Artful Dodger: .... In the UK we hear more about how News Corp took part in a systematic campaign of phone hacking and blackmail to get stories.

Last I heard James Murdoch faces a recall into accusations from witnesses he knew, despite him saying he didn't. That News Corp is willing to sacrifice The Sun and The Times if needed to save it's more lucrative satellite and internet business arms.

What do you have to say to critics of Fox News who regard it as a tool of the right wing?

I always love questions like that, because no one ever says, "I don't like Fox News." They say, "What do you say to the critics?" In the old days, major media was outrageously liberal, but they owned all the players on the teams, they owned the ball, they owned the stadium. And when Fox News shows up to play, everyone else wants to take the ball and go home. You hear nothing but whining about Fox News because they're kicking everybody's butt. And I love that. The people who whine about Fox News are hypocrites — they say they're totally tolerant, but when they run into someone who doesn't share their assumptions, they say, "Fox News is evil, and it must be stopped."

(V): duh, to what extend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO8eubj23dQ

Loophole???

Mars Science Laboratory Lifts Off for Red Planet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jEXoMpmfJcM

... The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

... BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/11/27/latest-climategate-emails-bbc-cahoots-climategate-scientists#ixzz1evJylwWl

Artful Dodger: Hey.. I'm from England. We've had our time of Christianity being "it" and "untouchable"... what a mess that led us into!! lmao

(V): Well that's good then. Case closed.

Artful Dodger: True.. I've not read it all seeing as I've not bought it. But as you've said.

>>"Not being a huge fan of the deeper math concepts (because it's not a skill I possess) I still know enough to be fascinated with just how precise math can work and solve deep mysteries."<<>>"I don't understand the book fully"<<

........... so>>"and you can come to a full conclusion. Never mind that you haven't read his book or considered his ideas in any deep way."<<

I don't need to. I have no need to read a book to prove it's ok to believe in God.

(V): Good. That was quick. A few minutes looking at a very short preview and you can come to a full conclusion. Never mind that you haven't read his book or considered his ideas in any deep way. I would have expected as much.

So that ends that@!

Artful Dodger: He's not exactly using high level maths is he from what I saw in the Amazon preview...

... "Faith = (mind) + (heart) + (will)

imho ... he's just getting his bit of the Christianity gravy train than anything else. I can make similar easily enough.

God's faith = XY x 10^Z

Get him to answer that one ;)

(V): He's a Ph.D from Purdue Univ. A smart guy. Not that that makes him right. But interesting at least. To save you time, here are some links.

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.MarvinBittinger
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Bittinger,%20Marvin

his books that are widely used....so he's no slouch

http://marvinbittinger.com/
http://thefaithequation.com/
http://www.facultylinc.com/bittinger-marvin-l/
http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Intermediate-Algebra-Bittinger-Worktext/dp/0321613376/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

(V): I found the book. I'll look for a link ;)

(V): Just a small correction. Argues the existence of God and proves the existence are two very different things. No one can "prove" God exists IMO.

Artful Dodger: Yet... there is no evidence at the moment that the laws of physics as they apply in this universe are a constant throughout all time and space. The evidence seems to support that this is one of billions of universes amongst myriads of dimensions.

So, how can this guy use maths to prove there is a God, when so much is still theoretical?

A link would be nice!!

Atheism is not a belief system.
There are, however, systems that support those who are atheist.
"…it is accepted that the Humanist Manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be subject to ongoing critique."
Agnosticism is a lack of belief. The atheist assertion that no god exists is a belief since it cannot be proven or scientifically tested. Since the humanist manifestos represent groups that may be fairly small or may be large but not all inclusive (of humanists, atheists or agnostics), they are not unlike the tenets of a Christian sect in that those tenets are not all shared by other sects. The way they are clearly unlike the tenets of a Christian sect or other religion is that they are not dogma, are subject to change and no humanist (atheist or agnostic) is expected to accept their precepts.
Though the existence of god cannot be disproved, an understanding of the history of religions and the evolution of the various gods represented by them leads to a clear deduction that the Christian god does not exist as represented by literalists.
That such a god does not exist is not a matter of faith or belief, but of knowledge, understanding and sound reasoning.

(V): I couldn't agree more. You're making my argument for me.

The Col: Good cya then

Artful Dodger: You are confusing maths and physics.

We developed maths as a common language to be able to count, predict the seasons (as in the early days) .... and then more recently to describe the physics. We did not invent the physics, they are something set at the time of this particular universe.

Artful Dodger: ". Now you can go back to being quiet"

If by quiet, you mean not wasting my time banging my head on this board trying to counter your republican talking points.I will gladly

The Col: Yeah, that's what I said.

