In a Way, I Feel Like Apologizing to those who Follow my Blog Regularly and to whom I Visit their Blogs on Occasion. I haven't been Around Visiting a lot of the Blogs Lately because I've had Limited Computer Time and have Mainly been Focusing on Radar's Blog. Though his Posts are Usually Long, they are Absolutely Excellent.
I've been Thinking that I need to Post again, though, so Perhaps I'll Take something Again from the Comment Section of Radar's Blog. This Time it is from the Comment Thread below his Post, Just Over a Year Ago, I Introduced Ian Juby and Now it's Time to Add on... This Post is Excellent, if you want to Take the Time to Read it. It shows Experiments and Evidence of how the Grand Canyon could have been Created by the Great Flood. If not, another Approach would be to just Read the Comments and this may Actually Help you Decide what Parts of the Post you want to Read, though that is Long also. So Far, there are 65 Comments.
The Linked Post is about Experiments that were done that show evidence that the Formations within the Grand Canyon and Other Canyons could have been formed by Water, therefore by the Great Flood of Noah. The Later Part of the Post is About the Dating of Rocks. I Found the Post Quite Interesting.
What I want to Share with you Now, though, is another Side Issue that came up in the Comment Section, which is the Subject of Speciation. I have been a Little Confused Lately about what they call the "Speciation" Debate, for the Word Species has Changed and here is a Link that Shows how...
Fixity of Species
Here is the Comment that I Wrote about it, Only Slightly Edited and some Bold Print was Added...
Lista said...
In the Article I just gave a Link to, we see that the Word "Species" Originally Meant the Biblical Kind. I Guess the Definition Change Took Place in the Mid-to-Late 1700s, when the Word Species was Used in Scientific Circles, as part of a Biological Classification System, yet this Definition is Still being Debated to this Day.
Basically the Change is this. What used to be a Dog Species (or Dog Kind), became many Dog "Species" within the "Genus" of Dog.
When a Creationist says, though, that there is no Evidence of Natural Selection or Evolution "between Species", he does not Mean that there has been no Evolution between Breeds of Dog or Cat. He means that no Matter how Hard you Try in your Breeding, a Dog will always be a Dog and a Cat will always be a Cat. If that is Called "Genus" now, rather than "Species", then we are no Longer Talking the Same Language when Debating "Speciation" and Macro-Evolution.
It Appears that there have been Some who have been Slow at Letting Go of the Original Definition, and those in the Church Continue to Understand the Word Species in Relation to Biblical Kinds.
Since there are Two Definitions, it Makes Talking about these Subjects Difficult and yet, if the Word Species does not Relate to the Original Biblical Kind, then this Whole Concept no Longer has any Meaning or Relevance to the Actual Limits within Natural Selection and Evolution between Kinds. In Actuality, this Change in Definition does little more than Confuse the Issue.
The Only Macro-Evolution Debate that Matters is that which Relates to Kinds, not Species, and Quite Often the "Kind" is more in Line with the the Scientific Category "Genus", rather than "Species".
Be Assured, though, that Evolutionists are not Going to Win this Debate by Changing the Meaning of a Word.
If we Must, then perhaps we should just Accept the New Definition and instead of Arguing against "Speciation", simply Say, "The idea of one KIND changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED." This is Exactly the Same Argument as before, Except the Word "Species", that was Originally Used, has been Replaced in the Sentence with the Word Kind.
At the End of the Linked Article, Other Definition Changes are Discussed such as the Definition of Science itself and also the Definition of Conception. I guess you’ll have to Read it, if you want to Know what I Mean.
If you Are Wondering where the Word "Kind" comes from, it is a Biblical Word, taken from Genesis...
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.'" (Genesis 1:11, KJV)
and
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:21, KJV)
and
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so." (Genesis 1:24, KJV)
The Point Being Made here is that there is no Scientific Evidence that Disproves the Biblical Account of how the World was Created.
I guess I could Add just One more Thing. It Seems that the Definition of Evolution gets Confused at Times too. If Evolution means Natural Selection and Facilitated Variation within Kinds, then I Guess there is Evidence for that, yet if Evolution Means that we Evolved from Monkeys, well, that has not been Proved, for "The idea of one Kind changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED."
Friday, May 27, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Blogging Frustrations/Introducting a New Friend
My Blogging seems to go in Phases. Sometimes, I'm Really into it and then Other Times, I Feel Board with it. And then there are Times in which I Only have the Energy to Focus on One Blog. I Really Wish that my Moods in Relation to this were more Predictable. So Often, it just Seems that there is too much to Think about and my Mind Shuts Down.
It is Hard too to Balance Blogging and Friendship. There are so Many People Out there that are just Plain Rude and I Find Myself Feeling Unloved by Fellow Bloggers and Commenters and on my Own Blog, I Like to sometimes Write in a more Personal Way, Like I am doing Right Now, and I Wonder if I am Being a Fool for Doings so in the Midst of all the Monsters, Creepy Crawlers and Wolfs Out there.
And then there are Friendships that have Died. That is People who I used to Respect, but that I now have such a Very Low Opinion of. One in Particular doesn't even seem to Realize the Full Extent to which my Opinion of him has gone Soar. He Actually Thinks we're Still Friends.
It's hard to Keep One's Balance at Times, but you Know what? I Really want to Thank those of you have been Faithful in Reading my Blog from Time to Time. You are the One's that I Think of when I Wonder if I should be giving you more to Read.
A More Recent Friend, whose Blog is Really Excellent is Radar. He is Long Winded, yet Writes about Christian Apologetics in a Way that is Quite Impressive. Here are Two of the Posts that I have most Recently Read and that Are Truly Excellent...
Atheism, the Irrational Faith. Recapitulation, the Ludicrous Lie.
Is the Bible Scientifically Correct? Introducing Please Convince Me Dot Com.
The Comment Thread from the First of These is what Inspired the Post just below this One.
It is Hard too to Balance Blogging and Friendship. There are so Many People Out there that are just Plain Rude and I Find Myself Feeling Unloved by Fellow Bloggers and Commenters and on my Own Blog, I Like to sometimes Write in a more Personal Way, Like I am doing Right Now, and I Wonder if I am Being a Fool for Doings so in the Midst of all the Monsters, Creepy Crawlers and Wolfs Out there.
And then there are Friendships that have Died. That is People who I used to Respect, but that I now have such a Very Low Opinion of. One in Particular doesn't even seem to Realize the Full Extent to which my Opinion of him has gone Soar. He Actually Thinks we're Still Friends.
It's hard to Keep One's Balance at Times, but you Know what? I Really want to Thank those of you have been Faithful in Reading my Blog from Time to Time. You are the One's that I Think of when I Wonder if I should be giving you more to Read.
