 6000 years old" is not an opinion. If a person believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, as many religious do, they are simply wrong and we should not revere this error as a valid point of view.

Passionately believing in a falsehood does not make it true to any degree.

marcus says

This is arrogant, but I don't wish to prove that it is. Let's call it my belief.

Yes, your misinterpretation of what I've written would be an arrogant philosophy. However, I suggest that you are seeing a reflection of the arrogance in your own philosophy rather than any in what I have written.

It is arrogant to assume that a belief, however contradictive of physical evidence, has merit simply because it is your belief. Science, despite centuries of accusations from people like you, is clearly the humbler endevour as science demands acceptance of the truth even when it conflicts with everything you do or want to believe. That is why I find your accusations of arrogance to be hypocritical. There is nothing more humbling than admitting that you are not the center of the universe as all monotheistic religions have claimed. Even worse, this hypocrisy has practical implications. It is precisely the arrogance of the religious that justifies the rape of our planet since god gave man dominion over all creatures.

marcus says

Although I think I could prove it, far more easily than you could prove that God does not exist.

Any proof must of course start with a definition of god. I'll use the standard monotheistic definition, the meaning that people typically mean when they try to use god to justify or demand something.

God is a being that satisfies the following conditions.
1. God is all powerful. He can do anything.
2. God is all knowing. Nothing is beyond his knowledge.
3. God is all good. Whatever the fuck that means.

Condition three is vague in the least, but it doesn't matter since I can disprove god using only the first two conditions.

If god is all knowing, then he knows everything he is going to do. If god knows what he is going to do, he cannot change what he's going to do. If god can't change what he's going to do, then he is not all powerful.

Ergo, omniscience contradicts omnipotence. Geez, that wasn't nearly as hard as you made it out to be.

I think I can do it with only one of the conditions of god. Let me try...

If god is all powerful he can create an immovable object. If god is all powerful, he can move any object. Contradiction. It turns out that omnipotence itself is a meaningless concept. The universe doesn't support such a naive idea.

Well, I might as well give three proofs that god doesn't exist.

If god exists, he is subject to the laws of nature. Otherwise he could not interact with our universe as I showed earlier. If god is subject to the laws of nature, he cannot be omnipotent by definition or omniscient by the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Darn it, I just can't stop disproving god. It's so much fun. Let's go with a theoretical argument.

In order for something to be true, it must, at least in principle, be provable. Something that cannot be proven even in principle is by definition false. So when you agnostics say the existence of god is not provable or disprovable, you are in fact saying that god does not exist. Of course, you are welcome to present an experiment which would, depending on its results, either prove or disprove the existence of god. However, I doubt you will.

Finally, I'd like to bring this discussion full circle. The whole reason I brought up the belief in the supernatural in the first place was to demonstrate clearly to people that advocate making voting a privilege rather than a right that they would not be happy with the system unless they were the person choosing who gets to vote. I think you completely missed the original point when you took this thread off into a tangent metaphysical argument. But the fact that we had this debate supports the premise that we're better off with voting being a right rather than something "only people who have it together" should have.

Dan8267 says

I can be as certain that an all powerful, all knowing monotheist god is make believe for the exact same reasons that you know that Zeus and Thor are b.s.

.
.
Dan8267 says

That ain't the god that imposes some arbitrary moral code on humanity. That's the god people resort to when backed into a corner.

IT seems that you are backpedaling. I never thought or assumed you were talking ONLY about people who believe in some old dude up in the clouds who will help them get a Mercedes if they pray real hard.

You didn't mention any specific religions and you made a statement that I took to include all who believe in God, even the sophisticated types who believe only in something very vague and beyond human knowledge. Some might even call what you call "nature," the God that they believe in, believing that there is far more to reality than simplistic newtonian physics, or current biology can explain. And this personality type may even embrace and appreciate the mysteries that still exist.

I agree about the supernatural, as you define it, although I still doubt we will ever understand everything in nature. That may be sort of a law of nature, since quantum physics seems to imply that there is a role for consciousness. Obviously when we talk about our reality, we can't really divorce our consciousness from observations or from the discussions we have about what we observe.