All scientists are skeptics. They ALL say, "prove it." So I'm in good company.

I don't believe in a young earth because I think the science speaks otherwise.

So much for your patently false statement. Now you can go back to being quiet.

Artful Dodger: re:"I have a great book, I'll look up the title later, where the author argues the existence of God based on mathematical truths. I don't understand the book fully but that is a topic that deserves exploration. I'm not doing the premise of the book justice so I'll dig it up and you can read some reviews etc if that interests you.

Not being a huge fan of the deeper math concepts (because it's not a skill I possess) I still know enough to be fascinated with just how precise math can work and solve deep mysteries. I don't for a minute think we as a human species invented math but only that we developed a language (mathematical equations) to understand what already existed"

So you're skeptical of science, unless it fits your beliefs

"At some point people have forgotten that Atheism is as much a belief system as religions are. Interestingly, it is OK to discriminate atheists. If an atheists comes out and speaks against religion, he will be labelled a bigot. But not so when some preacher speaks against atheists. If I open a Christian school, it is OK. But if I were to open an atheist school that openly promotes atheism, I would probably be burned at the stake."

It seems to me that atheism isn't a system at all but rather a lack of belief or maybe more accurately skeptcism. After all, if there were no belief or knowledge in God, there would be no atheists.

I've never understood why people would want to promote atheism. I understand an atheist's criticism against "religion" but against the teaching of Christianity (notice I said teaching) that makes no sense.

"But what is truth is not a personal assertion?"

That is nonsense. A personal assertion is just that: a claim or opinion being made. It's not true just because you assert it.

"You tell me God exists and he is the truth giver. Why should I believe that? Because you say so? "

No, not because I say or because the Bible says. You have to examine the arguments and determine if there's credibility to them. If you are just going to reject them outright, then there's no point in the discussion.

I tell Christians NEVER to quote the Bible to an atheist. They think I'm nuts. But there's no point in trying to prove the Bible by quoting it. Especially to an atheist. Just because I believe the Bible to be from God doesn't mean I expect you to do the same. There are many rational and logically sound arguments for God's existence (the only place to start IMO) and none are dependent on the Bible. Many atheists reject these arguments because of an a priori commitment to materialism. Many other atheists have been convinced by the arguments.

" As an atheist I assert the following: "a human being killing another human being is wrong". Now, others can chose to believe it or they can ignore it. It is their right as free, thinking human beings. "

Yes that's true, you can assert that. However, is your claim objectively true? That's the crux of the matter. BTW, I would say your claim above is false. It is NOT wrong to kill another human being. It IS wrong to kill another human being without justification. But I claim MY STATEMENT is universally true. It's true for all people in all situations. You can disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. It's not that I'm right, it's that my statement is objectively true.

"... I have conviction in my beliefs. Without conviction in our own beliefs we would immediately fold to anybody else's beliefs. I believe what I believe not because somebody told me so, or because a book told me so, but because after careful analysis and consideration, I have arrived at my convictions."

Don't assume that Christians only hold convictions because "somebody told them" or "they read it in a book." It's arrogant to think that Christians don't analyze their beliefs and convictions. We do that all the time. How do you think a 35 year old former atheist comes to believe in God? That happens a lot. I know of many former atheists and agnostics that came to believe in God after considering extra-biblical arguments. Atheists don't have a corner on the market of skepticism.

"There are many things that are wrong, and people do them for different reasons."

This is where you lose me. You use the same language as would a Christian when speaking of "things that are wrong." You don't seem to mean that you just don't like the thing but that it is objectively wrong and all people should know it. (if you don't think all people should "know it" then why say it is wrong? Why not just that you don't like it?)

Yes atheists can be moral and are. Yes they recognize when something is actually wrong (apart from opinions) and yes in may ways there is no difference in the behavior of a moral atheist or a moral person of faith.

The question I have asked of you is on what basis do you claim that something is actually wrong. You have not answered this question. You've made no argument for your position. On this question, you have no foundation on which to stand.

When you say something is "wrong" do you simply mean it's not the preferred way or not the accepted way? Or do you mean that it's objectively an immoral action?

When I say something is wrong, I say it's objectively true that it's wrong. It's not just that society says so. It's that the thing (such as killing babies for fun) is actually wrong. Period. Since we both agree that such a thing would be wrong, the question is, who has the best explanation as to why this is so? The atheist position falls far short of answering the question while the theist's position is strong.

Übergeek 바둑이: " We get back to the original question: Does good and evil come only from God? What if God does not exist?"