A More Recent Friend, whose Blog is Really Excellent is Radar. He is Long Winded, yet Writes about Christian Apologetics in a Way that is Quite Impressive. Here are Two of the Posts that I have most Recently Read and that Are Truly Excellent...
Atheism, the Irrational Faith. Recapitulation, the Ludicrous Lie.
Is the Bible Scientifically Correct? Introducing Please Convince Me Dot Com.
The Comment Thread from the First of These is what Inspired the Post just below this One.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Mount Saint Helens Debate
It looks like I'm going to be doing a Post on a different subject then I at first thought. I apologize for the fact that I haven't Posted in so long. Besides feeling a little sick there for awhile, I was also pretty tied up in a Conversation that has been Taking Place on Radar's Blog. The Name of the Post is Atheism, the Irrational Faith. Recapitulation, the Ludicrous Lie. It's a very good Article, though quite Long.
What I would Really Like to Draw your Attention to now, though, is a Certain Subject that came up in the Comment Thread. This was an Extremely Long Comment Thread and Even the Part of it that I want to Share with you is Long. I Only Included that which Relates to the Mount Saint Helens Subject and the Comments may be Edited Slightly to Remove that which does not Apply to the Subject and to Keep this Post a little more Brief. Before Reading the Comments, though, Please also Read the Link that I gave them that Relates to Mount Saint Helens. Here is the Part of the Conversation that Relates to Mount Saint Helens...
Lista said...
Woolf
"Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you."
Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying. I wonder too if I should remind you that an insult is not the same as an argument. 6:17 PM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying."
Really? Now you've got me curious. What video is this? Who made it? Where did you see it? 6:59 PM
Lista said...
I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute. The video was excellent. You can call it Lies if you want to, but I've seen it and do not agree with you.
What is actually revealed is the Arrogance of those who continue to believe in Traditional Science and in their very Stubborn refusal to admit it when the possibility that they might be wrong is revealed.
Jon Woolf said..
Lista: "I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute."
Ah. That explains a lot.
(A List of Credentials, Click on the Time Stamp Below this Comment if you want to see them.)
Never trust a creationist. Never.
Lista said...
It doesn't matter what your credentials are, Woolf. Evidence is Evidence and I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditals are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed.
That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You. 9:49 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You."
[shrug] Your choice. Though I think you're a bit foolish to trust anyone without looking at the facts for yourself -- not edited videos, but the original evidence, the fossils and rocks exactly as they're found Out There. 4:00 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
Fossils and Rocks?! Are you Kidding?! I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day. Here is a Quote from Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Genesis.
"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement and Here's another Quote, Emphasis Added by me...
"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you ASSUMED that the river took a long time to erode the canyon."
Don't you see? That is just the Problem. Scientists ASSUME much more Often then they Know.11:52 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day.
"I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement."
Understand it, no. Understand why it's wrong ... well, still no, but it does take a little more information to do that. Specifically, it requires knowing that the 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock. No geologist would be stupid enough to claim that digging a 'canyon' through ash would take millions of years.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. This is, therefore, Evidence that the Traditional Thinking of Geologists in how Canyons are Formed is not Correct and that the Earth may Indeed be Younger than we had at One Time Thought.
Jon Woolf said...
"The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. "
[sigh]
Go get your garden hose and hook it up. Try to use it to dig a hole in the backyard dirt. Not too hard, is it? That's what happened with the 'canyon' near Mt St Helens.
Now go try the same thing on the asphalt street or concrete sidewalk. Not so easy, is it? That's more like what happened with the Grand Canyon. Except that the rock of the Inner Gorge is even harder than concrete.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known.
Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder. In a Young Canyon, like the One Near Mount Saint Helens, what remains is Softer because the Rain and Snow has not had the Time to Finish the Job so that Only Hard Rock Remains.
Ok, so I've Just Admitted that Natural Erosion may have Finished the Job, yet if a Catastrophe Started the Process, the Time Period of the Rest of the Erosion would be Considerably Shortened. The Fact Still Remains, though, that "The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
This is a Significant Piece of Evidence. So Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is Simply not True.
Lista said...
You Know Woolf,
Once I've Given this some Thought, I have Realized that your Comment about Rock Being Harder to Erode through than Ash was Actually Quite Deceptive and the Reason Why is because in Light of the Information I just Added, this is Irrelevant. Let's Review this Again.
"Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder."
Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away. What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion.
This Brings me Back to the Subject of Bias. To not View that which was Learned from Mount Saint Helens as Evidence is nothing more than Bias and to Call what is Offered by Evolutionism Evidence and what is Offered by YEC not Evidence can not be Called anything but Biased Arrogance. 1:11 PM
Jon Woolf said...
In the area of the 'Little Grand Canyon,' the ash and pyroclastics are something like 400 feet deep. The canyon penetrates less than half of that. Below that ash lies the old soil layer, and below that lies bedrock. The bedrock below the valley is itself the remains of older eruptions, so it's also largely consolidated pyroclastics, not "lava cap."
Lista: "the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known."
Well actually, yes it can. Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough. The sedimentary rock that fills this depression is called the Imperial Formation. The sediments of the Imperial Formation are clearly derived from the excavation of the Grand Canyon -- so clearly that we can identify specific sediments within the Imperial as coming from specific layers of the Colorado Plateau rocks.
Lista: "Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away."
You can't have meant that the way it sounds. You can't really mean that you think the Grand Canyon simply dug out soft rock, and left the surrounding harder rock intact. Nobody smart enough to operate a computer could think that. 6:39 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
"Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough."
Obviously anything that was Soft Like Ash would have Washed away and what Remains, even in this "Large Depression" is going to be the Heavier Stuff. This is Common Knowledge, not just in Relation to Erosion, but Also in Relation to Gold Panning.
Obviously there is going to be some Erosion of the Canyon Walls. That's been Taking Place for Quite Some Time. That's what you see in the "Salton Trough" and as to the Colorado Plateau Rocks, any Soft Stuff from Colorado has been Washed Down Stream and there is no Way for you to Prove Otherwise.
Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed. Go to Any National Park that has Rock Formations of any Sort at all and that is what they will Tell you, because that which is Hard does not Erode Away as Quickly.
Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers.
Anonymous said...
"What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion."
If anything, Woolf has assumed that you know more about erosion than you apparently do - which would mean he has actually complimented your intelligence.
Here is a site with some useful info to allow you to catch up - Soil Erosion Site
Lista said...
Well Anonymous,
I Checked Out your Link and read some of it, but from what I can Tell, it is about "Soil" Erosion, not the Erosion of Rocks and Harder Materials, nor does it Talk about Canyons. It is Mostly in Relation to Farming and the Loss of Soil and Nutrients. My Discussion with Woolf has to do with what was Eroded Away in the Forming of the Grand Canyon and all I am saying is that Initially it was Soil and not Rock.
