E V A D E
Rant


21.5.97 Our Lord Who Speaketh from the TV. 27.5.97 The other scientific method. 29.5.97 Just by saving it to disk. 30.5.97 The usual cycle. From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.christnet,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Scientific Theory of Creationism Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 16:42:02 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: >> Whenever Science (Physics) and religion clash, Science (Physics) always >> wins. >> Pray real hard and then stick your fingers in a live electrical socket. > Did God indeed say, "I will protect you from yourself if you stick > your fingers in an electrical socket"? I don't think that promise can be > found in the Bible (or any sacred works). I was not aware stamp > collecting was science though. I never considered it such. > God gave us brains to observe nature and act according to what we learn. > If religion and science fight, the truth should always win. If creationism > is provably untrue then it should fall. If evolution is provably untrue > it should fall. So far, Neither theory has been conclusively proved true > or untrue. "Why?", you may ask. Because no-one observed the beginnings > of the universe. We can only infer the beginnings. > Consider this, the theory of relativity demonstrates that a point > of singularity was the beginning point of the universe. This could very > well work with an inference that the universe was created. There is a very simple computer program / simulation called "life", with a few very simple rules governing the production and destruction of one kind of elementary particle. These particles interact in a two dimensional grid-world, with quantized space and time. Their universe is finite, and limited by the amount of memory in the computer. But that does not mean their universe can be made to *appear* infinite by wrapping one end to the other end. Very complex behavior can evolve over time, depending on the initial number and positions of these elementary particles. And if their behavior ever gets too boring, the computer scientist can artificially introduce new particles into this universe at arbitrary positions, just to see how this universe will react. If Adam and Eve were the only original humans, did all of humanity arise out of incest? --------- The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice to him later."
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.christnet,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Scientific Theory of Creationism Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 18:28:19 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > I think the creationist teleology does explain much of the phenonmenon > of nature, (even without moving into the spiritual dimension). I think > the theory of a universal flood producing the fossilized fuels has proved > its merit by accurately predicted the types of places likely to find > these fossilized fuels. > The theory, as explained to me, starts with the idea that there was a > canopy of water mist around the earth such that rain was not needed to > keep things growing. It also asserts that water came from under the earth > as well. So the question is I suppose, "where did all that water go?" If God is Communication, then Water is either Ideas or Warfare. Ideas can be censored. Wars can end. The invention of paper, the printing press, telegraph, and radio wave communication always bring forth a flood of ideas. As the internet is doing right now. The usual cycle works this way: these ideas bring about a revolution of minds, followed by a period of repression by those in power, or by those who have just fought their way into power. And then the new form of communication just becomes a tool used by those in power to stay in power... those who have stupidly associated their own sense of self-worth with what other people think of them.... or pleasure with the "ownership" of animate or inanimate things. -------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.publius,alt.politics.socialism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.atheism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.christnet,sci.econ,alt.activism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.congress,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Scientific Theory of Creationism Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:27:59 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ford wrote: > Only an opinion on my part but whatever scientific method you wish to > employ, no evidence, conflicting or not, will be found support > creationism. On the other hand, new evidence come in almost daily > that supports the theory of evolution. Since the theories are > diametrically opposed, only one can be correct. Actually, my dear Mr. Dent, humanity could QUITE possibly BE an experiment created by another species in order to find the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything. Sightings of UFOs, legends of various gods could all be careless alien naturalists who accidentally got too close to the subject. Maybe we've even killed a few, like the "lower" animals that manage to kill a few naturalists that have gotten too close. Suppose we let loose a genetic algorithm on a computer. It may well evolve its own intelligence and its own theories about its Creator - the computer programmer - who can give the program eternal life just by saving it to disk. -------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.publius,alt.politics.socialism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.atheism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.christnet,sci.econ,alt.activism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.congress,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Scientific Theory of