I'm actually not saying this. I'm saying that if objective truths actually exist, there has to be an explanation for those truths beyond our human experience. Since if those truths actually exist as a part of reality, then the explanation for those truths must also exist beyond or outside human experience. An Objective Truth Giver then must necessarily exist.

"And belief in God is not subjective? If anything, religion is the ultimate subjectivity."

I don't believe it is entirely subjective. We can look at objective evidence and infer God from many things. If that is not possible, then how can science claim not to be subjective when it too requires a look at objective evidence in which (a subjective) inferences are then made.

"I believe in a being that I can never prove exists."

You can't "prove" anything in science really can you. Aren't all scientific claims really just the current accepted theories? Right now, Einstein's theory is being challenged. What science does is offer evidence for a idea (hypothesis) and then test that hypothesis over and over. It's hypothetical and will always remain so. It may be accepted as fact but in science, we know that "facts" often change.

" I call my belief faith and that is the belief in something that has no concrete, scientific proof.""

What's interesting to me about scientific "proof" is that science rejects that which cannot be tested empirically. Yet, even the rule that things must be tested empirically cannot itself be tested. It fails its own test.

Science makes up the rules for what's acceptable as "evidence" and then refuses to listen to any voice that doesn't "play by their rules." The game is rigged.

"The atheists makes his argument from the opposite poit: "I believe that God does not exists. Nobody can prove God's existence. I cannot prove God's nonexistence. However, all concrete and scientific evidence before leads me to believe that God does not exist. My concept of good and evil exists outside of religious arguments.""

What's so peculiar about this last statement is as a Christian I could (and have) just as easily say, "However, all concrete and scientific evidence before me leads me to believe that a God does exist." Not only do I say this and believe it, but so do MANY scientists, past and present, echo this same sentiment. What separates the scientific skeptic and the scientific believer?

I have a great book, I'll look up the title later, where the author argues the existence of God based on mathematical truths. I don't understand the book fully but that is a topic that deserves exploration. I'm not doing the premise of the book justice so I'll dig it up and you can read some reviews etc if that interests you.

Not being a huge fan of the deeper math concepts (because it's not a skill I possess) I still know enough to be fascinated with just how precise math can work and solve deep mysteries. I don't for a minute think we as a human species invented math but only that we developed a language (mathematical equations) to understand what already existed.

Music is must the same. How 7 basic notes in a scale together with sharps and flats can produce harmonies, mood, and a seemingly endless number of different songs (millions). We didn't invent music either. We developed a language where we can manipulate what's already there.

What's most interesting to me is how chords are ALL constructed in thirds. There are other rules of course, but just understanding that rule, I can construct any chord in any key using either my guitar or piano. I don't need a chord chart and I can play all available variations of that chord. One simple rule and I can play all chords in existence. (or at least figure them out). That's order. Where did that order come from? It's not invented. Musical notes are not an invention but a discovery.

nuff of that....

Übergeek 바둑이: Artful Dodger:

Oi yoi yo... this seems a bit of a rabbit trail but I'll walk the path just a bit. It would actually be an interesting discussion between you as an atheist and me as a theist. But it's a huge topic to say the least so I won't tackle it here. But just a few comments.

"God exists" Isn't that an a-priori statement too?"

Yes

" After all, there is no CONCRETE and SCIENTIFIC proof of the existence of God."

But there are proofs. Atheists just reject them (not all atheists do however - as I know former atheists who no longer refused to accept the evidence presented to them).

" Just because it says so in a book it does not make it true."

Nor does it make it false.

"Neither does a lot of people believing it."

A fair point. The same can be said of many things. Believing something to be true doesn't make it true anymore than believing something false would make it so.

" Faith is not proof, if anything, faith is belief in the ABSENCE of proof."

Skepticism isn't proof either. So at best you can say you don't know if there is a God. An honest atheist should really loose the label and just call him/herself an agnostic. You don't know and you can't know. Not empirically.

"Just as you can question the atheist for believing things "a priori" so can all of religion be questioned, because other than your personal belief there is no proof of the existence of God."

Here's where you lose me. We are discussing the existence of an absolute standard. I say that if you think one exists, you have to have a basis for that belief. My claim is that an absolute standard of right and wrong exist apart from anything you or I think, feel, or believe. You likely agree with most of these absolute standards and my question is simple: for the atheist - based on what.

As you may have answered this further in your post (which I'll address later) there may be no need to readdress it here.

Artful Dodger:

> If a claim has no basis other than the claim itself, then all claims would be equal.

"God exists" Isn't that an a-priori statement too? After all, there is no CONCRETE and SCIENTIFIC proof of the existence of God. Just because it says so in a book it does not make it true. Neither does a lot of people believing it. Faith is not proof, if anything, faith is belief in the ABSENCE of proof. Just as you can question the athiesist for believing things "a priori" so can all of religion be questioned, because other than your personal belief there is no proof of the existence of God.