Sorry, but there is nothing in the Linked Website that you Left for me that Talks about the Erosion of Rocks and therefore, all that I have said still Stands.
What I would Really Like to Draw your Attention to now, though, is a Certain Subject that came up in the Comment Thread. This was an Extremely Long Comment Thread and Even the Part of it that I want to Share with you is Long. I Only Included that which Relates to the Mount Saint Helens Subject and the Comments may be Edited Slightly to Remove that which does not Apply to the Subject and to Keep this Post a little more Brief. Before Reading the Comments, though, Please also Read the Link that I gave them that Relates to Mount Saint Helens. Here is the Part of the Conversation that Relates to Mount Saint Helens...
Lista said...
Woolf
"Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you."
Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying. I wonder too if I should remind you that an insult is not the same as an argument. 6:17 PM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying."
Really? Now you've got me curious. What video is this? Who made it? Where did you see it? 6:59 PM
Lista said...
I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute. The video was excellent. You can call it Lies if you want to, but I've seen it and do not agree with you.
What is actually revealed is the Arrogance of those who continue to believe in Traditional Science and in their very Stubborn refusal to admit it when the possibility that they might be wrong is revealed.
Jon Woolf said..
Lista: "I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute."
Ah. That explains a lot.
(A List of Credentials, Click on the Time Stamp Below this Comment if you want to see them.)
Never trust a creationist. Never.
Lista said...
It doesn't matter what your credentials are, Woolf. Evidence is Evidence and I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditals are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed.
That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You. 9:49 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You."
[shrug] Your choice. Though I think you're a bit foolish to trust anyone without looking at the facts for yourself -- not edited videos, but the original evidence, the fossils and rocks exactly as they're found Out There. 4:00 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
Fossils and Rocks?! Are you Kidding?! I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day. Here is a Quote from Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Genesis.
"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement and Here's another Quote, Emphasis Added by me...
"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you ASSUMED that the river took a long time to erode the canyon."
Don't you see? That is just the Problem. Scientists ASSUME much more Often then they Know.11:52 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day.
"I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement."
Understand it, no. Understand why it's wrong ... well, still no, but it does take a little more information to do that. Specifically, it requires knowing that the 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock. No geologist would be stupid enough to claim that digging a 'canyon' through ash would take millions of years.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. This is, therefore, Evidence that the Traditional Thinking of Geologists in how Canyons are Formed is not Correct and that the Earth may Indeed be Younger than we had at One Time Thought.
Jon Woolf said...
"The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. "
[sigh]
Go get your garden hose and hook it up. Try to use it to dig a hole in the backyard dirt. Not too hard, is it? That's what happened with the 'canyon' near Mt St Helens.
Now go try the same thing on the asphalt street or concrete sidewalk. Not so easy, is it? That's more like what happened with the Grand Canyon. Except that the rock of the Inner Gorge is even harder than concrete.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known.
Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder. In a Young Canyon, like the One Near Mount Saint Helens, what remains is Softer because the Rain and Snow has not had the Time to Finish the Job so that Only Hard Rock Remains.
Ok, so I've Just Admitted that Natural Erosion may have Finished the Job, yet if a Catastrophe Started the Process, the Time Period of the Rest of the Erosion would be Considerably Shortened. The Fact Still Remains, though, that "The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
This is a Significant Piece of Evidence. So Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is Simply not True.
Lista said...
You Know Woolf,
Once I've Given this some Thought, I have Realized that your Comment about Rock Being Harder to Erode through than Ash was Actually Quite Deceptive and the Reason Why is because in Light of the Information I just Added, this is Irrelevant. Let's Review this Again.
"Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder."
Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away. What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion.
This Brings me Back to the Subject of Bias. To not View that which was Learned from Mount Saint Helens as Evidence is nothing more than Bias and to Call what is Offered by Evolutionism Evidence and what is Offered by YEC not Evidence can not be Called anything but Biased Arrogance. 1:11 PM
Jon Woolf said...
In the area of the 'Little Grand Canyon,' the ash and pyroclastics are something like 400 feet deep. The canyon penetrates less than half of that. Below that ash lies the old soil layer, and below that lies bedrock. The bedrock below the valley is itself the remains of older eruptions, so it's also largely consolidated pyroclastics, not "lava cap."
Lista: "the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known."
Well actually, yes it can. Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough. The sedimentary rock that fills this depression is called the Imperial Formation. The sediments of the Imperial Formation are clearly derived from the excavation of the Grand Canyon -- so clearly that we can identify specific sediments within the Imperial as coming from specific layers of the Colorado Plateau rocks.
Lista: "Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away."
You can't have meant that the way it sounds. You can't really mean that you think the Grand Canyon simply dug out soft rock, and left the surrounding harder rock intact. Nobody smart enough to operate a computer could think that. 6:39 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
"Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough."
Obviously anything that was Soft Like Ash would have Washed away and what Remains, even in this "Large Depression" is going to be the Heavier Stuff. This is Common Knowledge, not just in Relation to Erosion, but Also in Relation to Gold Panning.
Obviously there is going to be some Erosion of the Canyon Walls. That's been Taking Place for Quite Some Time. That's what you see in the "Salton Trough" and as to the Colorado Plateau Rocks, any Soft Stuff from Colorado has been Washed Down Stream and there is no Way for you to Prove Otherwise.
Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed. Go to Any National Park that has Rock Formations of any Sort at all and that is what they will Tell you, because that which is Hard does not Erode Away as Quickly.
Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers.
Anonymous said...
"What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion."
If anything, Woolf has assumed that you know more about erosion than you apparently do - which would mean he has actually complimented your intelligence.
Here is a site with some useful info to allow you to catch up - Soil Erosion Site
Lista said...
Well Anonymous,
I Checked Out your Link and read some of it, but from what I can Tell, it is about "Soil" Erosion, not the Erosion of Rocks and Harder Materials, nor does it Talk about Canyons. It is Mostly in Relation to Farming and the Loss of Soil and Nutrients. My Discussion with Woolf has to do with what was Eroded Away in the Forming of the Grand Canyon and all I am saying is that Initially it was Soil and not Rock.
Sorry, but there is nothing in the Linked Website that you Left for me that Talks about the Erosion of Rocks and therefore, all that I have said still Stands.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All
Sometimes the Only Way to Move a Discussion to a New Post is to Move the Last Few Comments in a Thread, so here is the Voting Third Party and Not Voting at all discussion from a Previous Comment Thread. Please Continue the Conversation here. I'll be Submitting my Own Thoughts in the Comment Area Soon.
- Lista said...
- On a more Positive Note, Voting for Third Party Candidates is Better than not Voting at all cause at Least you are Making some Kind of a Political Statement with your Vote.
