When I first learned about the Libertarian point of view I couldn't understand it. I used to never understand why people didn't want anything that wasn't liberal. Why can't we tax the hell out of the insanely rich so we can provide services for those who are less fortunate?
I still don't disagree with the morality behind that, but I feel that I'm projecting a personal bias on that point of view. If you're asking me to feel sorry for taxing those who make over $250,000 a year, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't give a fuck about anything that you have to complain about regarding money if you make that much per year.
But does that make it right? Does that make it American? Is it the idea that our forefathers had in mind when they built the country?
It's tough to say. They had slaves for God's sake.
But more and more, as I listen to the Libertarian point of view, it makes more sense. Our current two party system makes no one happy. As soon as a Conservative gets into office, the Liberals shit their pants and criticize everything about them. Now that we have a Liberal in office, the criticism from the right is nonstop. What we end up with is a moderate compromise. Abortion laws go back and forth, tax laws go back and forth, school curriculums go back and forth, etc. Then no one gets what they want and no one is happy.
I used to think that this moderate compromise was the best solution for the country since everyone got at least a little bit of what they want. There is still a part of me that feels this way. We should be willing to compromise because we are adults. That's how adults behave. But the Libertarian point is that we minimize government involvement (especially at the national level) and people get to decide for themselves what they want to do.
A perfect example of this is Domino's CEO, David Brandon. David Brandon is a Conservative Christian that started his own neighborhood of Christian values where people can live under Christian rules and the drug stores don't sell contraceptives. This sounds like goddamn nightmare to someone like me, but that's what's great about it.
That IS America. Why can't a group of like-minded people get together and say, "We want our own Christian society where the kids learn Creation science instead of evolution, aren't exposed to sex or pornography, R rated movies aren't allowed, and abortion is illegal?" Then those who oppose can open their own community where pot and polygamy are legal. Since taxes would be stripped away, you don't have to worry about money from your pocket supporting things that you don't want. No bail-outs. You just put your money directly into the hands of those who you want to give it to, and it won't be mishandled by any self-righteous politicians.
Everyone gets what they want, and if they don't, they can move a short distance to where they will get what they want. It truly is Power To The People.
This does come with some problems, which I'm not sure how to address. Some people think that privately owned schools are bad, and I'm not sure what to think of it. I don't see how it would be that different from college. Private colleges are their own private entity that set their own standards for education. Obviously if you went to Harvard and got a business degree and the guy next to you went to Community College, you'd have a leg-up in the interview. That's because you get what you pay for, and Harvard has a reputation of high standards.
The difficulty that you'd come across is the issue regarding the poor. I like that we live in a country where if you grow up in a poor family you at least have a government sponsored education, and if you apply yourself enough, you can get into a good school for very little money, do well, and get out of poverty. It's possible that with lower taxes there will be more money to give to charities that would grant scholarships, but I just don't know. I'm not sure that we can know unless it was actually implicated.
Another problem is public roads. I would hate to have privatized roads. I don't want to have to pay a toll just so I can go to work using the freeway. Maybe that could be a tax that gets attached to gasoline.
But while we're on the subject of gasoline, let's stop subsidizing it. Our government uses our tax money to make gas cheaper. I like the idea of getting rid of that and letting gas cost $5 a gallon because it would lower taxes and force us to come up with real solutions to transportation problems. Maybe I wouldn't have to worry about paying a toll for going to work because there would be an actual light rail that would take me to my job (there currently is no public transportation that will bring me from my house to my job).
This entry only a scrapes the surface. I'm not saying that I'm a Libertarian. I've decided to stop defining myself to any political affiliation. I think what I think. That's it.
I just think that we might be even more free if we have less federal government and more power to the individual.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
How To Convert An Atheist
Occasionally I upload pieces of podcasts because they make a good point. Recently I have been listening to the Penn Jillette Radio Show, which has been off the air for a couple of years now, but I really enjoy Penn's love and compassion for others. At times he's out of his mind but makes many good points, one of which I want to share with you:
All of his jokes aside, I couldn't agree more. I get this strange impression from religious people on campus that these people are ONLY out to convert when they are talking to you. It's as if some of them have forgotten how to communicate with every day people.
One day, standing at the bus stop a guy noticed my chemistry book and began asking questions about it. What kind of stuff am I learning? What do I study? "MAN, I respect that. That's really cool," he said. Then two minutes into the conversation he takes a left turn and says, "So the reason I'm talking to you..." and then goes on to talk about Jesus.
I see what Penn meant when he says that he finds this type of behavior insulting. Don't start a conversation, act like you're interested in what I have to say, and then preach to me. That just made me feel like the first few minutes of the conversation were him trying to manipulate me to get my attention so he could give me his bullcrap speech about his world views.