> I'm actually saying that as an atheist, you have no grounds to argue against things
> you claim are "wrong."

How so? We get back to the original question: Does good and evil come only from God? What if God does not exist? You assume that God exists and that good and evil come from him. You assume that atheists have no moral grounds, because they have no God. However, human reality is different. Believer in God do wrong, and are full of contradictions. Atheists are no better.

> I say Al Qaeda is "wrong" because they kill people without justification. But when I
> say justification, I mean more than I just don't like it. I mean it's objectively wrong to kill
> another person without moral justification. For the atheist, it is only subjectively
> wrong. They don't like it. But beyond not liking it, they have no foundational argument.

And belief in God is not subjective? If anything, religion is the ultimate subjectivity. "I beleive in a being that I can never prove exists. I call my belief faith and that is the velief in something that has no concrete, scientific proof." The atheists makes his argument from the opposite poit: "I believe that God does not exists. Nobody can prove God's existence. I cannot prove God's nonexistence. However, all concrete and scientific evidence before leades me to believe that God does not exist. My concept of good and evil exists outside of religious arguments."

At some point people have forgotten that Atheism is as much a belief system as religions are. Interestingly, it is OK to discriminate atheists. If an atheists comes out and speaks against religion, he will be labelled a bigot. But not so when some preacher speaks against atheists. If I open a Christian school, it is OK. But if I were to open an atheist school that openly promotes atheism, I would probably be burned at the stake.

> Here's where you are wrong. You argue that simply because you say so, something
> is right or wrong. If something is truly wrong, it's wrong for both you and I. It's
> wrong independent of your feelings to the contrary. Otherwise it is benign.

But what is truth is not a personal assertion? You tell me God exists and he is the truth giver. Why should I believe that? Because you say so? Because the Bible says so? As an atheist I assert the following: "a human being killing another human being is wrong". Now, others can chose to believe it or they can ignore it. It is their right as free, thinking human beings. Now, if others refuse to believe it, it does not mean that they are right and I am wrong. Masses of people sometimes believe the wrong thing, and that does not make it right. There will also be many times when I am wrong because as a human being I am imperfect. However, I have conviction in my beliefs. Without conviction in our own beliefs we would immediately fold to anybody else's beliefs. I believe what I believe not because somebody told me so, or because a book told me so, but because after careful analysis and consideration, I have arrived at my convictions. Nobody else has any obligation to accept my analysis of things and my version of right and wrong. People can choose to agree, and one would hope they have the common sense to believe out of intelligence and not out of blindness.

> Consequences don't matter. They don't determine if something is right or wrong.
> Consequences are implemented by a society against a particular act it deems
> offensive. But for something to be objectively wrong, it would be wrong EVEN IF
> nobody believed it. (such as abortion).

There are many things that are wrong, and people do them for different reasons. The Law is society's attempt to stop people from tossing aside their values and imposing selfish wrongdoing on others. The law is imperfect, because human motivations are imperfect. It is not the consequences that make an act wrong, but rather it is the act itself. Killing is wrong, not because the law says so, or because the killer will go to prison or hell, but because killing in itself is wrong. That is the a priori statement. The act of killing might or might not have consequences. However, it is the act of destroying a human life that is wrong. Why should it be wrong? This is where personal belief comes in. Some people will cite God, others will cite science, or philosophy, or anything that satisfies their justification. A person could chose to believe that killing is not wrong (like psychopaths and politically motivated killers). However, that does not alter my own beliefs about killing because I have conviction in my beliefs.

> Abortion is either wrong or it is not wrong. It is not both. Same with stealing or lying
> or killing. They are either morally justified or they are not. It is not a personal choice
> that determines right or wrong.

That's right. It is a personal choice. Sometimes pro-life people think that the pro-abortion side thinks abortion is right. In reality, the pro-abortion side sees abortion as a terrible thing, but they justify abortion as a woman's right to chose what is right or wrong for herself and her unborn child. the ultimate choice lies in the woman's mind. A woman can choose an abortion, and those who support her in her choice don't do it callously or without regard to abortion being a terrible thing. However, they believe that the state has no business telling a woman what to do with her body. Well, we had the abortion discussion a long time ago. I think it is something that humanity will always struggle with because it faces off a woman's rights against something that everybody knows is wrong.


> Since something can be truly objectively wrong (killing babies for fun) then they are
> transcendent truths. Since objective truth exists, there must be an objective truth
> giver that transcends our human intellect.