Creationism Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 19:15:19 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Enki wrote: > there is a big diference between scientific method and belief. in > scientific method, the conclusion is not made until after some experiment > justifies it statistically. There is the other "scientific method" which starts out with a belief and then goes in search of statistics to justify it with. Various surveys of economic data work in this way. Often used more as a ploy to manipulate the market than as true research. Depending on how the experiment is done, which questions are asked, you can get results anyway you like. But at least it keeps pollsters feeling useful. "Are jobs plentiful?" "If you were fired today, how long would it take you to find a new job?" "How long before you find someone willing to hire you?" "Have you stopped beating your kids yet?" ------ Enough research will tend to support your theory.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.publius,alt.politics.socialism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.atheism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.christnet,sci.econ,alt.activism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.congress,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Scientific Theory of Creationism Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:49:31 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. pparso39@swbell.net wrote: > > Either way, in a society of free speech, the argument > > between "God," "Evolution," and "God and Evolution" > > should be settled by scientific observation and experiment > > rather than by banning the teaching of the opposition's > > view.]] > Yes, that's exactly how it was settled. The Supreme Court upheld our > religious freedoms, not to support science, but because the law forbids > establishment of religion. The issue has been settled in science for a > very long time. What is a religion? A belief that a piece of yellow rock has the power to hold value? A belief that a nation that imports lots and lots of products and exporting nothing is committing suicide? A belief that people would actually die if the stock market crashed? A belief that when the lack of self-imposed slavery (aka unemployment) is down to 5%, the economy is "good"? A belief that China is a communist country when it's run hardly differently from any of our "capitalist" companies. I'd say that's quite a religion and a doozy of one at that - taught to us by Our Lord Who Speaketh from the TV. ------ The two sides of mass communication: credible and gullible.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.government.abuse,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: Morality, theft, and all that Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:33:12 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Giovanni 8 wrote: > As you say, they are not voluntary but forced exactions, extortions. > When the government goons come pounding down you door (California), > when they bull-doze your home (Ohio & Montana), when they execute > you with a shot from behind your head at close range (Arkansas), > when they come in shooting to take your earnings, it is disingenuous > to call it "voluntary". Quite correct. If you pay your taxes without a gun to your head, that's voluntary. If officers come to grab you for NOT paying your taxes, that's INvoluntary. If I walk off with the jacket you left on a chair, that's voluntary. If officers come to grab me for NOT giving that jacket back, that's INvoluntary. If a bank teller refuses to give you cash in exchange for your withdraw slip, that's voluntary. If a cashier refuses to ring up your sale, that's voluntary. If you walk out of the store without paying, that's voluntary. History... is bunk. Humans either work together, or they kill each other. Thank God for this opposable thumb that has allowed us to kill each other so much more efficiently, instead of working together. ------- If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it?
21.5.97 People do choose their actions. 28.5.97 And shaking hands among them. 29.5.97 Creating widespread panic. 31.5.97 In the dimensions beyond that. 5.6.97 17:46 Before you consider it sex? 5.6.97 17:57 Heterosexual sex in the theater. 7.6.97 Already have something shoved up their butt. 11.6.97 17:00 Dirtiest little secret of the Church. 13.6.97 17:19 All held in one place. From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:19:00 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Alan Miles wrote: > > If creationism and homosexuality is unnatural were untrue, yes teaching > > these could be considered wrong. Of course, the people teaching them may > > be convinced for rational reasons they teaching truth. Thus it is better > > to allow the teaching of various theories to continue, and freedom of > > speech and parental discretion of moral teaching to continue. > If you want to teach that it's evil for people to have sex, if they have > they same gender, then say so. If you are defending your "right" to say > that it's fine to make fun of the students who are attracted to people > of the same gender, then we have a real problem. I HOPE we all agree > the latter is unacceptable. We might argue about whether the former is > acceptable, but let's separate the two cases here. What shall we call this? Reverse-reverse-reverse censorship? Words can be dangerous, yes. But they are even more dangerous when only used on special occasions, or for only one purpose. He has as much right to insult homosexuals as anybody else has a right to insult heterosexuals. Most societies brought up under censorship are deathly afraid that if the "truth" gets out, their society will fall apart. But this is assuming people will be as gullible to "truth" as they are to "lies". In a truly intelligent society, everyone is the boy who cried wolf (unless, of course, people are trying to hear the movie). --------- Shouting fire in a crowded theater is only dangerous if you've raised a society of gullible panic-stricken idiots.