Some may define God simply as all consciousness. Has science mastered consciousness yet?

Will it?

You said:

Dan8267 says

If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting.

This sounds like a generalization that includes all views of God, including Einstein's or the Dali Lama's.

(go ahead - back pedal some more ? Or would it be easier to just say
"respectfully, I fucked up and overstated a position, or didn't make my point as clearly as I probably should have.")

You only sound more and more arrogant as you take this further.

Dan8267 says

I think you completely missed the original point when you took this thread off into a tangent metaphysical argument.

True, because I was shocked at your generalization.

Dan8267 says

But the fact that we had this debate supports the premise that we're better off with voting being a right rather than something "only people who have it together" should have.

Okay.

marcus says

Some might even call what you call "nature," the God that they believe in

Why call such a thing "God" when it isn't even sentient and most certainly is not aware of the existence of human beings and does not in any form guide humanity or offer an afterlife? You're just using semantics now to make your definition of "god' so vague and ambiguous that it is in fact meaningless and therefore cannot be argued against, other than the fact that it's meaningless. Of course, no one prays to such an ambiguous, non-sentient, non-personal god. As such I do not find such an argument to be sincere. And you accuse me of backpedaling. Ha.

marcus says

although I still doubt we will ever understand everything in nature.

There is nothing I have said that implies humanity will ever understand everything. I doubt that any singe human being can understand everything that is known to man already as the knowledge base is so great. Nevertheless, the lack of complete knowledge is no reason to resort to "magic" to explain things. For example, most people don't know how their television works, that doesn't mean their are pixies inside the screens drawing the pictures displayed with fairy dust.

marcus says

Some may define God simply as all consciousness. Has science mastered consciousness yet?

Will it?

Again, a meaningless definition of "God" that no one uses when they go to church/temple/mosque, pray for something, or invoke a moral code. And such a definition is certainly not the monotheistic view of a supreme being.

As for science, yes progress is being made in the fields of neurology and neural networks. Have you ever built a brain? I have. It isn't actually that hard. You start with neurons (physical or virtual) and build up networks. The cell phone you use probably has some neural-net software for handwriting/graffiti and/or voice recognition. How did you think such technologies work? They use associative memory.

It is inevitable that mankind will create sentient artificial intelligence. I don't know when this will come, but it clearly will. Such a being, which would constitute a person, would not have a soul, just like neither of us do. It would, however, have inalienable rights.

marcus says

(go ahead - back pedal some more ? Or would it be easier to just say
"respectfully, I fucked up and overstated a position, or didn't make my point as clearly as I probably should have.")

You only sound more and more arrogant as you take this further.

All I can say is that your pride is preventing you from seeing the clear and consistent line of logic I have laid out. And that is what makes you arrogant and hypocritical. I am only a messenger. I didn't invent this truth. I'm just reporting on it. And I have not backpedal one bit. That is an assertion you are making because you irrationally refuse to accept the clearly written arguments I have presented.

Perhaps your own pride refuses to admit the possibility of being wrong and therefore you refuse to learn anything. I can only present the reasoning to you. It is up to you to have the intellectual maturity to consider the arguments objectively. I suppose it is no wonder that there are still so many people clinging to mysticism when every bit of it has been debunked from people like Richard Dawkins, Penn & Teller, Carl Sagan, and many others. I haven't said anything they haven't said already. But go ahead and shoot the messenger.

Dan8267 says

Perhaps your own pride refuses to admit the possibility of being wrong and therefore you refuse to learn anything

TAlking to you is like talking to Sherk. Or even worse. Let me sayy it again, except more clearly. Maybe if I say it slowly and repeat it a few times you will understand.

You said.

Dan8267 says

If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting.

I didn't hear anything about one particular type of simplistic religious view. Your childish argument (maybe you are a 15 year old atheist still working this stuff out ????) was all about your straw man assertion of what fundamentalist simpletons believe.

But you said, and I quote:

Dan8267 says

If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting.