Well, this is a matter of faith. The transcendent truth giver, the intelligent designer, the creator, God. The essence of faith is belief in this transendent being. As an athetist my faith is opposite of this: an atheist has faith that there is no transdent being outside the physical world. Some atheists lose sight of this and they forget that atheism is a belief system.

Atheists see objective truths as just being without the need for a creator or giver. The sun IS. Science can describe how a sun is formed, how it functions, etc. Science cannot prove whether God made the sun or not, because science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Thus the atheists says: the SUN is and there is no need for any God to have created. Whether the atheist is right or wrong is a matter of faith.

A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets and to his surprise he found none. He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker, right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am." "Well, whoever heard of a banker with his hands in his own pockets?"

I generally ignore your posts because it was clear from the start that you sought only to prove yourself right and the other wrong and have no interest in discussions but only in finding fault in the argument of others.

A general apriorist fallacy is one in which the truth of a proposition is assumed apart from evidence. In my response to Übergeek 바둑이 I simply point out that it's HIS argument that the truth of a statement is in the statement itself is fallacious. Because if truth depends only upon what's being stated, then all statements are true and that of course is counter intuitive.

You incorrectly label my argument as an a priori fallacy. You clearly don't understand the rules of formal logic. My argument has NOTHING to do with common characteristics. And neither does the a priori fallacy have to do with common characteristics.

So before you insert yourself into a discussion, remember that your little drive by assaults on cherry picked points are doing very little to earn you any credibility here. Ubeergeek discusses. He challenges. He counters. He doesn't try to show others up. That is why I discuss with him.

And that is why, except for this one instance, I will simply continue to ignore you unless you actually seed honest discussion. Which I rather doubt.

Artful Dodger:
The following argument employs an a priori fallacy:
"If a claim has no basis other than the claim itself, then all claims would be equal."
Sharing a common characteristic does not imply equality.

Artful Dodger:
The following argument employs an a priori<i/> fallacy:
"If a claim has no basis other than the claim itself, then all claims would be equal."
Sharing a common characteristic does not imply equality.

Übergeek 바둑이: "Like a said in my previous post, many statements about what is right and wrong are made "a priori", meaning without no basis other than the statement itself. The decision to accept an act as right or wrong is a personal decision."

If a claim has no basis other than the claim itself, then all claims would be equal. So rape is wrong and rape is right. Both are statements and if the basis for each statement is simply the claim itself, both are right (which is a contradiction and won't stand).

"What society says and what an individual does are two different things. If I say it is wrong to kill and exploit others, it is my personal choice and something I believe not based on some socially agreed standard."

If you really believe this, then why do you complain that corporations do things to get rich? Isn't that simply their personal choice?


"If you say that the threat of violence is the only thing that stops people from being bad, then give me a reason why it is wrong for Al Qaeda to attack the USA, just because the USA will bomb them and kill them?"

I'm actually saying that as an atheist, you have no grounds to argue against things you claim are "wrong." I say Al Qaeda is "wrong" because they kill people without justification. But when I say justification, I mean more than I just don't like it. I mean it's objectively wrong to kill another person without moral justification. For the atheist, it is only subjectively wrong. They don't like it. But beyond not liking it, they have no foundational argument.

"Well, then why is ANYTHING wrong? I make this "a priori" statement: it is wrong to kill someone because of their race. You can choose to believe it or not. It is your INDIVIDUAL choice, and you are responsible for that choice."

Here's where you are wrong. You argue that simply because you say so, something is right or wrong. If something is truly wrong, it's wrong for both you and I. It's wrong independent of your feelings to the contrary. Otherwise it is benign. Consequences don't matter. They don't determine if something is right or wrong. Consequences are implemented by a society against a particular act it deems offensive. But for something to be objectively wrong, it would be wrong EVEN IF nobody believed it. (such as abortion).

Abortion is either wrong or it is not wrong. It is not both. Same with stealing or lying or killing. They are either morally justified or they are not. It is not a personal choice that determines right or wrong.

Since something can be truly objectively wrong (killing babies for fun) then they are transcendent truths. Since objective truth exists, there must be an objective truth giver that transcends our human intellect.

Übergeek 바둑이:
For one, you have given me no rational argument for why others should care about the suffering that goes around in the world. When I say, "who cares about the rest of the world?" I am pointing out that you have to have a basis in which to care about the suffering of others. Sure, you don't like that there is suffering but what if John Smith does't care? How will you convince him otherwise? You speak of selfishness but then that is a moral requirement of whom? Says you? I shouldn't be selfish? Aren't you being selfish to suggest how I should think? Is it wrong to be selfish? Who says?