- soapster said...
- And I never said that you said that I did endorse or sanction Obama. As to your second point, I do all I can so the adage doesn't apply to me. I won't be guilted into bearing culpability for the immoral actions of political leaders that I didn't vote for.
- soapster said...
- Not voting makes a political statement as well, Lista. I've done it countless times.
- Lista said...
- "Simply because I might opt to vote 3rd party (as I did in the 2008 presidential election) does not imply that I endorse or sanction the actions or policies of Barack Obama. To infer or suggest otherwise, as you've done, is laughable." I did not even "Imply, Infer or Suggest" that you Endorsed or Sanctioned" anything, Soap. The Political Statement of not Voting is More Vague, since there are some who do so Out of Apathy and there is no Way to Separate Your Political Statement from theirs.
- dmarks said...
- Yeah, the statement of not voting ends up meaning "whatever happens, I am fine with the result".
- soapster said...
- Let that be your interpretation, dmarks. By opting for the lesser of two evils, you are still sanctioning evil. Would you rather die by firing squad or would you rather die of starvation? Rationalize it however you wish. I myself desire to live and if death be imminent then let it come to pass. But I will not sanction it.
- Lista said...
- Well, I Tend to Agree with Dmarks. What you said, Soap, is sort of a Black and White Form of Thinking. In this case, Black and White, Meaning Only Two Options or It's either One Way or the Other, It's either Evil or it is not. How About if we Discard the Word Evil and say that it is a lot of what you do not like, or a little Less of what you do not Like? To Say that it is Either Evil or it is not, is to Deny the Reality that One Undesirable can be Considerably Worse than Another Undesirable. Calling that which is Undesirable Evil, though, is Making it into an Issue of Morality, when in Reality Some of it is just an Issue of Preference. She Smiles. Boy, that might be a Can of Worms and we are Close to 50 Comments on this Comment Thread. Hopefully, I'll have the Time to do another Post Over the Weekend so that this Discussion can Continue on a New Comment Thread.
- Lista said...
- Perhaps where we are Disagreeing, Soap, is in Relation to the Idea that a Vote Motivated by Compromise is a Form of Endorsing and Sanctioning. I Do not Think that it is.
- dmarks said...
- Soap, it is not interpretation. If you sit out an election, you are giving the choices entirely to others.
- soapster said...
- And if you don't sit out and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you want or desire, you're still giving choices to others. I know black and white makes you squirm in your seat, Lista, but that's just something you're going to have to deal with on your own. If one candidate is promising Liver and Onions and the other Tofu, while Tofu might be preferable to me over Liver and Onions, I want spaghetti and I'll work towards getting spaghetti. If my efforts to do so fail, I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both and whether I vote for one over the other or not, in the final analysis, I'm going to end up with something I don't want. Why would I sanction it with a vote of approval??? It's moronic.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics
This is the Second Half of Summary of an Earlier Long Comment Thread. The First Half was about Relationship Analogies and Two Parties Walking to the Middle of a Bridge. This is Summarized in the next Post Down. The Second Half of that Comment Thread, which is Summarized Below, is more About Politics, as well as the Definitions of Words.
In the 24th Comment (April 12, 10:47 AM), I Encouraged People to Return the Discussion to Politics and they did. My April 12, 4:31 PM Comment was Sort of Transitional. I Explained how the Relationship Between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage and that is why the Earlier Compromise Analogies are not Irrelevant. In Both Marriage and also Politics, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion. Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.
From this Point, we Talked about Concepts such as Extremes, Rewards and Bribes, Negotiation and Compromise, Voting Third Party, not Voting at All, Etc.
It's too Hard to Summarize all of this, so I'm just Going to Repeat a Few Definitions.
From BB-Idaho;
Business Psychology States:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value. This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." (BB-Idaho, April 9, 4:02 PM)
Compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."
Negotiate is a verb:
"'To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement' -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating."
Bribe is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." (BB-Idaho, April 13, 3:59 PM)
From the Soapster;
"When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.
"When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent." (Soapster, April 13, 11:20 AM)
Now From Me;
I Think I Like BB's First Definition of Compromise Best. I Only Added to it in One of my Comments that the Words "Equivalent Value" should be Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", since so much of what Needs to be Compromised is Subjective. (Lista, April 13, 10:17 AM)
Soapster's Statements were more of a Description than a Definition and in my Next Couple of Comments that Followed his, I said...
In the 24th Comment (April 12, 10:47 AM), I Encouraged People to Return the Discussion to Politics and they did. My April 12, 4:31 PM Comment was Sort of Transitional. I Explained how the Relationship Between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage and that is why the Earlier Compromise Analogies are not Irrelevant. In Both Marriage and also Politics, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion. Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.
From this Point, we Talked about Concepts such as Extremes, Rewards and Bribes, Negotiation and Compromise, Voting Third Party, not Voting at All, Etc.
It's too Hard to Summarize all of this, so I'm just Going to Repeat a Few Definitions.
From BB-Idaho;
Business Psychology States:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value. This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." (BB-Idaho, April 9, 4:02 PM)
Compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."
Negotiate is a verb:
"'To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement' -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating."
Bribe is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." (BB-Idaho, April 13, 3:59 PM)
From the Soapster;
"When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.
"When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent." (Soapster, April 13, 11:20 AM)
Now From Me;
I Think I Like BB's First Definition of Compromise Best. I Only Added to it in One of my Comments that the Words "Equivalent Value" should be Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", since so much of what Needs to be Compromised is Subjective. (Lista, April 13, 10:17 AM)
Soapster's Statements were more of a Description than a Definition and in my Next Couple of Comments that Followed his, I said...
- Huh? Interesting. I Wonder where you Got that Definition. Another Way of Saying the Same Thing is that we Should Never Compromise Our Fundamental Premise, but we Can Compromise Other Things that do not Hinder Our Fundamental Premise. The Only Difference Between what I said and what you said, Soap, is the Definition of the Word Compromise.
- Actually, Soap, Your Second Sentence Sounds more Like a Sell Out, than a Compromise. That is Walking all the Way Across the Bridge, when your Opponent is not Even Willing to Come 1/4 of the Way Across the Bridge and I have Stated Very Plainly that there is Absolutely no Valid Reason for Doing that.
More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Relationship Analogies
Well, the Previous Comment Thread is Getting Long, so it is Time to Post Again. Even trying to Summarize what is on the Previous Comment Thread has Led Up to a Rather Long Post, so I've Decided to Split it in Half.
If you have been Following the Previous Thread, you will Realize that Starting from the Third Comment (April 8, 9:42 PM) on Down to the 24th (April 12, 10:47 AM), we were discussing Analogies Relating to Compromise and Walking to the Middle of a Bridge, but Griper insisted that Bridges are Built for the Purpose of Getting us from One Side to the Other and are therefore not a Good Compromise Analogy. Eventually, a Platform was Added to the Middle of the Bridge with Stairs to the Bottom of the Canyon and a Helicopter Pad on Top of it (April 9, 2:02 PM). lol.