On another occasion I had a Mormon missionary come up to me. He at least had his name tag on and dove right into the religion. The problem here was that he was too focused on trying preach the Mormon bible. If I asked him a question, he would tell a five minute story about Joseph Smith. I didn't care about the book of Mormon, I wanted to know what HE had to say. HE is a PERSON with THOUGHTS and OPINIONS. Start telling me stories that I don't believe, and verses that I don't care about, and my brain will turn off.
Ask me questions!
People get so inner-focused that they forget that THEY approached ME. If you really want to get someone to talk to you, ask them why you should be on their side. They'll start telling you their world view, and you can show that you can actually listen to someone. Maybe they'll return the favor.
People all have opinions, you just have to ask them what those opinions are. Then you actually have to listen to those opinions. Weird, huh? The times when I don't feel manipulated are the times when people walk up and say, "Hey, do you have a few minutes to talk about Jesus/Liberalism/Islam/Socialism/Animal Rights?" At least I know what I'm getting into and can opt out of the conversation if I want to.
I actually want people to try to convert me. I want people to say, "Here's why you should be a ________." If there is a compelling reason why I should be doing or thinking something differently, I want to know. I find discussing and arguing fun. I love when people prove me wrong.
That's how we grow and learn.
So remember kids:
1) Talk to people like human beings
2) Ask them questions about what they think, and then actually listen
3) Don't be afraid to give your friends crap
Just be real.
All of his jokes aside, I couldn't agree more. I get this strange impression from religious people on campus that these people are ONLY out to convert when they are talking to you. It's as if some of them have forgotten how to communicate with every day people.
One day, standing at the bus stop a guy noticed my chemistry book and began asking questions about it. What kind of stuff am I learning? What do I study? "MAN, I respect that. That's really cool," he said. Then two minutes into the conversation he takes a left turn and says, "So the reason I'm talking to you..." and then goes on to talk about Jesus.
I see what Penn meant when he says that he finds this type of behavior insulting. Don't start a conversation, act like you're interested in what I have to say, and then preach to me. That just made me feel like the first few minutes of the conversation were him trying to manipulate me to get my attention so he could give me his bullcrap speech about his world views.
On another occasion I had a Mormon missionary come up to me. He at least had his name tag on and dove right into the religion. The problem here was that he was too focused on trying preach the Mormon bible. If I asked him a question, he would tell a five minute story about Joseph Smith. I didn't care about the book of Mormon, I wanted to know what HE had to say. HE is a PERSON with THOUGHTS and OPINIONS. Start telling me stories that I don't believe, and verses that I don't care about, and my brain will turn off.
Ask me questions!
People get so inner-focused that they forget that THEY approached ME. If you really want to get someone to talk to you, ask them why you should be on their side. They'll start telling you their world view, and you can show that you can actually listen to someone. Maybe they'll return the favor.
People all have opinions, you just have to ask them what those opinions are. Then you actually have to listen to those opinions. Weird, huh? The times when I don't feel manipulated are the times when people walk up and say, "Hey, do you have a few minutes to talk about Jesus/Liberalism/Islam/Socialism/Animal Rights?" At least I know what I'm getting into and can opt out of the conversation if I want to.
I actually want people to try to convert me. I want people to say, "Here's why you should be a ________." If there is a compelling reason why I should be doing or thinking something differently, I want to know. I find discussing and arguing fun. I love when people prove me wrong.
That's how we grow and learn.
So remember kids:
1) Talk to people like human beings
2) Ask them questions about what they think, and then actually listen
3) Don't be afraid to give your friends crap
Just be real.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Everything Is Hilarious
It's been a quiet secret of mine for a while that I want to transform everything in my life into something that I find hilarious. If not to entertain others, then at least I'll be entertaining myself. I just think that it is much more interesting to tell someone that you do something ridiculous with your life rather than saying, "Oh yeah, I'm a computer salesman. That shit rocks."
My most recent revelation involves me living in an RV year-round. I've done a little bit of research online and found that RV's are much cheaper than houses. Renting a place to park is about $300 a month. This is less than half of what I pay for my apartment and I can't even drive it to work. Right now I've got my eye on the 2009 Tiffin Phaeton 36QSH. She is a beauty.
Just look at her:
All the comforts of home.
Of course living in an RV isn't all ice creams and salad bars. You've also got to deal with living wherever you want all of the time, not having to mow the lawn, and traveling around the universe with a dog named Bicycle Shorts.
I dream of the day when Bicycle Shorts and I can point at Mount Rushmore in amazement as we pass it on our way to the moon, speeding down the freeway in our 2009 Tiffin Phaeton 36QSH.
Of course if that doesn't work out I'll have to find a boat house to live in. I may also need a new dog since Bicycle Shorts undoubtedly wouldn't survive the trip back from the moon.