I didn't hear any conditions. I heard an argument later that had absolutely nothing to do with my response, because I was responding to this generalization.

"If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting. "

I'm sorry but this is an incredibly stuipid and arrogant assertion that has very little to do with a very narrowly defined and long argument about belief in God, in which you lay out an astonishing straw man assertion which implies that you believe that EVERYONE who believes in God, belives in this sort of OLD MAN with a white beard, on a cloud, that is omniscient, all powerful, all knowing, blah blah blah,

what the fuck man ?

You think that anyone (no, no, no, I MEAN EVERYONE!!!) that believes in God is a retarded child ?

I'm sorry to inform you, but there are many different views on God, and even priests and ministers if really put to the question seriously, have a much more nuanced view.

Some holy types, you know the ones who spend all their time meditating and praying refer to "the ineffable." Have you never even explored the views of more sophisticated holy men ?

I said: (in response to your original generalization - not the straw man childs view of God)

marcus says

This sounds like a generalization that includes all views of God, including Einstein's or the Dali Lama's.

SOme quotes:

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. I cannot believe that God plays dice with the world.
Albert Einstein

God only speaks to those who understand the language
Dr. Albert Hofmann discoverer of LSD.

There is a crack in everything God has made.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Stop telling God what to do with his dice.
Niels Bohr

The dice of God are always loaded.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him.
Abraham Lincoln

The mantram becomes one's staff of life and carries one through every ordeal. Each repetition has a new meaning, carrying you nearer and nearer to God.
Mahatma Gandhi

They say that God is everywhere, and yet we always think of Him as somewhat of a recluse.
Emily Dickinson

God heals, and the doctor takes the fee.
Benjamin Franklin

God helps those who help themselves.
Benjamin Franklin

Beer is proof God loves us.
Benjamin Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
Benjamin Franklin

Mathematics is the language in which God wrote the universe.
Galileo Galilei

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
John the Apostle

The wish to talk to God is absurd. We cannot talk to one we cannot comprehend — and we cannot comprehend God; we can only believe in Him. The uses of prayer are thus only subjective.
Immanuel Kant

I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for 'the heavens declare the glory of God.'
Johannes Kepler

I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.
John Lennon

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler."
Isaac Newton

The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation.
Isaac Newton

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

Love is life. All, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love. Everything is, everything exists, only because I love. Everything is united by it alone. Love is God, and to die means that I, a particle of love, shall return to the general and eternal source.
Leo Tolstoy

God is the great mysterious motivator of what we call nature and it has been said often by philosophers, that nature is the will of God. And, I prefer to say that nature is the only body of God that we shall ever see. If we wish to know the truth concerning anything, we'll find it in the nature of that thing.
Frank Lloyd Wright

The deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
- Albert Einstein

It's only by forgetting yourself that you draw near to God.
- Henry David Thoreau

Without the assistance of the Divine Being ... I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail.
- Abraham Lincoln

God is clever, but not dishonest.
- Albert Einstein

What God lacks is convictions- stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something- not try to be everything.
Mark Twain

Sorry, but again, your straw man childs view of God, was not stated in your original generalization. I'm an agnostic, and find your arguments above to be those of a child, not that I disagree with them. But they have little to do with your general assertion ABOUT ALL WHO BELIEVE IN GOD.

Here's the part that you really won't get. My quotes above aren't meant to convince you that God exists, but only that very intelligent and respectable humans have believed or do believe in God IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

You surely will want to respond with the many more clever quotes from great men who are atheists. But this would only prove how far you have strayed from your original and arrogant generalization.

PS: If you hold that everyone who believes in God or a soul, has the absurd childs view of an all powerful old man with a beard in the clouds, then I will concede. You win.

But if you want to admit that there are many varied and more sophisticated and or nuanced perceptions of and beliefs in God, then maybe you might admit that your statement was an error.

marcus, you ignorant slut. Simply quoting people from a time when atheists were burned at the stake does not valid your point of view, especially when most if not all of those people would be hard-core atheists if they lived today instead.

You keep quoting me as follows to say that I'm advocating stripping people of rights based: "If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting."