Various Different Analogies were Presented. Including Bridges over Canyons (April 9, 12:43 AM), over Streams (April 9, 2:02 PM), and Over a Stream at the End of a Lake (April 12, 12:54 AM). The Last of these was Actually a Dock, from which the Compromisers could Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake. Not all Bridges are the Same, just as not all Situations are the Same. What was Under, On or Around the Bridge Depends on the Circumstances and how Many Options there are to Choose from, just as Sometimes the Choice is Black and White, Only One Way or the Other, and Other Times there are Many More Options than just Two.
Another Non-Bridge Analogy was Presented Later in which Two People Simply Walk Across to the Center of a Field and then Can Choice to Walk in Any Direction that they can Agree on (April 12, 12:02 AM). If you Want more Detail, then Please do Go Back and Read the Earlier Comment Thread.
BB-Idaho also Added Thoughts about Negotiation & Compromise, Defining Terms (April 9, 4:02 PM, April 13, 3:59 PM) and Giving Examples Relating to Rewards and Bribes (Bribing a Wife, April 9, 4:02 PM and Bribing a Pet, April 11, 7:46 AM).
I will be Reviewing these Definitions in my Next Post, which is Going to be the Second Half of the Summary of the Previous Comment Thread.
Even though the Title of this Post includes the Phrase "Relationship Analogies" and the Title of the Next One is More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics, don't Think that this Post in not Also Meant to be about Politics, for the Whole Purpose of the Relationship Analogies was to Eventually Relate such Analogies to Politics.
If you have been Following the Previous Thread, you will Realize that Starting from the Third Comment (April 8, 9:42 PM) on Down to the 24th (April 12, 10:47 AM), we were discussing Analogies Relating to Compromise and Walking to the Middle of a Bridge, but Griper insisted that Bridges are Built for the Purpose of Getting us from One Side to the Other and are therefore not a Good Compromise Analogy. Eventually, a Platform was Added to the Middle of the Bridge with Stairs to the Bottom of the Canyon and a Helicopter Pad on Top of it (April 9, 2:02 PM). lol.
Various Different Analogies were Presented. Including Bridges over Canyons (April 9, 12:43 AM), over Streams (April 9, 2:02 PM), and Over a Stream at the End of a Lake (April 12, 12:54 AM). The Last of these was Actually a Dock, from which the Compromisers could Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake. Not all Bridges are the Same, just as not all Situations are the Same. What was Under, On or Around the Bridge Depends on the Circumstances and how Many Options there are to Choose from, just as Sometimes the Choice is Black and White, Only One Way or the Other, and Other Times there are Many More Options than just Two.
Another Non-Bridge Analogy was Presented Later in which Two People Simply Walk Across to the Center of a Field and then Can Choice to Walk in Any Direction that they can Agree on (April 12, 12:02 AM). If you Want more Detail, then Please do Go Back and Read the Earlier Comment Thread.
BB-Idaho also Added Thoughts about Negotiation & Compromise, Defining Terms (April 9, 4:02 PM, April 13, 3:59 PM) and Giving Examples Relating to Rewards and Bribes (Bribing a Wife, April 9, 4:02 PM and Bribing a Pet, April 11, 7:46 AM).
I will be Reviewing these Definitions in my Next Post, which is Going to be the Second Half of the Summary of the Previous Comment Thread.
Even though the Title of this Post includes the Phrase "Relationship Analogies" and the Title of the Next One is More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics, don't Think that this Post in not Also Meant to be about Politics, for the Whole Purpose of the Relationship Analogies was to Eventually Relate such Analogies to Politics.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Compromise vs. Gridlock
I was Recently Reading One of my Very Old Posts from May 4, 2009. It is a Post that was Written in a Way that was a Little Confused and I Ended Up Adding a Comment to it that was more Clear. Feel Free to Read the Old Post, Extremism vs. Moderation, An Introduction, yet what I Really Want you to Read Now is what my Current Thoughts are about what I should have Wrote, for here I am Two Years Later, Finally Clarifying. Here is the Comment that I Added beneath that Post Late Last Night...
"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said. Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.
"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.
"Yes, that Happened in 2009.
"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.
"It's Really not that Hard, though. Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not. To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.
"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...
"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'
"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.
"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.
"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said."
I Look Forward to Your Comments.
"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said. Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.
"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.
"Yes, that Happened in 2009.
"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.
"It's Really not that Hard, though. Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not. To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.
"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...
"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'
"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.
"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.
"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said."
I Look Forward to Your Comments.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Spiritaul Pause - Only God Can Change Hearts.
Since my Previous Post has Reached 41 Comments and I Often Try to Limit the Length of my Comment Threads to..., Oh, I don't Know. I guess to 50..., And since some Time has Passed since I Last Posted anyway, it is Time for me to Post Again.
As I Pause Briefly from Politics, it is not as if I do not Know What I want to Post about Next. I Imagine my Next Post after this One will be Based on the Last Link that was Posted in the Comment Section of my Previous Post, yet for some Reason I Feel the Need to Pause before I Continue with that Subject.
There are Still Things that Over Whelm me at Times and I am Gradually Learning how to Manage the Stress. One Thing that I Keep Forgetting is the Need to Stop and Ask God for his Help, which I am Doing Right Now. Sometimes it just Feels more Right to Pause Briefly from Politics and Say Something that is more Spiritual.
Funny. I didn't Know that I was Going to be Posting what I am Actually Thinking about Right Now and yet this is the One that Feels Right to me and it is Something that I Wrote Earlier Today in the Comment Thread Below a Post at Someone Else's Blog. The Subject was Sociology, Behaviorism, Psychology and Control and not Politics, yet at the End, I'm Going to also Make a Statement about Politics as well. Whatever is not in Italics was Added Later for the Purpose of this Post. Here's what I Wrote...
"I Find it Interesting that you are Criticizing Sociology and when I Think about Sociology, Especially that which is Connected to Behaviorism, I Find that I have Issues with it Myself and the Reason is because it is all about Control, that is the Controlling of People's Behaviors through Rewards and Punishments.
"The Problem is that Some People Simply can not be Controlled and the Reason Why is because there are People who are Willing to Make whatever Sacrifices Necessary for the Sake of what they Believe and they will Endure the Punishment and/or Lack of Reward for the Sake of those Beliefs. This is the Reason why Most Psychologists (Non-Behaviorists) realize that it is Necessary to Change the Way People Think and not just the Way in which they Behave. Only this can Result in a Change that will Actually Last.