You assume many things. And maybe I agree with much of what you say. But there must be a basis, a foundation that holds together the things you proclaim as truth. It's wrong to be selfish. This seems to be an assumption you have. Ok then, what is selfishness and why is it wrong? Who determines that it is wrong?

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

I am not a social darwinist. I'm asking you to show me why it's WRONG to exploit the weak. Because you say so? Why were the Nazis wrong and you are right? Is it more than just a difference of opinion? How so?

Two Occupy Wall Street protesters, one a key leader of the movement, stayed at a swanky, $700-per-night New York City hotel while their fellow protesters camped out in Zuccotti Park, the New York Post reported.

Peter Dutro, a member of Occupy Wall Street’s finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who attended demonstrations during a business trip, both stayed in the W New York Downtown Hotel last week, with Spitzer reportedly opening his room up to other protesters as well.

Übergeek 바둑이: you are simply blinded by your misguided hatred of capatialism. Again I ask, where is this perfect system in play so we can observe it? Which country?

The ability to offer lower taxes and property tax reductions to businesses in Texas is paid for by massive cuts to the education and health budgets.

Ie the rich can stay rich and the poor can stay poor and uneducated, with little chance to better themselves. The state of Texas basically just wants a cheap labour force.

Texas ranks near the bottom or at the bottom in per capita health care and education funding and has among the highest rates of child poverty, infectious disease, and workplace fatalities.

But no matter, they have always a good supply of illegal immigrants to work for peanuts.

.. so if you want to better yourself from a poor background in Texas.... Move state.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
"Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge."

Capitalism is a derogatory term for economic individualism. It is derogatory for good reasons in view of global corporations and the destruction they have brought to many local economies throughout the world.

The flaws with capitalism exists wherever the government fails to protect individual rights ("individual" meaning flesh and blood persons and NOT corporations) and impose appropriate restrictions to protect the environment, natural resources, workers, consumers and legitimate competitive enterprises.

Artful Dodger:

I have a great idea. Since EVERY system is bad, let's convince ourselves that there is NOTHING wrong with capitalism. Let's treat poverty as something external. It belongs in the Third World and the rich empires that use those countries and those people for profit have NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever for what goes on there. Since that poverty is outside the USA, the fact that American companies make a profit in those countries those not even count when it come sto capitalism.

> People are the ones who oppress the poor.

And who makes capitalism? Geese? Capitalism is the result of PEOPLE pursing profit. So those PEOPLE who oppress the poor are the ruling class, and in capitalism it is those who own the means of production; i.e.: the rich capitalists.

Capitalism has changed nothing, except replace the old feudal lords and the old aristocracy with the mechant class. Instead of a feudal lord, now you have a factory owner, or a CEO.

The reason why there is poor today is simply because the unfair and unequal distribution of wealth has been formalized in the name of profit. Nothing new there. Modern capitalism might be an economic success, but it is also a social failure because it has failed to eliminate poverty, exploitation and hunger.

The Soviet Union (like China) might have been run by the communist party, but it was in essence a form of state capitalism. Instead of the monopolies belonging to CEOs in Wall Street, the monolopy was run by the state. The Soviet Union was run by a communist elite, the USA is run by an elitist plutocracy made of the wealthy donors and lobbyists that run the political parties. The only reason why that plutocracy allows a two party pseudo-democracy is just to keep the general public from exploding into anarchy and revolution.

Bernice:

ever wondered how the Greek debt thing works....read below.............

It is a slow day in a little Greek Village.
The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the taverna.
The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit.
The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.
The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works

Übergeek 바둑이: You want to single out capatilism as the culprit around the world for the poor being poor? How is it that they were poor before capitalism? Are there any poor in countries that are not capitalist? We are talking about a system and as a system, capitalism cannot oppress the poor anymore than any other system can.
People are the ones who oppress the poor. And it doesn't matter what economic system is at play, there will be poor. Do you think that under Communism there was an actual utopia? Is there no exploitation of the weak? How about a socialist utopia? Where is this place where everyone is equal? Why are people not flocking to live there? Instead, they want to come to America.

It may seem to some that those don't belong together, and I would agree that they should not. Unfortunately, however, the Christian conservatives have a stranglehold on republican politics and a strong influence on many issues and how they are presented. Democracy doesn't exist without public opinion and polls have shown that atheism is unpopular in the USA.
There is significant misinformation about what it means for a person to be atheist. In particular, it's commonly asserted that atheists have no morals because morals come from god. First, morals do not come from god. Second, atheists do have morals even if different than those of Christians.
Morality is a social code that may be enforced by law or other social convention. Christian morals are based on the old testament and enhanced by the new testament including the teachings of Paul the misogynist and Jesus. Old testament law is based on the code of Hammurabi about 4 centuries before Moses. There are other social codes that predate the code of Hammurabi. Even if the law of Moses were considered independent of the code of Hammurabi, the fact that social laws existed long before it demonstrates that morality predated god's law and is not dependent on the god of the old testament.

