Ron Paul

[huw]

In short, religion aside, I would be opposed to anyone who held non-falsifiable beliefs that encompassed an entire world view and who also held the reigns of power.

Would you also oppose the right of anyone who held such beliefs to participate equally in the election of someone to power?

If so, then it's bye-bye democracy.

If not, then you end up supporting the process while despising the outcome.

It's a conundrum, isn't it?

[huw]

What's wrong with deciding it at the personal level?

Communities are made up of many 'personal levels', including people at the sharp end. Why shouldn't they have a say in what happens in their town/state/hospital, or be able to take a job somewhere where they can be certain they won't be expected to participate in something morally abhorrent to them?

As long as people have freedom of movement, I don't see a problem with communities establishing their own rules (within a higher-level legislative framework).

[Guest Steve Cook]

Would you also oppose the right of anyone who held such beliefs to participate equally in the election of someone to power?

If so, then it's bye-bye democracy.

If not, then you end up supporting the process while despising the outcome.

It's a conundrum, isn't it?

yes huw it is, for me, the central conundrum

I guess I can just about live with the latter but not the former

Though, I suspect such philisophical conundrums will become obsolete shortly anyway as we move inexorably towards dictatorship

Edited November 30, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Elizabeth]

This is the beauty and deep strength of the scientific approach to knowledge. It never stands still.

On the other hand, completely unfalsifiable, deeply pernicious religioius belief systems can persist for millenia.

You appear to be criticising the scientific approach to knowledge on the basis that it is constantly changing. This merely demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of it's inherent strengh in this regard. The whole point of the scientific approach to knowledge is that such knowledge never stands still. It is constantly changing; constantly being built upon using a process of knowledge-aquirement that is both objective and falsifiable.

Everyone hold falsifiable beliefs. You hold the falsifiable belief that scientivism is superior to other forms of thought. However you hold it with what appears to be a manical fervour, you are therefore unfit to make comment by your own standards. Let me try something to demonstrate:

This is the beauty and deep strength of the religious approach to knowledge. The living god never stands still.

On the other hand, completely unfalsifiable, deeply pernicious scientific beliefs can persist for millenia.

You appear to be criticising the religious approach to knowledge on the basis that it is constantly changing. This merely demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of it's inherent strengh in this regard. The whole point of the religious approach to knowledge is that such knowledge never stands still. It is constantly changing; constantly being built upon using a process of knowledge-aquirement that is both personal and empirical.

I don't agree! but the fundamental principle I stand to is 'each to their own'. I am fed up with falisfiable science dictating to me every changing requirements through the structures of state which are purely there for crowd control and to keep the ants slightly destablised as they move though the farm so that the perspex view does not become still and disinteresting for god-men we know little about...

Edited November 30, 2008 by Elizabeth

[Guest Steve Cook]

Everyone hold falsifiable beliefs. You hold the falsifiable belief that scientivism is superior to other forms of thought. However you hold it with what appears to be a manical fervour, you are therefore unfit to make comment by your own standards. Let me try something to demonstrate:

I don't agree! but the fundamental principle I stand to is 'each to their own'. I am fed up with falisfiable science dictating to me every changing requirements through the structures of state which are purely there for crowd control and to keep the ants slightly destablised as they move though the farm so that the perspex view does not become still and disinteresting for god-men we know little about...

I think you meant to say "everyone holds non-falsifiable beliefs" didn't you? As i have said on a number of posts here, of course they do. Myself included. We are humans, after all. The point about scientific beliefs is that they are falsifiable. This means that they can be tested objectively and can be discarded if found to be wanting. Thats the point.

Scientific beliefs do not have to rely on the woolly idea of "each to his own". My opinion, or anybody else's, is irrelevant from a scientific persepctive. Either what I assert can be falsified or it cannot. If it can, and it stands the test of time, then it can be relied upon more so than a belief or opinion that cannot be falsified. That's the point

You may not agree with a given scientific finding. But guess what? You dissagreement counts for nothing if the falsifiable facts speak for themselves. Sceintific knowledge is not about gathering information that we like. It is about falsifiably gathering information objectively. That's the point

Edited November 30, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Krackersdave]

The only problem I have with Ron Paul is that his policies are very much isolationist - America for Amercians - yadda yadda yadda.

That kinda policy that 70 years ago would have put us poor Brits under the Nazi jackboot.