"Changing Beliefs, though, is Difficult as Well. In Christianity, we are Taught that it is God who Changes the Hearts of Men. In Light of this, any Real Change has to Come from God, so the Best that any of us can do is just Submit to Him and Pray for those who are Caught up in an Error.
"Neither Government, nor Sociology, nor even Psychology can Change the Hearts of Man. Only God can do that."
These are the Sort of Spiritual Thoughts that Make me Wonder if even the Practice of Blogging About Politics is Worth it. Though when I Originally Wrote this, it was about Sociology and Psychology, the Idea that it is God who Changes Hearts is also Connected to the Fruitlessness of Political Debate. I don't know that Debate is Necessarily Fruitless, yet what I do Know is that if there is Any Chance at all that the Debate is not Entirely Fruitless, it is the Pausing and Focusing on God that will Make the Difference.
It is for This Reason that I Deliberately Slow Down my Blog and am not in a Hurry.
As I Pause Briefly from Politics, it is not as if I do not Know What I want to Post about Next. I Imagine my Next Post after this One will be Based on the Last Link that was Posted in the Comment Section of my Previous Post, yet for some Reason I Feel the Need to Pause before I Continue with that Subject.
There are Still Things that Over Whelm me at Times and I am Gradually Learning how to Manage the Stress. One Thing that I Keep Forgetting is the Need to Stop and Ask God for his Help, which I am Doing Right Now. Sometimes it just Feels more Right to Pause Briefly from Politics and Say Something that is more Spiritual.
Funny. I didn't Know that I was Going to be Posting what I am Actually Thinking about Right Now and yet this is the One that Feels Right to me and it is Something that I Wrote Earlier Today in the Comment Thread Below a Post at Someone Else's Blog. The Subject was Sociology, Behaviorism, Psychology and Control and not Politics, yet at the End, I'm Going to also Make a Statement about Politics as well. Whatever is not in Italics was Added Later for the Purpose of this Post. Here's what I Wrote...
"I Find it Interesting that you are Criticizing Sociology and when I Think about Sociology, Especially that which is Connected to Behaviorism, I Find that I have Issues with it Myself and the Reason is because it is all about Control, that is the Controlling of People's Behaviors through Rewards and Punishments.
"The Problem is that Some People Simply can not be Controlled and the Reason Why is because there are People who are Willing to Make whatever Sacrifices Necessary for the Sake of what they Believe and they will Endure the Punishment and/or Lack of Reward for the Sake of those Beliefs. This is the Reason why Most Psychologists (Non-Behaviorists) realize that it is Necessary to Change the Way People Think and not just the Way in which they Behave. Only this can Result in a Change that will Actually Last.
"Changing Beliefs, though, is Difficult as Well. In Christianity, we are Taught that it is God who Changes the Hearts of Men. In Light of this, any Real Change has to Come from God, so the Best that any of us can do is just Submit to Him and Pray for those who are Caught up in an Error.
"Neither Government, nor Sociology, nor even Psychology can Change the Hearts of Man. Only God can do that."
These are the Sort of Spiritual Thoughts that Make me Wonder if even the Practice of Blogging About Politics is Worth it. Though when I Originally Wrote this, it was about Sociology and Psychology, the Idea that it is God who Changes Hearts is also Connected to the Fruitlessness of Political Debate. I don't know that Debate is Necessarily Fruitless, yet what I do Know is that if there is Any Chance at all that the Debate is not Entirely Fruitless, it is the Pausing and Focusing on God that will Make the Difference.
It is for This Reason that I Deliberately Slow Down my Blog and am not in a Hurry.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Liberal Facts & Figures, Continued Again
Ok, Here is what we are Going to do. Here are the Last 5 Comments of the 55 Comment, Thread, Beneath the Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures, so we can Continue the Conversation here. I do this Only because Shorter Comment Threats are more Likely to be Read Later than Longer Ones. Feel Free, though, to Read all of the Original 55 Comments and Respond to any of them Here. Also see More Liberal Facts & Figures; Continued.
This is the End of the Earlier Comment Thread. Now Click on the Comments Link, cause there is More.
- dmarks said...
- P. J. said: "On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world. Look around. The less regulation we have had in the banking “industry” (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare." Actually, a big regulation/intervention caused the banking mortgage collapse and the economic crisis. The government made banks make bad loans and dump them into Fannie-Mae which was a sump-hole for bad debt. Entirely unsustainable, and everything broke. Yes, the government strongly encouraged banks to make bad loans. If not for this regulation, we'd be a lot better off.
- Lista said...
- The Problem with the Regulation that Forces Bad Bank Loans is that it did not Consider the Cost Benefit Equation Correctly. The Benefit to those who are Given the Loans was Considered, but not the Cost to the Banks. The Current State of our Government is Imbalanced in the Direction of the Consumer and Away from the Needs of the Business Man. To be Balanced, any Governmental Decision has to Consider both of these Parties, not Only One, and that is the Problem in a Nut Shell.
- P. J. Grath said..
- Please, let’s not focus on bad loans so exclusively that we forget all those complicated “products” that financial institutions came up with, aimed at making money for them while they ducked any responsibility and often were purposely losing their investors’ money. Those so-called “products” would not have been possible without deregulation. The regulation was put in place because of similar, earlier (but not nearly as sophisticated in a Machiavellian way) outrages by banks. Then people conveniently forgot, and banking interests, through their lobbyists, were able to remove the protections and apply once again the BOHICA principle. (Out of deference to you, Lista, I’m leaving that as an acronym, but you can infer the meaning, I’m sure.) There were also plenty of “good” loans that were really bad owing to the overvaluation of the market—again, not by accident. I agree with you about Randism, dmarks. I belonged to that cult for a few years, long ago, but cults become wearisome if one is not a "true believer" but continues to think and question. No individual or group of humans has the WHOLE, FINAL TRUTH.
- Lista said...
- I'm Laughing, in a way, at the Length of this Comment Thread. Ok. Fine. Whatever. It's just that I Think this is my Longest One Yet. Your Last Sentence, J.B.Grath, is really True.
- Silverfiddle said...
- PJ: If the government would remove all backstops and protections from the banks, making them eat their own losses, instead of blowing a hole in the treasury to refill their pockets, the kind of crap you describe would stop immediately. These crony capitalists would not gamble so recklessly with their own money. That's deregulation I think most of us could get behind.
This is the End of the Earlier Comment Thread. Now Click on the Comments Link, cause there is More.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Gone Coo Coo with Key Board Symbols
Here’s Something Silly just for Fun…
I was Just Having Fun on Someone’s Blog, Creating Pictures with the Symbols on the Key Board.
…...^.^......)).........../)/)...
….{^.^}.....//.........(^.^)..
----8-8---((...…......_(__)o
Cat or Kitten.....Bunny
..^...^..