My most recent revelation involves me living in an RV year-round. I've done a little bit of research online and found that RV's are much cheaper than houses. Renting a place to park is about $300 a month. This is less than half of what I pay for my apartment and I can't even drive it to work. Right now I've got my eye on the 2009 Tiffin Phaeton 36QSH. She is a beauty.
Just look at her:
All the comforts of home.
Of course living in an RV isn't all ice creams and salad bars. You've also got to deal with living wherever you want all of the time, not having to mow the lawn, and traveling around the universe with a dog named Bicycle Shorts.
I dream of the day when Bicycle Shorts and I can point at Mount Rushmore in amazement as we pass it on our way to the moon, speeding down the freeway in our 2009 Tiffin Phaeton 36QSH.
Of course if that doesn't work out I'll have to find a boat house to live in. I may also need a new dog since Bicycle Shorts undoubtedly wouldn't survive the trip back from the moon.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Name That Logical Fallacy: Jenny McCarthy & The Scientific Community
Guess what? I can't sleep, so that means we're going to do a few rounds of Name That Logical Fallacy.
Here is our list of fallacies to review before we begin.
Okie dokie. Let's go.
I follow a lot of science news and am reading a lot about Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination movement that she's been touting over the last few years. Jenny often gets the science VERY VERY wrong, but is still popularized on TV talk shows where she is typically unopposed and allowed to list off any "scientific claims" that she likes.
As a result, I decided to write an e-mail to my family and friends, informing them to learn a little about vaccines before they make a decision about what to do with their children. I tried to emphasize that if they had any doubts that they should talk to their doctors, and even get a second opinion if need be.
I will be paraphrasing, but some of the responses I received were:
"What?? You mean that Jenny McCarthy doesn't know anything about medicine?"
"I don't understand why anyone would listen to a person who got famous by picking their nose and flaunting their tits on MTV."
So, Name That Logical Fallacy.
Time's Up.
Despite the fact that I happen to agree with the responses given, they have a slight problem in their logic.
The logical fallacy here is the ad hominem logical fallacy. This is an argument that attacks the person making the claim, rather than attacking the claim itself.
I actually find most celebrities to be some of the dumbest people on the planet, but they often promote causes that can be backed by science or personal beliefs. Just because I hear a celebrity saying something that I don't agree with, doesn't make them wrong.
Jenny McCarthy has an autistic son, and for whatever reason, decided that she would only listen to a very very small minority of doctors that oppose the scientific community. For whatever reason, these very few doctors decided not to listen to the scientific community or the mountains of studies that have come out in the past few years regarding the link between autism and vaccines (there is no link between these two things).
The evidence is simply not on their side.
Jenny McCarthy is not wrong due to a lack of intelligence. She is wrong because she has nothing to support her claim.
*Please get your kids vaccinated and talk to your doctors*
--------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to another Name That Logical Fallacy.
In one of my previous blogs I wrote about a fallacy called Argumentum ad populum. This is the fallacy where you might argue that just because a large amount of people believe something, doesn't make it true. So why would we listen to the scientific community?
We listen to them because they are smart and know what they are talking about, and we're not educated enough to understand what's going on...
NO.
This is a fallacy called Appeal To Authority.
If you've ever seen a commercial with a guy in a white coat telling you to buy some kind of medical product, you've witnessed an Appeal To Authority. Authority alone does not mean that we should listen to someone. When it comes to science, we should be REALLY careful about listening to the minority group. It's typically the minority group that has some kind of bias or special interest going on.
This can be a tricky fallacy because sometimes we really need to rely on an authority to get our information. That's WHY we go to doctors. BUT... That's why we should go to multiple doctors (if we can afford to).
One doctor may have a personal bias. Two doctors might disagree with each other and point out each other's flaws. Four doctors might really have different points of view -or they might all agree.
If you think you are sick, and four independent doctors tell you that you're not, you've done a pretty good job of eliminating your Appeal To Authority, and should probably go back to work.
This is how the scientific community works. This is why the scientific community is such an important resource and an important authority to listen to.
When a scientist in any field does a study, he or she has it peer reviewed. If the reviewers approve it, the paper gets published for the entire WORLD of scientists to review. The experiment must be scrutinized and redone over and over. Conservative biochemists in Germany will look at the procedure and redo the experiment. Liberal biochemists in Japan will look at it and redo it and find out what's wrong with it. And so on and so on, until it is torn to shreds.
If the study survives, the scientific community will accept it.
Scientists are constantly trying to outdo each other because that is how they win Nobel prizes and grant money.