Artful Dodger:
is mostly attributable to ex governor Arnold Schwarzeneger (Republican).
It clearly has nothing to do with this socialist concept you keep falsely asserting. Of course there are many others that assert it also, so it's not surprising that you've jumped on the bandwagon.
Additionally, the problem is NOT due to spending but lack of revenues from California businesses.

Texas is the most business friendly state in the Union and California is the worst (no surprise). They over regulate and over tax businesses to the point that they can't make a decent profit. Clueless twits. And there are now 13 billion in debt. No money to pay it off.

American's future under the socialist mindset. (see Europe)

Business flees People’s Republic of California – socialism wins


California was once the capital of business and technology innovation. Aerospace, computers, software – all manner of high tech industry was headquartered in California. All of that is changing, however, as this once great state has become the People’s Republic of California – a socialist, anti-business, anti-capitalist, collectivist state. In response to confiscatory taxes and oppressive environazi regulation, businesses are abandoning the state for more friendly environs.

He says it so well. And the idiots that run california (into the ground) won't connect the dots. Like most liberals, their heads are elsewhere.

there is no government of any kind nor a need for it.
Artful Dodger:
Socialism implies that the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.
Please describe Artful Dodger the California industries that are state owned.

California has the highest taxes, both sales and income, and can't pay their entitlement programs. They have been borrowing money for years to pay for entitlements. Businesses are leaving california to do business elsewhere.

Welcome to the future of America under Obama.

California is a perfect example of a socialist state. And they are out of money. Margaret was right.

Artful Dodger:

> And whenever we speak of capitalism, I speak of it as it relates to the US. I don't
> care about the rest of the world. It's good for the US and that's the context of this
> discussion. If you want to drag in developing countries, talk to someone else about
> that. I have no interest in that discussion.

Not to drag developing countries into the discussion? It is only about the USA? How many American companies operate in developing countries? How much profit do they make there? If developing coutnries have NOTHING to do with capitalism, then why is the USA doing business there?

What is your behaviour then if not selfish hogwash? "Who cares about the rest of the world?" It is so easy to say capitalism is great if all that you look at are the rich and the comfortable middle class. Yes, capitalism brought prosperity to CEOs, but what about their employees in the developing world? Don't they count in your mind or are you so selfish that all you care about is your own little world?

> Who says it's wrong to exploit the weak? Tough crap on them. Why are humans
> subject to such a rule but the animal kingdom lives by exploiting the weakness of
> others.

Are you a social Darwinist then? Because that is what social Darwinism is. If you believe that the strongest humans should rule, you are a social Darwinist and that is the what drove the Nazi mentality.

> On what basis is any of this true? Who is to say what is right or what is wrong?
> You? How can you hold me to that standard apart from threat of violence? Is it
> objectively wrong or is that just an opinion that most have agreed to? And if in time,
> society decides it's OK to kill babies for fun, then is that act still wrong in your view?
> How so? Based on what?

Like a said in my previous post, many statements about what is right and wrong are made "a priori", meaning without no basis other than the statement itself. The decision to accept an act as right or wrong is a personal decision. What society says and what an individual does are two different things. If I say it is wrong to kill and exploit others, it is my personal choice and something I believe not based on some socially agreed standard.

If you say that the threat of violence is the only thing that stops people from being bad, then give me a reason why it is wrong for Al Qaeda to attack the USA, just because the USA will bomb them and kill them? Why should Iran give up its nuclear program, because the USA will bomb the country? And what is another country threatens to bomb the USA if it bombs Iran? Is the escalation of violence acceptable just because violence is the ONLY way to decide what is right and wrong?

> This is exactly the argument I am making. If there is an actual wrong here, who
> decides? Why couldn't the Nazis decide that for their culture, killing Jews is just fine?

Well, then why is ANYTHING wrong? I make this "a priori" statement: it is wrong to kill someone because of their race. You can choose to believe it or not. It is your INDIVIDUAL choice, and you are responsible for that choice. Whether your choice has consequences for you or not is a different problem. If a Nazi killed, escaped and never faced justice, that does not make his choice right. Since people do wrong things and more often than not they don't face justice, we have invented a "spiritual" deterrent. We say that "God" will punish the wicked. However, in Atheism there is no such luxury, and the choice of right and wrong becomes an individual process. Punishment for Atheists might be inadequate when the evil escape, but then those who believe in God have nothing but faith to go on. Without faith there is no God, and without God there is no punishment. For atheists the only punishment is that which human beings bring upon one another. So atheists reduce right and wrong to an individual choice, rather than some higher religous principle.