.(O^O)...........(^0^)
(====).......*(_._._)*
_^__^______^_^__
..Owl......Some Other Silly Bird
Isn’t This Silly? I Must be Board. Either that, or the Politics have made me go coo coo. Somebody Help me Please Return to Sanity. Lololololololol.
I was Just Having Fun on Someone’s Blog, Creating Pictures with the Symbols on the Key Board.
…...^.^......)).........../)/)...
….{^.^}.....//.........(^.^)..
----8-8---((...…......_(__)o
Cat or Kitten.....Bunny
..^...^..
.(O^O)...........(^0^)
(====).......*(_._._)*
_^__^______^_^__
..Owl......Some Other Silly Bird
Isn’t This Silly? I Must be Board. Either that, or the Politics have made me go coo coo. Somebody Help me Please Return to Sanity. Lololololololol.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Pure Unregulated Capitalism in an Imperfect World
Well, when I read the Last of Soapster's Comments that I've Gotten Behind in Commenting on, I was Debating about just Submitting it as a Comment, or Making a Whole Separate Post from it and I decided that it was an Interesting Enough Topic that I Could do a Whole Separate Post on it.
Here is Soapster's Comment that was Submitted on March 16, at 1:33 PM...
"'On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world.'
"That is a rather bold statement to make and an especially bold statement that should include some foundation on your part as to why you believe it requires 'a perfect world.'"
"It does not."
Me Talking Now
Soap's First Sentence is a Quote from P.J.Grath. Grath's Comment was Submitted on March 16, at 6:29 AM. You Will Find the Entire Comment Under my Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures.
I Guess Grath was Responding to Something that I Said in Even an Earlier Post. In the Last Paragraph of my Another Look at Libertarianism Post, I Wrote the Following...
"Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak. Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse. That's just the Way Man is."
I'm Hoping that his will Answer Soap's Question, yet this is Also Open to Further Discussion.
Here is Soapster's Comment that was Submitted on March 16, at 1:33 PM...
"'On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world.'
"That is a rather bold statement to make and an especially bold statement that should include some foundation on your part as to why you believe it requires 'a perfect world.'"
"It does not."
Me Talking Now
Soap's First Sentence is a Quote from P.J.Grath. Grath's Comment was Submitted on March 16, at 6:29 AM. You Will Find the Entire Comment Under my Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures.
I Guess Grath was Responding to Something that I Said in Even an Earlier Post. In the Last Paragraph of my Another Look at Libertarianism Post, I Wrote the Following...
"Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak. Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse. That's just the Way Man is."
I'm Hoping that his will Answer Soap's Question, yet this is Also Open to Further Discussion.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
More Liberal Facts & Figures; Continued
I'm just Starting this New Post in Order to Continue the Discussion on the Earlier One. Towards the End Soapster Submitted a Whole Series of Comments all at Once, to the Point at Which I was having Trouble Keeping Up with him. I Published a Lot of it, but there are Still Four More and so I Have Decided to Start a New Post with his Comments instead of Allowing the Previous Thread to Keep Growing and Growing until no Body that just Arrived on the Scene will be Willing to Read it all. Here is some of the Earlier Dialogue...
Soapster said: "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
Lista said: "You are Assuming that the Goal of Laws is Total Prevention, or Perfection, yet Perfection can never be Accomplished because we Live in an Imperfect World."
Soapster said: "Actually, Lista, if you read what I wrote, I wasn't saying that at all!
"I was in fact stating the EXACT OPPOSITE, by pointing out that REGARDLESS, either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work.
"I pointed out matter of factly imperfection.
"It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards. It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"
Here's my Response to Soap's Above Comment...
Ok. Let's Look at that Quote Again...
Soap - "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
Me - To Me, this Means that Life is Imperfect Either Way and Even after Reading it another Time, that is Still what I see. The Fact that Life is Imperfect with or without Laws and Regulations is not a Relevant Fact Unless the Goal of Laws and Regulations is Perfection, yet since the Goal of Laws and Regulations is not Perfection, your Statement Holds no Relevance to the Discussion of Whether or not there should be Laws.
And as to your Last Paragraph...
Soap - "It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards. It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"
Me - Due to the Imperfect Nature of Our World and the Fact that not Everyone has Equal Power in the Area of Self-Protection, a Third Party is Often Necessary in Order to Protect the Weaker from someone who is Stronger.
Well, that is the First of Soapster's Comments that I had Left in Moderation from Earlier Today. This One was Submitted at 6:13 AM. There are Three Others Still in Moderation, but I'm just Going to Focus on One at a Time in the Comment Section of this New Post.
Soapster said: "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
Lista said: "You are Assuming that the Goal of Laws is Total Prevention, or Perfection, yet Perfection can never be Accomplished because we Live in an Imperfect World."
Soapster said: "Actually, Lista, if you read what I wrote, I wasn't saying that at all!
"I was in fact stating the EXACT OPPOSITE, by pointing out that REGARDLESS, either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work.
"I pointed out matter of factly imperfection.
"It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards. It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"
Here's my Response to Soap's Above Comment...
Ok. Let's Look at that Quote Again...
Soap - "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
Me - To Me, this Means that Life is Imperfect Either Way and Even after Reading it another Time, that is Still what I see. The Fact that Life is Imperfect with or without Laws and Regulations is not a Relevant Fact Unless the Goal of Laws and Regulations is Perfection, yet since the Goal of Laws and Regulations is not Perfection, your Statement Holds no Relevance to the Discussion of Whether or not there should be Laws.
And as to your Last Paragraph...
Soap - "It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards. It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"
Me - Due to the Imperfect Nature of Our World and the Fact that not Everyone has Equal Power in the Area of Self-Protection, a Third Party is Often Necessary in Order to Protect the Weaker from someone who is Stronger.
Well, that is the First of Soapster's Comments that I had Left in Moderation from Earlier Today. This One was Submitted at 6:13 AM. There are Three Others Still in Moderation, but I'm just Going to Focus on One at a Time in the Comment Section of this New Post.
Friday, March 11, 2011
More Liberal Facts & Figures
I Continue to be Frustrated by the Fact that Liberals seem to be Able to Give Historical Facts and Figures that Support their Point of View. Just as in the Post Below this one, I Posted some Liberal Facts and Figures and a Conservative, this Time, Pamela Hart, was able to Give Facts and Figures as well. I Find the Fact that Both Sides can Give Facts and Figures Troubling.
And Here we go Again. These Facts and Figures were Given to me by Dave Miller in a Comment Below his Post, Was President Bush Right?. Unfortunately, there were not Many Conservatives Chiming in on this Discussion, so I am at the Mercy of what the Liberals are Saying to me, but I know that there are Conservatives that Follow my Blog, so Please, One Again, you are going to have to help me Out.