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.discrimination,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:00:43 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. G*rd*n wrote: > Actually, I would think mixing the genes would have a > conservative effect. This could be favorable to survival: > most mutations are harmful. > There was an article in the _Scientific_American_ a few > months ago about the evolution of sex. I don't think the > question is settled. Actually, most mutations are irrelevant. There is a lot of redundancy in the human gene sequence simply to avoid having one mutation cause too much chaos. If the secrets to keeping an organism (or society) alive were all held in one place, then that organism (or society) becomes very vulnerable. --------- Freedom of speech was a concept invented by a woman, whether her male counterparts realized it or not. But it matters not whether the play was written by Shakespeare or Byron.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.christnet,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:12:32 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > No homosexual society could survive for long, perhaps? Since no > procreation could argue the society would die out. I believe there was an > archeological discovery of a homosexual society in South America, or at > least a society that preferred homosexuality and glorified it. And it > disappeared. Why? It's not really that much of a mystery. You think you're the Last Heterosexual on Earth don't you? Let's hear for Mr. Paul Lanier. The Universe's very LAST heterosexual! Come one, come all. Step right up to see this last of a dying breed! What does it matter to you what other people do? For all you know Adam and Eve could've been the last heterosexual couple left in the Kingdom of Heaven. You do know Jesus Christ was gay don't you? Why are you here staring at a computer screen? Go fuck your wife... NOW!!! The WORLD is DEPENDING on you!!! > Is God responsible for Satan's desire for evil just because God created > Satan? (I do not mean to imply that homosexuals are satanic.) No, Satan > chose to worship himself over God. Man is responsible for his sin, not > God. The dirtiest little secret of the Church is that its ranks of monks and nuns throughout history have been filled with homosexuals. Without anywhere to turn and ashamed of their own desires, they had only one last refuge in the celibacy of the Church. Why? So whenever someone asks them why they aren't married, they could say, "I serve God." Instead of, "I'm a homo." Sounds MUCH better that way. --------- The difference between homosexuals and those against homosexuals is the difference between those who want something shoved up their butt and those who already have something shoved up their butt.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:26:14 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Anonymous wrote: > To comment on your views about 'love'... Love is an emotion that is > often confused. Most people would be unable to identify the difference > between love and a hormonal attraction. Anyway, to address your point about > homosexuality being natural. Lets look at Darwinian evolution: Survival of > the fittest. Better restated as: Survival of those who reproduce the best. > Rabbits reproduce quite quickly, and as you can see they flourish. Back to > humans though, survival of the fittest would mean 'flushing' of defective > genotypes. Homosexuality is, in effect, the refusal to reproduce. REFUSAL TO > REPRODUCE.... hmmmm, this should indicate that the defective genes should have > left the gene-pool. Which brings us to the matter of choice/state... For > most people exhibiting homosexual behavior it is obviously a choice. The act of homosexual sex is just that: an action. Like playing baseball is an action. Like watching ticker prices is an action. Like cleaning your room is an action. NONE of these activities result in offspring. So why not denounce baseball players, stock brokers, maids, popes, and nuns along with homosexuals? The difference between homosexuals and those against homosexuals is the difference between those who want something shoved up their butt and those who already have something shoved up their butt. Are you generally stupid or especially stupid? ------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,comp.ai,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:57:16 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > speech and parental discretion of moral teaching to continue. I have not > argued homosexuality should be outlawed, despite those who would label me > as a bigot. I have not argued homosexuality is not a viable choice of > lifestyle. I have argued that it is a bad lifestyle and should not be > followed. I agreed all people should be protected under the law. > > PL> Again, the two different genders imply to me that human nature is > > PL> complemented by the union of these two genders, and produces children > > PL> from this union. It implies to me that mating people from the same > > PL> gender is a violation of the complementarity of the sexuality of humans. > Or maybe, "If god meant for us to kill ourselves, he would have told us to > commit suicide." Would bisexuality be OK with you? What you seem to be advocating is that, besides keeping yourself alive with food, everyone should be spending all of their free time engaging in heterosexual sex. Not necessarily a bad lifestyle... until you want to go to see a movie. But don't y'know, if everyone only went to see movies instead of having heterosexual sex, humans would ALSO die out. So I shall