> This principle? Who made this principle? Who says people are equal? In the animal
> kingdom, if I'm stronger, you're toast. Sad for you but you get to die. So what
> separates us as human beings? How do the godless justify principles? Based on
> what???

If somebody is strong and can inflict force upon others, that does nto make that person superior, it merely makes them violent and aggressive, but not better. Superiority has nothing to do with strength or the ability to inflict violence. There is no such thing as superior or inferior in nature. The category of superiority exists only in the human mind. A big lion eating a tiny gazelle is not an example of the lion's superiority. It is merely a reflection of the lion's need to survive. The lion does not think to itself: "I am superior and I can kill as many gazelles as I want". The lion merely responds to its instinct to eat, to reproduce, to secure the survival of its species. That is Darwinism in action.

Social Darwinists apply the same idea to social systems. The strongest man defeats its competitors, and it is OK for that man to do so by whatever means are necessary. But the equality of human beings is not based merely on some abstract idea in the human mind. It is based on science. All human beings are made of the same basic elements: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen. There is no such thing as superior oxygen or superior carbon. Neither are there superior proteins or inferior proteins, or superior DNA or inferior DNA. The molecules that make up a human being have no superiority or inferiority.

Then all human beings are born the same: helpless babies. There is no such thing as a superior or inferior baby. The categorization of superirity is imposed by the mind, not by nature. Then we say: this man is taller, or this man is stronger, or this man is smarter. However, nature has the ultimate equalizer: death. Everybody dies, and it does nto matter how strong or how smart or how rich or how poor you are. Death makes all human beings exaclty equal. You can die of cancer, or be murdered, or die in a tornado; but death is death plain and simple, and it makes everybody equal. For all of his superiority hogwash, Hitler was ultimate the same as everybody else and he died like everybody else dies.

So based on science and empirical observation one can prove that there is no such thing as superior or inferior human beings. Superiority is merely an abstract category in the human mind.

> "The only way a person can make a profit from others is by not paying them a fair
> wage for their labor."

> This is a false statement.

How so? A perfectly fair wage would mean that a person extracts 100% of the value of their labor. Not 99% for me and 1% for my boss, but 100% exactly. The only way my boss can extract a profit is if he takes the value of my labour, pays me a fraction, and keeps some for himself. The lower the fraction of my labour that is paid to me, the greater the profit that my boss makes.

Notice that I am talking about a perfect system in which it is possible for a person to extract 1005 of the value of their labour. In the real world it does not happen that way. A person can have a "good" salary, meaning that the fraction of the labour they receive is adequate to their expectations, in spite of their boss retaining a fraction for himself. That is what we call a "good company to work for". The employer pays a salary that allows the person to have a good life. That still does not make the salary perfectly fair. Companies are constatly looking for ways to lower the salaries paid to employees, so as to maximize profits. It is why they move production to other countries where labour is "cheaper", meaning that the employer can keep a higher proportion of the fair wage that should be paid to employees.

> You must have failed economics. If there were no profits, there'd be no business
> expansion. You couldn't restock the shelves. You couldn't keep up the store or save
> to open a second one.
> You have a very simplistic view of how an economic system works.

Far from simplistic. If anything, it explains how a CEO can give himself a $50 million bonus, while a whole bunch of employees in the third world get $1 per day. Capitalism requires a constant expansion of profits to ensure that a company has a constant increase in capital expansion. The only way to do that is by reducing production costs as much as possible, and the biggest expense in any company is usually the salaries paid to employees. The lower the salaries, the bigger the profits. It comes as no surprise that jobs have been exported out of rich industrialized nations and sent overseas.

> Again with your "right and wrong." Why should I care what you think about right and
> wrong? What if my view differs and I want you to see my view of right and wrong?
> Why should I accept what you say as an objective fact?

It is your personal choice. What you believe is meaningless until you act on it. If you believe that something is right or wrong, it can only be proven through your actions. You are under no obligation to believe what anybody else says. I have my views, you have yours. I can try to make my point across. Whether you accept it or not it is your own choice. I am well aware that you and I will never agree on 99% of anything. Why bother arguing then? Why should you even reply to any post knowing that people will not agree with you?

How many people were poor in 2010?

In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.


You can't count developing countries since they are developing. What was their poverty rate before capitalism? How long have they used a capitalist system? What are the other factors leading to poverty? on and on and on.

And here's a news flash for you libs: Unwed childbearing is the major cause of child poverty in America. That's a statistical FACT.