[enrieb]

But Steve what if someone holds an opinion that they think(feel) is right and they really, really honestly feel that what they think, is right. Surely thats all the proof we need to establish fact from fantasy.

This is a great short video demonstrating how we should establish a fact.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wEolSjlcqng

Try the Creationists wiki .

http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy

---------------------

Despite his negative points I still would prefer to have an Austrian economic solution implemented by someone like Ron Paul, who would probably do a much better job of running things that the current crop of politicians we have on both sides of the Atlantic. Though I don't think that the public would ever accept the high initial levels of unemployment necessary to bring down the over inflated asset prices. There would probably be some sort of revolution and we would end up with communists in charge or even worse the far right.

[agb41]

Despite his negative points I still would prefer to have an Austrian economic solution implemented by someone like Ron Paul, who would probably do a much better job of running things that the current crop of politicians we have on both sides of the Atlantic. Though I don't think that the public would ever accept the high initial levels of unemployment necessary to bring down the over inflated asset prices. There would probably be some sort of revolution and we would end up with communists in charge or even worse the far right.

+1, though on the final remarks, I think selling at least 2 generations into debt slavery is even worse than the possibility of inciting a Communist / Fascist revolution.

Edited November 30, 2008 by agb41

[BoomBoom]

But Steve what if someone holds an opinion that they think(feel) is right and they really, really honestly feel that what they think, is right. Surely thats all the proof we need to establish fact from fantasy.

This is a great short video demonstrating how we should establish a fact.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wEolSjlcqng

Try the Creationists wiki .

http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy

---------------------

Despite his negative points I still would prefer to have an Austrian economic solution implemented by someone like Ron Paul, who would probably do a much better job of running things that the current crop of politicians we have on both sides of the Atlantic. Though I don't think that the public would ever accept the high initial levels of unemployment necessary to bring down the over inflated asset prices. There would probably be some sort of revolution and we would end up with communists in charge or even worse the far right.

But creationism is itself a long list of logical fallacies. The biggest being that it claims evolution offers no ultimate answer to how life evolved and then offers up by way of explanation a supreme being without provenance.

[enrieb]

But creationism is itself a long list of logical fallacies. The biggest being that it claims evolution offers no ultimate answer to how life evolved and then offers up by way of explanation a supreme being without provenance.

Ahh but if they don't think that they are logical fallacies, then to creationists they are not logical fallacies.

(I am using the word think as an umbrella term for believe, feel, imagine, and that thingy that happens in your head).

Edited November 30, 2008 by enrieb

[Guest mattsta1964]

The only problem I have with Ron Paul is that his policies are very much isolationist - America for Amercians - yadda yadda yadda.

That kinda policy that 70 years ago would have put us poor Brits under the Nazi jackboot.

Both Britain and America are pretty close to that anyway. Both countries are under the heel of so called 'liberalism' which basically means, accept our system of democracy and our fiat monetary system or we'll use economic terrorism to force you into submission. Or we'll topple you government OR we'll bomb you into submission. The people of Zimbabwe and Iceland are the two most notable recent NWO projects. Mugabe, who is just more brazenly evil than the bastards who rule us knows damn well what they are doing and always likes to slip in some anti-British establisment sentiment every time he appears on TV. The Icelanders, who have been absolutely screwed by the bankers, are desperate to accept the Euro now that they are losing their homes and businesses en masse. Problem Reaction Solution. Same old trick every time. The Icelanders will no doubt be tricked into the EU Soviet and they'll regret it for the rest of their lives. The deceit and treachery of our rulers is unspeakable.

[Alan Foster]

Zimbabwe and Iceland are the two most notable recent NWO projects.

I know personal insults are not on, but at some point you just have to say: You Are A Moron.

[Guest mattsta1964]

I know personal insults are not on, but at some point you just have to say: You Are A Moron.

Keep on listening to the BBC mate. Guaranteed truth and honesty every day of the week.

[Mark Uttley]

Only amongst the Paulians residing in the Paulosphere was he ever considered a real candidate.

Aka Goldbugs.

The only reason we are discussing this obscure man, who didn't come anywhere near securing the nomination for the leadership of the losing party in a foreign country is that he wanted a return to the gold standard.

[renterbob]

You may not agree with a given scientific finding. But guess what? You dissagreement counts for nothing if the falsifiable facts speak for themselves. Sceintific knowledge is not about gathering information that we like. It is about falsifiably gathering information objectively. That's the point

You assume too much Mr Cook.