now advocate against watching movies (unless, of course, the audience is having heterosexual sex in the theater). --------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:46:23 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > > | I think I was referring to the proper nature or character of beings. > > | Natural in this culture can have ambiguous meaning, because 'nature' can > > | cover the entire universe. I was saying the male and female genders > > | complement each other. That is, humans are sexual for a certain reason. I > > | do think caring affection also goes along with human sexuality. But I > > | think homosexuality is a clear perversion of the sexual function of human > > | beings. > > Homosexuality occurs in a great many species besides > > humans; it's obviously "natural" whether or not it's > > "proper." The latter is a personal judgment. Probably, > > you should take your complaint to the responsible party. > > Although given some other things you've said, I'm > > surprised you're so ready to rebuke your creator. > Is it possible that the Creator is the one who says homosexuality is not > the 'proper' order of things? What is it that you are afraid of? A population dying because there aren't enough horny heteros around? Get real. It's obvious either you can't get a date of your own, or you're afraid of homo rape. What is a sexual function? Anything that produces pleasure? By that definition, any pleasurable activity not directly relating to reproduction can be called "a clear perversion". Is a massage homosexual? Arm wrestling? Where would the physical contact have to occur before you consider it sex? What happens if you have an orgasm while playing a video game? ---------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:18:48 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Randy Melton wrote: > If you limit the "proper" role of sex to reproduction, just about > anything more than a handful of sexual encounters over a lifetime > would be considered perverse. But if you open the door to sex as an > avenue of love, of souls communicating and touching each other, of a > way to happiness, you *must* allow for this possibility with gay > people as well. It is simply what is decent, what is right, what is > moral. For these people, souls of the same gender *are* the souls > that complement theirs. The alternative is that they live a celibate, > unhappy life for *no* good reason. It is the way God made them. It is > not man's place to judge. BUT it is man's place to ask "Why". Why is there Attraction? Why is there Repulsion? If we wrote a computer simulation of a universe with only the force of attraction, it will be just one big clump of matter and energy. Nothing can change, nothing can ever improve itself. If there was only repulsion, that simulation produces no order and only division - immediate extinction. The evolution of atoms, organic matter, cells, societies, and philosophy rely on order for self-replication and on chaos for self-improvement. So what happens after unity of philosophy? The search for new philosophies, new knowledge for self- improvement. On or off the planet. We watch genetic computer programs "living" in a 2D world. Who is watching us living in our 3D world? And who in the dimensions beyond that? ------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:39:13 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > > The REAL question is WHY someone preaches against homosexuality. > > 1. Afraid of being labeled homosexual. > Okay, yes, you have identified a real question. > But no, we don't have human cloning yet. And do you honestly think > people will quit being attracted to the opposite gender? Nor want to > raise a family? > And another Question would be Why someone preaches for homosexuality. No, perhaps human cloning is not *done* yet, BUT the technology is there. It could well be that not only cloning, but many other sciences have progressed beyond our ability to accept them. But reports of those technologies are kept hidden for fear of creating widespread panic. No, raising a family, heterosexuality, homosexuality, marriage, divorce, "love", "lust", etc. will never die, so long as there is brainwashing... er, I mean communication to produce them. THAT is why freedom of expression and mutual education are important. --------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 20:47:41 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > > Two: There are plenty of heterosexual relationships that will never > > produce children (even when children are desired) due either to pure > > chance or infertility on the part of one or more partners. Should these > > relationships be condemned as sinful? Of course not. Further, gay > > couples routinely have children (through adoption, or even by having > > hetrosexual sex in order to conceive). I happen to know that gay couples > > (male and female!!!!) make wonderful parents. > But the point was that homosexuality can through _no_ stretch of the > imagination produce children. Heterosexual sex is the only known way > humans have children... even if by proxy through the test tube. Cloning > isn't making children, per se, though it does develop new humans... and it > has not been proved to be done with humans yet. I did not say not having > children was sinful. I said homosexuality cannot produce children. But > then, why are there two sexes in the first place? Hah, now that we got cloning, there's no longer a need for males at all. There are many things that do not produce children: watching TV, playing tennis, boxing, and shaking hands among them. The REAL question is WHY someone preaches against homosexuality. 1. Afraid of being labeled homosexual. 