In One of Dave's Comments he said this...
"Lista, look at almost any graph of unemployment and job loss for the last few years and then respond on the charge of unemployment...
"Here's a good place to start...
Jobs Lost Under Bush vs. Obama
Later he Wrote This...
"Lista, here's a quote from Forbes magazine, published by strong conservative Steve Forbes, who once ran for President as a Republican...
"'The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.'
"And here's the link...
Even Reagan Raised Taxes
"Here's a link to an article that lays out Reagan's Tax Raising Strategy when he was Gov. of California...
10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Ronald Reagan
"Here's a link debunking the Reagan fiscal aura, written not by a liberal dem, but by his former budget director and author of the 'Trickle Down' theory, David Stockman...
Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
"There should be no doubt, Reagan believed in, and lived out rising taxes when necessary to fund the government and eliminate deficits." (End of Quote)
Well, I Found these Links Troubling and I am not a History Expert and have Never Claimed to be. Please, my Conservative Buddies. Help me Out here. What I Need, though, is Historical Facts, not Anger and Accusations of Stupidity and Lying.
And Here we go Again. These Facts and Figures were Given to me by Dave Miller in a Comment Below his Post, Was President Bush Right?. Unfortunately, there were not Many Conservatives Chiming in on this Discussion, so I am at the Mercy of what the Liberals are Saying to me, but I know that there are Conservatives that Follow my Blog, so Please, One Again, you are going to have to help me Out.
In One of Dave's Comments he said this...
"Lista, look at almost any graph of unemployment and job loss for the last few years and then respond on the charge of unemployment...
"Here's a good place to start...
Jobs Lost Under Bush vs. Obama
Later he Wrote This...
"Lista, here's a quote from Forbes magazine, published by strong conservative Steve Forbes, who once ran for President as a Republican...
"'The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.'
"And here's the link...
Even Reagan Raised Taxes
"Here's a link to an article that lays out Reagan's Tax Raising Strategy when he was Gov. of California...
10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Ronald Reagan
"Here's a link debunking the Reagan fiscal aura, written not by a liberal dem, but by his former budget director and author of the 'Trickle Down' theory, David Stockman...
Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
"There should be no doubt, Reagan believed in, and lived out rising taxes when necessary to fund the government and eliminate deficits." (End of Quote)
Well, I Found these Links Troubling and I am not a History Expert and have Never Claimed to be. Please, my Conservative Buddies. Help me Out here. What I Need, though, is Historical Facts, not Anger and Accusations of Stupidity and Lying.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Unemployment and Wealth Tax
Since Things Appear to be a Little Slow Right Now in the Blogosphere, I thought I Might Actually Post another One. Here is a Conversation that Took Place on another Blog and Once Again, Due to my Limited Knowledge in Historical Facts, I thought I'd Give some of my More Conservative Friends the Chance to Respond to it.
My Words
"And the Truth Remains that those who Own Businesses are those who Produce Jobs and if they do not Find the Rewards for Doing so Worth it to them, they will not Produce the Jobs. You see, most Republicans Think that the Fact that when Taxes are too High, it Hurts the Job Market, as well as the Consumer is Something that's a No Brainer."
Response from a Liberal
..no idea why most Republicans would think that. Consider the marginal tax rate on the wealthy vs employment in our recent past:
Eisenhower:
Unemployment-2.92-6.84%
Wealth tax 91%
Johnson:
Unemployment-3.56-5.64%
Wealth tax 75%
Reagan:
Unemployment-6.2-9.6%
Wealth tax 28%
..the tax on wealth has nothing to do with employment...just another 'non-fact' bandied about by political manipulators. (On the other hand, the tax on wealth has a LOT to do with the national deficit..even old conservative Ben Stein has noted that.)
My Words
"And the Truth Remains that those who Own Businesses are those who Produce Jobs and if they do not Find the Rewards for Doing so Worth it to them, they will not Produce the Jobs. You see, most Republicans Think that the Fact that when Taxes are too High, it Hurts the Job Market, as well as the Consumer is Something that's a No Brainer."
Response from a Liberal
..no idea why most Republicans would think that. Consider the marginal tax rate on the wealthy vs employment in our recent past:
Eisenhower:
Unemployment-2.92-6.84%
Wealth tax 91%
Johnson:
Unemployment-3.56-5.64%
Wealth tax 75%
Reagan:
Unemployment-6.2-9.6%
Wealth tax 28%
..the tax on wealth has nothing to do with employment...just another 'non-fact' bandied about by political manipulators. (On the other hand, the tax on wealth has a LOT to do with the national deficit..even old conservative Ben Stein has noted that.)
Friday, March 4, 2011
Another Look at Libertarianism.
Ok. You Know What? There are Probably Many Different Flavors of Libertarianism. I Wonder if some of you would be Surprised if I said that I may not Necessarily Reject Every Part of that Philosophy. It's just that if Libertarianism Means Going all the Way Back in Time to a Time in which the KKK Went Around Torturing People, Witches were Burned at the Stake, Women were Second Class Citizens and Slavery was Legal, then that doesn't Interest me.
Come on, Now. Do you Really Think that Every Form of "Progress" that has ever Occurred in the Country has been a Negative? Do You Really Think that the Original Constitution was Flawless and that the Amendments that were Later Added were Unnecessary? Have we Not Made some Improvements Over Time? And if so, than isn't it Possible that the Current State of the Constitution May Actually Still not be Flawless?
I also Think that the Selling of all Public Lands to the Highest Bidder would be a Mistake. Public Parks, and the Like, Give Kids something to do, instead of just Playing in the Streets and I have a Little Trouble Believing that the Church could Actually Take Over the Entire Burden of all the Assistance Programs that the Government is Currently Doing. Perhaps that Shows a Lack of Faith on my Part, yet I just Don't Like such Extremes. Seeking a Balance between the Extremes just Makes more Sense to me.
Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak. Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse. That's just the Way Man is.
Come on, Now. Do you Really Think that Every Form of "Progress" that has ever Occurred in the Country has been a Negative? Do You Really Think that the Original Constitution was Flawless and that the Amendments that were Later Added were Unnecessary? Have we Not Made some Improvements Over Time? And if so, than isn't it Possible that the Current State of the Constitution May Actually Still not be Flawless?
I also Think that the Selling of all Public Lands to the Highest Bidder would be a Mistake. Public Parks, and the Like, Give Kids something to do, instead of just Playing in the Streets and I have a Little Trouble Believing that the Church could Actually Take Over the Entire Burden of all the Assistance Programs that the Government is Currently Doing. Perhaps that Shows a Lack of Faith on my Part, yet I just Don't Like such Extremes. Seeking a Balance between the Extremes just Makes more Sense to me.
Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak. Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse. That's just the Way Man is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)