Richard Dawkins often tells a story about when he was an undergrad. I think this story sets up the mentality of the scientific community (I will again paraphrase):
When he was an undergraduate, he had a professor who worked for most of his post-doctoral career on a theory that he had about evolution. During one lecture, an American biologist came to speak to the class and completely demolished his professor's theory that he'd spent half of his life researching. After the American got done speaking, the professor went up to him, shook his hand, and thanked him for proving him wrong.
To conclude, the scientific community will give you the least biased information available because it is tested by scientists of all ages, backgrounds, religions, and political parties. This does not mean that we shouldn't question this, or any other authority. At the same time, we shouldn't hold onto our bad science once it is disproved. We should be willing to distance ourselves from bad information.
::Thank You::
Here is our list of fallacies to review before we begin.
Okie dokie. Let's go.
I follow a lot of science news and am reading a lot about Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination movement that she's been touting over the last few years. Jenny often gets the science VERY VERY wrong, but is still popularized on TV talk shows where she is typically unopposed and allowed to list off any "scientific claims" that she likes.
As a result, I decided to write an e-mail to my family and friends, informing them to learn a little about vaccines before they make a decision about what to do with their children. I tried to emphasize that if they had any doubts that they should talk to their doctors, and even get a second opinion if need be.
I will be paraphrasing, but some of the responses I received were:
"What?? You mean that Jenny McCarthy doesn't know anything about medicine?"
"I don't understand why anyone would listen to a person who got famous by picking their nose and flaunting their tits on MTV."
So, Name That Logical Fallacy.
Time's Up.
Despite the fact that I happen to agree with the responses given, they have a slight problem in their logic.
The logical fallacy here is the ad hominem logical fallacy. This is an argument that attacks the person making the claim, rather than attacking the claim itself.
I actually find most celebrities to be some of the dumbest people on the planet, but they often promote causes that can be backed by science or personal beliefs. Just because I hear a celebrity saying something that I don't agree with, doesn't make them wrong.
Jenny McCarthy has an autistic son, and for whatever reason, decided that she would only listen to a very very small minority of doctors that oppose the scientific community. For whatever reason, these very few doctors decided not to listen to the scientific community or the mountains of studies that have come out in the past few years regarding the link between autism and vaccines (there is no link between these two things).
The evidence is simply not on their side.
Jenny McCarthy is not wrong due to a lack of intelligence. She is wrong because she has nothing to support her claim.
*Please get your kids vaccinated and talk to your doctors*
--------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to another Name That Logical Fallacy.
In one of my previous blogs I wrote about a fallacy called Argumentum ad populum. This is the fallacy where you might argue that just because a large amount of people believe something, doesn't make it true. So why would we listen to the scientific community?
We listen to them because they are smart and know what they are talking about, and we're not educated enough to understand what's going on...
NO.
This is a fallacy called Appeal To Authority.
If you've ever seen a commercial with a guy in a white coat telling you to buy some kind of medical product, you've witnessed an Appeal To Authority. Authority alone does not mean that we should listen to someone. When it comes to science, we should be REALLY careful about listening to the minority group. It's typically the minority group that has some kind of bias or special interest going on.
This can be a tricky fallacy because sometimes we really need to rely on an authority to get our information. That's WHY we go to doctors. BUT... That's why we should go to multiple doctors (if we can afford to).
One doctor may have a personal bias. Two doctors might disagree with each other and point out each other's flaws. Four doctors might really have different points of view -or they might all agree.
If you think you are sick, and four independent doctors tell you that you're not, you've done a pretty good job of eliminating your Appeal To Authority, and should probably go back to work.
This is how the scientific community works. This is why the scientific community is such an important resource and an important authority to listen to.
When a scientist in any field does a study, he or she has it peer reviewed. If the reviewers approve it, the paper gets published for the entire WORLD of scientists to review. The experiment must be scrutinized and redone over and over. Conservative biochemists in Germany will look at the procedure and redo the experiment. Liberal biochemists in Japan will look at it and redo it and find out what's wrong with it. And so on and so on, until it is torn to shreds.
If the study survives, the scientific community will accept it.
Scientists are constantly trying to outdo each other because that is how they win Nobel prizes and grant money.
Richard Dawkins often tells a story about when he was an undergrad. I think this story sets up the mentality of the scientific community (I will again paraphrase):
When he was an undergraduate, he had a professor who worked for most of his post-doctoral career on a theory that he had about evolution. During one lecture, an American biologist came to speak to the class and completely demolished his professor's theory that he'd spent half of his life researching. After the American got done speaking, the professor went up to him, shook his hand, and thanked him for proving him wrong.
To conclude, the scientific community will give you the least biased information available because it is tested by scientists of all ages, backgrounds, religions, and political parties. This does not mean that we shouldn't question this, or any other authority. At the same time, we shouldn't hold onto our bad science once it is disproved. We should be willing to distance ourselves from bad information.
::Thank You::
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