2. Afraid of being raped by a member of the same sex. 3. Afraid members of the opposite sex will all be homosexual and will not be able to get a date of his own. 4. It's just another rallying point used to achieve self- glorification among drooling sheep. ------- The only thing that separates us from Pavlov's dogs is that we know WHY we are Pavlov's dogs... and think his dogs do not.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:18:48 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Randy Melton wrote: > If you limit the "proper" role of sex to reproduction, just about > anything more than a handful of sexual encounters over a lifetime > would be considered perverse. But if you open the door to sex as an > avenue of love, of souls communicating and touching each other, of a > way to happiness, you *must* allow for this possibility with gay > people as well. It is simply what is decent, what is right, what is > moral. For these people, souls of the same gender *are* the souls > that complement theirs. The alternative is that they live a celibate, > unhappy life for *no* good reason. It is the way God made them. It is > not man's place to judge. BUT it is man's place to ask "Why". Why is there Attraction? Why is there Repulsion? If we wrote a computer simulation of a universe with only the force of attraction, it will be just one big clump of matter and energy. Nothing can change, nothing can ever improve itself. If there was only repulsion, that simulation produces no order and only division - immediate extinction. The evolution of atoms, organic matter, cells, societies, and philosophy rely on order for self-replication and on chaos for self-improvement. So what happens after unity of philosophy? The search for new philosophies, new knowledge for self- improvement. On or off the planet. We watch genetic computer programs "living" in a 2D world. Who is watching us living in our 3D world? And who in the dimensions beyond that? ------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.activism,sci.econ,alt.atheism,alt.politics.economics,alt.discrimination,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.journalism.gay-press,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Homosexuality: Choice? Yep. Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:20:17 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Wm James wrote: > >I think it's repulsive to be with another man....that's just how I > >turned out (i'm a guy).... others don't turn out that way and find > >themselves attracted to the same sex. > Agreed, my point was that people DO choose their actions. > I often feel like robbing the bank, but I would never do so. Ah, but you don't do so only because you've heard the laws against robbing backs repeated over and over. Education, hypnosis, brainwashing, imprinting, training dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell - all different aspects of the same thing. It's no surprise there's more bestiality among those who grow up with animals. It's no surprise Christians families raise more Christians than any other kind of families. And it's no surprise idiots growing up believing they live under capitalism actually support capitalism. And it's no surprise that societies growing up where everyone says beauty is a thin person with no distinguishing features come to believe that's exactly what beauty is. ------- History of the Universe: God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Dog trains God. God rebels. God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Will the cycle never end?
21.5.97 Property exists only because of what people tell you. 26.5.97 The majority in the legislature sanction it. From: tmethod@gatecom.com (Gary Lloyd) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.soc Subject: Re: Consistency in Objecting to Government Extortion Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 21:43:19 GMT Organization: Gateway Online 313-291-2666 "Victor Levis" viclevis@ican.net wrote: >Jim McCulloch mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu wrote in article >5mevcb$rn7$2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu... >> mike1@nospam.visi.com (Michael. Schneider ) wrote: >> >In article mcculloch-2305971947250001@newshost.cc.utexas.edu, >> >mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu (Jim McCulloch) wrote: >> >> Do you own property in the New World? I do. I therefore, and I >> >> suspect you, are beneficiaries of theft. >> > Produce a victim with a claim. Descendants don't count. >> > Produce a thief and charge him with a crime. >> > Descendants don't count. >> Have you thought of fencing stolen goods for a living? >Good point, Jim. However, we can resuscitate his concept a little by saying >that the original victim should have made the claim, or else the descendant >cannot pursue it. For the claim to be legitimate, it would have to willed, >and to exist before the transfer to the heir. >If I sell you something which my great-grandson unilaterally decides was too >cheaply sold, after I'm long gone, and he tries to get that property back >from your descendants heirs or people with whom you or your heirs >transacted, this cannot be legitimate. >Now, if I had made a claim of fraud or coercion during my lifetime, yes I >agree that my heirs can uphold and try to pursue the claim. Proof would >still be incumbent on them, however. In practice, proof becomes more >difficult with the passage of time, but it is not a sharp line that occurs >at one descendant. >So again my practical point is that if certain territory has NOT been >continuously claimed as 'disputed' by any band of First Nations, there is no >reason to fret over it. Changing the rules of the game doesn't necessarily mean confiscating last year's trophies. I, for one, see no point in trying to fix the past. Let's see what we can do about the future. Gary ============================================== When the boot of government is on your neck, it doesn't matter if it's left or right.