What you should actually do is keep reading the paragraph instead of taking it out of context. The full paragraph and the one after it reads:

The question then becomes who decides what conditions are required to earn the privilege of voting. If it's up to me, anyone irrational enough to believe in a god, a soul, an afterlife, or anything else supernatural should not have the privilege of voting. After all, I consider such delusions to be a form of mental illness, and such a weak grasp of reality cannot lead to good decision making. Why bother protecting the environment of the planet if this life is only a precursor to a better one?

So tell me, would you want me to decide who merits the voting privilege? If not me, what makes you think you'll be happier with the decisions made by whatever politicians wrestle that power from others?

Wow, that completely changes the meaning of it, doesn't it. Especially so when you read that it is a response to the proposition "Anyone who isn't competent enough to obtain a state ID is probably not competent to vote." by Nomograph.

You were suppose to read that and think:
Gee, he's got a good point. I would not like the idea of some random politician deciding who is "competent enough" to vote because his criteria may not be something I'm comfortable with.

Instead you start ranting about mysticism. And instead of constructing a logical argument for it, you resort to name calling and making person attacks against your opponent. Instead of even attempting to debunk the logical proofs I submitted, you merely snark that you find them "to be those of a child" as if that would be some kind of logical counterargument.

If you had any sincere reason to believe the crap you spew, then you would attack the arguments instead of the speaker as I have done. But your condescending manner, complete lack of reading comprehension, and insistence on rewriting what I've written are indicative of someone who is simply goating an argument rather than attempting to explore an issue. Most insulting of all is your comparison to Shrek, which is ironic since you and he write very similarly. [Shrek, if you are posting under two accounts, be a real man and admit it now, or I'll ask Patrick to see if the logins are coming from the same IP.]

In any case, you have made it clear that you are unwilling or incapable of discussing this subject as an adult. I stand by everything I've said. Let the readers of this forum judge our positions accordingly.

I make trivial mistakes very often. And when I do, I like to own up to them. Saying something like "my bad."

You should try it some time. It's easy.

Dan8267 says

If you had any sincere reason to believe the crap you spew, then you would attack the arguments instead of the speaker as I have done. But your condescending manner,......

I was only pointing out the arrogance implied in one small mistake that you won't own up to.

Will you admit that there are at least millions of humans who believe in God (in one way or another - not the child's version you laid out) that are in many ways more intelligent and more together than you?

If not, then I still believe you are arrogant. But that doesn't mean that I take any pleasure in hurting your feelings, and I apologize for doing so.

Keep on trolling. Admitting to actual errors is noble. Admitting errors when there are none in order to please a troll is not.

marcus says

If not, then I still believe you are arrogant. But that doesn't mean that I take any pleasure in hurting your feelings, and I apologize for doing so.

Yep, a troll's "apology" is a thinly masked insult. Out of all the pompous things you said, the fact that you think you even have the ability to hurt my feelings takes the cake. Dude, you're just some random troll on the Internet. You're not that important. The only thing people like you accomplish is making it harder for everyone else to have an adult conversation about anything.

And the award for most insincere apology goes to marcus.

Dan8267 says

marcus, you ignorant slut.

I'm not getting into this - I just want to say thank you! This is getting hilarious fast. I'd also like to point out that while the above may seem harsh when read out of context, Marcus did compare Dan to shrek.

Also very funny, the use of the following quote while arguing that people of faith should be allowed to vote:
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

I just find it all very funny. Surely people of faith - irrational as they are! - should be allowed to vote. We wouldn't have enough voters, otherwise, though I suppose my vote would count for more. Or ... would my faith that my senses reflect the real world, and not some dream state (ie I am really the first AI in a supercomputer [self-flattery] and various subroutines exist to give me a 'sense' of a 'world' in which to live in)?