1. Honesty.

As for scientific knowledge, well, leave that to the 'scientists' like your mate SkintAcademic or maybe another 'great scientist of our time:

A real scientist - honest, muinto integrity, Steves hero - link

WTF is Injin when we need him?

Keep reading Steve.

[Guest mattsta1964]

Aka Goldbugs.

The only reason we are discussing this obscure man, who didn't come anywhere near securing the nomination for the leadership of the losing party in a foreign country is that he wanted a return to the gold standard.

Wrong!

Apart from championing sound money and wishing to rid America of the Federal Reserve System

He was a champion of individual freedom and liberty, an opponent of the Real ID scheme and big government socialism

He believes in a low tax economy and people being able to keep a greater proportion of their wealth

Be dissapproves of America's aggressive foreign policy and the huge cost of maintaining America's worldwide military presence.

He believes drug use is a personal matter of choice and if people want to kill themselves taking drugs, so be it. The War on Drugs is a charade just like the War on Terror. The CIA finances and supports drug running all over the world. They take a share of the profits. They also finance and train terrorist organizations all over the world. They've had a finger in the pie in every civil war or revolution since the second world war. If it advances their agenda and protects their corporate interests, they'll find a way to get the job done. This is happy smiley face of corporate socialism.

[Alan Foster]

Paulians, Paultards, Troofers, Conspiraloons, Conspiritards: the many monikers for what we used to simply call: "gullible simpletons".

[nixy]

God created evolution

or even

God created.

Evolution ensued?

[Mark Uttley]

Wrong!

Apart from championing sound money and wishing to rid America of the Federal Reserve System

He was a champion of individual freedom and liberty, an opponent of the Real ID scheme and big government socialism

He believes in a low tax economy and people being able to keep a greater proportion of their wealth

Be dissapproves of America's aggressive foreign policy and the huge cost of maintaining America's worldwide military presence.

He believes drug use is a personal matter of choice and if people want to kill themselves taking drugs, so be it. The War on Drugs is a charade just like the War on Terror. The CIA finances and supports drug running all over the world. They take a share of the profits. They also finance and train terrorist organizations all over the world. They've had a finger in the pie in every civil war or revolution since the second world war. If it advances their agenda and protects their corporate interests, they'll find a way to get the job done. This is happy smiley face of corporate socialism.

He's also a non-influencial never-has-been. Get over it

Btw, Elvis is dead.

[MOP]

Paulians, Paultards, Troofers, Conspiraloons, Conspiritards: the many monikers for what we used to simply call: "gullible simpletons".

Alan Fosterd : No particular opinions or arguments. No particular knowledge of anything in any thread he "contribuites" to.

Thanks for the astute contribution there Alan Fosterd.

[penbat1]

Ron Paul is bang on the money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

He makes our Vince Cable to be a collaborating wimp by comparison.

[Alan Foster]

Alan Fosterd : No particular opinions or arguments. No particular knowledge of anything in any thread he "contribuites" to.

Thanks for the astute contribution there Alan Fosterd.

Look, this is twice you've called me Alan Fosterd.

Can't you see that if you're trying to insult, it would be Alan Fostard with an "a"

I know you're a conspiracy theorist, and therefore a bit um cerebrally challenged, but c'mon, make an effort.

[Guest mattsta1964]

He's also a non-influencial never-has-been. Get over it

Btw, Elvis is dead.

Non influential?

He polled about 4 million votes and raised more money than McCain, Romney Giuliani and Huckabee in the primaries.

The only reason why he isn't a good deal more influential is because the statists are terrified of him and kept him well and truly out of sight and out of mind. They wouldn't even let him into the RNC convention without and escort and they wouldn't let him address the Republican party members at the convention. That's democracy in America for you.

[MOP]

Look, this is twice you've called me Alan Fosterd.

Can't you see that if you're trying to insult, it would be Alan Fostard with an "a"

I know you're a conspiracy theorist, and therefore a bit um cerebrally challenged, but c'mon, make an effort.

No. Most certainly terd after that post. Btw im not a conspiracy anything. I just like to see well constructed arguments on both sides. Not your sort of abusive directionless drivel.

[Alan Foster]

Btw im not a conspiracy anything. I just like to see well constructed arguments on both sides.

No, you are a conspiracy theorist. You walk like a conspiracy theorist, quack like a conspiracy theorist, and most importantly, spam unrelated boards with moronic conspiracy theorist dribblings.

Face up to what you are.