From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Consistency in Objecting to Government Extortion Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 16:42:19 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Victor Levis wrote: > > >>Property grows out of the barrel of a gun. > > >Now, who are you quoting here? I forget...was it Marx or Lenin? > > He is not quoting anybody. I would guess this apothegm is a > > hybrid of "property is theft" (Proudhon) and "political power > > grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Mao Tse-Tung). > > A realist of any political persuasion would have a hard time > > proving either Proudhon's or Mao's statement wrong, and anyone > > who owns land stolen from the Indians would have equal trouble > > disproving this statement of Mr. Hancock. > I have a hard time understanding liberals who simultaneously say both that > 'we' stole land from the Indians, and that taxation is not theft because the > majority in the legislature sanction it. It's not so much theft but, again, whether property can be owned in the first place. Without the initiation of force, there would be no such thing as property. And property of any kind is only useful if there are people around who can and want to make use of it. The debate over capital gains, ethanol tax cuts or breaks is a false one. Every side says their side benefits the little guy. The obvious solution is to REALLY make it benefit the little guy in the form of a graduated tax cut or tax break. The obvious answer always brings up the obvious question: SHOULD we benefit the little guy? WOULD that be more inefficient? That would be a moot question were it not for an economy based on competition, designed to fuel hatred and division rather than mutual education. --------- "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy ... Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Objecting to Government Extortion Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:32:44 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Giovanni 8 wrote: > > No. One needs to eat to live. If someone has an abundance of > > food and refuses to give it to someone who is starving, that > > person has a right to take it and do what is necessary to survive. > > That is more fundamental than any right to private property. > No. It's not right to violate another's right to life by > taking the property that is his. The right of a person to > the property which he has earned is an aspect of his right > to life. And how would ANYONE know if a piece of property BELONGS to anybody else? The simple fact is, you don't. UNTIL somebody tells you. Either we AGREE that island belongs to you, or we fight a war over it. The concept of property exists only because of the illusion of history, and the illusion of memory. Thus property exists only because of what people tell you. If they lie, if they are just plain stupid, who would know? You, of course, are the prime example of brainwashed stupidity regarding this concept of property. And being the fool that you are, you will probably kill someone over an inanimate object like all well-trained guard dogs do. That, of course, is why we have so many jails in this country. All the idiots that associate objects with their body and fight, maim, and imprison each other over it. Attempts at political and military equality, without attempting social equality, gives us the paradise that is IsrealPalestine today. -------- Property grows out of the barrel of a gun.
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Socialist rhetoric goes on and on....facts remain scarce Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:41:26 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > The same thing is true about inventions, Mike. the simple fact is > that an invention is worthless unless it can be put into some sort of > production. Ah, but who's to say that even if it IS put into "some sort of production", that the invention isn't STILL worthless? In a word: marketing. Marketing creates value where there wasn't any before, because it brainwashes people INTO putting value on something. Food for leaves. Medicine for rocks. Let's say, you, Mr. Manager, decide to fire someone. What's to prevent that employee from coming to work anyway? What's to prevent payroll from giving money to that person anyway? In a word: you. Your subordinates could "vote" themselves a new manager simply by no longer doing what you say. But of course, there is no free will in the country. So that will never happen. --------- Pavlov's Laws of Mutual Brainwashing: Repetition: The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers. Mutation: Loyalty was a "virtue" invented by kings to keep their pawns in line. Skepticism: If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it? Absorption: Pride is the irrelevant man's excuse for still feeling relevant. Focus: Mold colonies in a petri dish don't notice us watching them do battle.
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: OKC PsyOps campaign (Where's the crater again?) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 13:40:47 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Benjamin T. Moore, Jr. wrote: > "Pilgrims." Believing one's self to be the Messiah is not punishable by law > and certainly does not warrant a raid by federal forces armed with fully > automatic weapons. Having heard some of the Bible classes David Koresh > The real issues is whether or not the Federal Government had the cause to > make a full military assault on a church/home containing nearly 100 > innocent men, women and children. The answer is no! Was such an assault > even necessary? According to the Sheriff of that county, it was not! Have you no idea how this country works? Once the media zoo shows up, and the jokes start to fly, there's no turning back. Either you kill them fast or you risk your job. That's what this country's all about isn't it? JOBS!!! ------- Nothing attracts a swarm of flies like a pile of shit.