Ok ok, I AM getting into it. Allow me to pose a question:
First, I suspect everyone would agree that not everyone should vote. Children, for instance, who cannot vote ... should not vote. We arbitrarily pick an age at which people can vote, rather than supplying some other more revealing test of worth. Would we be better off if only the enlightened voted? Surely. Is it possible to create a more fair AND more effective dam than age requirements to stem the tide of poor votes? I'd say it's a thin line - the wise can be arrogant as well so if today we require a high school degree, tomorrow we'll require a college degree. Soon only doctors will vote and we'll enter a short golden age of society. Then lawyers will argue their way into the mix - you know they will win, too. From there it's not even downhill - it's a cliff leading to hell (or should I say, to an imaginary land of great unpleasantness).

So we can't use 'education' because there's always another, deeper level of requirements that seems logical (high school -> college -> doctors -> lawyers) but ultimately leads us to a bad place. Perhaps the real solution is merely to *not* encourage everyone to vote? After all, most people seem to agree that most people are dumb. Either most people are right, or most people are wrong (in which case perhaps they are still right), so at the very least we should replace our 'get out there and vote, everyone' slogan in this country with something more along the lines of "Sure, you like yourself, but do you *really* think you're going to make a good choice? Remember what you did when you got drunk at the christmas party at work last year? Maybe you should just watch football on election day". We could even get some synergy if the entertainment industry played along - just have big games in every sporting event on our big election days. If you choose the game over the vote, it's pretty much guaranteed to be the right choice.

Thank you for showing that some people do get it. The only good thing about arguing with a troll is that the argument reveals how bad the troll is.

And yep, you gotta let the dumb and irrational vote and just hope that they cancel each other out.

The fundamental problem with any meritocracy, however appealing or however well-intended it starts out, is that all meritocracy are subject to attrition of their principles and the gradual creep of corruption. The criteria by which people's rights are assigned will subtly be corroded by both well-intended and ill-intended politicians so that within a hundred years or so, the operation of the system will have nothing in common with its original intent.

You can see this kind of corrosion in other structures as well. For example, the income tax was initially intended to be a tax on only the very wealth to support a social safety net for only the poor. Today, the income tax is the largest source of general revenue. Another example is the continual degrading of what constitutes an "unreasonable search" by the federal Supreme Court. I sincerely doubt the fathers of our country would think that x-ray strip searches that reveal pictures of people's genitals would be reasonable by any standard.

If such rights could be gradually eroded, then what could possibly keep a meritocracy from suffering the same fate? Of course, if anyone has a solution to this, I'd be very interested. I don't think there is one because meritocracies have to assume some authority to judge merit. Even if that judgment was spread to the entire population, it would still suffer from majority mob rule.

I said this...

marcus says

Will you admit that there are at least millions of humans who believe in God (in one way or another - not the child's version you laid out) that are in many ways more intelligent and more together than you?

and your response is that I'm a troll.

I say it get's to the core of the one and only single point I have been trying to make. And of course you can not answer it, as simple a question as it is, without either

a) proving your error

or

b) proving your arrogance

The whole time I have only been talking about this one specific generalization, which I understand was part of a larger point (that we have discussed on this forum before) you were trying to make.

Matt.BayArea says

Marcus did compare Dan to shrek

What was the most obnoxious thing I said before Dan said:

Dan8267 says

Please refrain from putting your words in my mouth and I will refrain from putting my penis in yours.

??

Classy.

Yeah he's a real gentleman, and my argument is all about attacking him, only because I say that his statement implies arrogance.

I've always had a fair amount of respect for the guy, to tell you the truth, but at this point it's on to ignore, because I like this forum and at this point I need to no longer hear from him because he couldn't own up to a very trivial mistake, and instead decided to be a jerk.

GO ahead Dan and ramble on about what a troll I am.

I won't hear it.

Matt.BayArea says

Also very funny, the use of the following quote while arguing that people of faith should be allowed to vote:

I've been on a sub-topic, specifically that there are extremely intelligent together people that believe in God. You're right though, that quote was a terrible choice, but I believe Franklin believed in God, only not some of the simpleminded versions made by man, that require faith that goes far beyond belief in God.

I can't speak for using a Veteran ID card (I have one but only use it to receive VA Healthcare), but using a Military ID for any civilian purpose is not allowed. I have a retired military ID and only use it on post.