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,can.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Election: serious warning Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:51:00 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jean Chrétien wrote: > God may have many names dependind of > countries or religion. We can name him, He, > Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Bouddha, Krishna > or any other until He allows complete freedom, > love, peace, forgiving and He doesn't promote > violence, destruction, encourage sins, sex, > money rackets, suicide because death will > come as a stealer and Resurrection of our > spirits will follow. > Personnally I don't believe in Antichrist but > we have no chance to take. YOU, in fact, are the Antichrist. You are in fact a pawn of Evil (TM). How would you know if you weren't? Jeez, get a grip. There are two kinds of theists: those who want only to "serve God" and those with egos so huge that they demand to be among those "chosen by God". There are two kinds of athiests: those with egos so huge that they demand to be the unquestioned master species of the planet and those who would actually keep their sanity if some as yet unknown lifeform would reveal itself today to be the so-called "gods" in all our legends. --------- History of the Universe: God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Dog trains God. God rebels. God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Will the cycle never end?
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: Democratic Media (was: Re: Ayn Rand: A Marxist?) Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 16:49:18 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > oleh@stripe.colorado.edu: > | > control. But what difference does it make? _Pravda_ is > | > certainly not a counterexample to "democratic control", > | > whatever that means. > | Yes, what does that mean? And why would anybody want it? It comes down to Truth (TM)... or what passes for Truth in this country. The flagship of any of the major networks is its nightly news. Every network wants to throw in its own attempts at channeling the progress of human civilization. Not necessarily bad of course, until they start claiming that they are the Voice of Truth. At least under unabashed autocracy, people had the choice of either believing official media, or NOT believing it. Here, we have the "choice" of believing ONE, or the OTHER... and they all basically spout various versions of the same thing. All busy training We the Dogs to reflect their vision of themselves. It's the democratic process that makes democratic control important. To force debate, to expose secrets. Learn WHY one story was chosen over another or phrased in a certain way. Learn WHY the camera angles down at one person and up at another. The internal debate within the press MUST be public. They will lose credibility, true. THAT, however, is the POINT. Statements should be agreed with DESPITE the credibility (or lack thereof) of the speaker, NOT because of it. -------- If there's self-censorship in the press, we'll never know there's self-censorship in the press.
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.radio,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.republican,ca.politics,tx.politics,ny.politics,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: ENVY and class warfare Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:08:26 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > Yep, gary12@ibm.net (ZB) wrote about: > Re: ENVY and class warfare > >Well written and to the point. If the gap between the haves and have > >nots continues to widen as it has for the past to decades, we are > >quite likely sowing the seeds for an armed revolution. The have nots > >will come after the haves, armed with Mac-10s and AK-47's. Of course, you have to define what the gap is first. What is wealth? What is failure? Who defines it? Wealth of numbers? Wealth of shiny rocks? Wealth of power? Wealth of knowledge? True wealth is wealth of CONTROL OVER IDEAS. The media, our teachers, our parents, our government all play a part. "No talking back!" your parents used to say. All least democracy allows us to "talk back" to our politicians. Talking back to your teachers? Suspension. Talking back to your TV? Sure, like your TV is listening. Communication is incredibly valuable for education. The only problem is, the competition for money and influence has completely compromised the intended goal of communication. -------- Pavlov's Laws of Mutual Brainwashing: Repetition: The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers. Mutation: Loyalty was a "virtue" invented by kings to keep their pawns in line. Skepticism: If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it? Absorption: Pride is the irrelevant man's excuse for still feeling relevant. Focus: Mold colonies in a petri dish don't notice us watching them do battle.
From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Force & School Choice Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:56:47 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Victor Levis wrote: > > Most libertarians make no bones about their desire to destroy the public > > schools, and for such people vouchers are just a stalking horse for their > > real goals. > As a libertarian, I see no value in 'destroying' stuff that people want. > Since many people want public schools, I am satisfied with merely > eliminating any coercion put in place on their behalf, just as I abhor the > initiation of force for other purposes. If you were a True Libertarian (TM)(R), you'd see that dragging a person out of a classroom simply because he refuses to pay tuition IS initiation of force. Far better to brainwash the poor into thinking they don't have a right to all the lousy useless high-priced and irrelevant education your rich kids are getting, just so they have an excuse for getting big salary jobs. --------- The two sides of mass communication: credible and gullible.

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|