Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.

There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.

Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.

~Loyal

Godel's theories on undecidable propositions only hold within the formal systems within which they are created.

That's not correct. As I tell DMUTPeregrine above, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any sufficiently strong logical system. I go on to tell him that "sufficiently strong" turns out not to be very strong at all. If you're curious, then you can read what I posted to him to get more information.

There exist perfectly valid ways to decide these kinds of propositions outside the formal system.

Quite true. Unfortunately those other logic systems are also either incomplete or inconsistent. It seems hardly worth saying that proving one incomplete or inconsistent logic system using another incomplete or inconsistent logic system is a mighty thin reed to place your faith in.

Do you actually understand why what you are asserting is false, or is it OK to mock you for your ignorance?

No, I don't. I suppose it's OK to mock me for my ignorance. While you're doing that, would you care to explain why what I'm asserting is false? I'm eager to get rid of my ignorance.

~Loyal

There are true statements that can't be proved ("I love you") and false statements that can't be disproved ("there is an invisible massless flying teapot orbiting the Earth").

So, if I understand correctly, you are going to a great deal of effort to convince me that you believe things that have no proof?

~Loyal

Yes, you may mock me for the indescribable truths that exist that I don't believe in.

Well, I wasn't really discussing indescribable truths. Is your offer also open for describable truths?

Please enumerate them explicitly that I may learn from your wisdom as you taunt me.

Strangely, there are an infinite number of them, making them non-enumerable. That's beside the point, really, though. You stated that you didn't believe in anything that was without proof. I showed that there exists a thing that's true, but that cannot be proven, and gave you a link where you could find more information. The ineluctable conclusion is that there exists something that's true, and in which you don't believe it's true. Now, if I have made a logical error, I would invite you to show me where it is.

Proving the existence of god is not a matter of untangling the limitations of some arbitrary linguistic system,

Wow! That's an extraordinary claim! Do you have some proof that it's true? What am I saying! Of course you have proof that it's true. You already told me that you don't believe in anything without proof. Would you be willing to share that proof with me?

~Loyal

The first incompleteness theorem applies only to formal systems. There are accepted methods of proof outside of such formal systems.

Actually, no. Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any "sufficiently strong system." As it turns out, "sufficiently strong" isn't very strong at all. Your logic system merely has to have the ability to describe the natural numbers, it has to have addition, it has to be able to associate numbers (for example, to have the pair (2,-1)), and that's about all. If your logic system has those abilities, then it has true statements in it that can never be proven within the system.

~Loyal

It is OK to mock Christians, and anyone else who believes in things they cannot prove.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Gödel's First Incompleteness theorem proved that there exist true statements that may never be proven. So that suggests a question: Do you disbelieve true things, or is it OK to mock you?

~Loyal

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment renders all of your hypotheticals moot. The point - which you got just fine but skipped over - is that federal treaties and law trump state laws. Not that the feds can do whatever they want by signing a treaty.

How very strange. So, you're saying that the constitution (in this case the 14th amendment to it) trumps treaties. And since Article 1 Section 4 gives the manner of elections to the States, that treaties cannot override that? So the attorney general was still right?

~Loyal

Yes, his state's laws mean jack and shit in comparison to agreement made by the US with the OCSE. It's this thing called the "Supremacy Clause". Abbott is waving his dick around to grandstand and nothing more.

How very strange. So, you're saying that if the Federal Government made an agreement with the OCSE that people who register Republican cannot vote, then they couldn't? Or if they made one that said that only Christians could vote, then no one else could? Of if they made one that said that only opponents of abortion could vote, then that's the way it would be? How very strange.

~Loyal

They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. By treaty, the CSCE can observe the election to the extent permitted by law. By law, observers cannot maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has warned the CSCE not to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place. So...The AG is right?

~Loyal

No you cannot prove a negative assertion.

Why should I believe that you cannot prove a negative assertion?

~Loyal

So, since the Government Communications and Security Bureau broke the law, are they going to go in with a swat team, take all of their computers, and shut them down for six months?

~Loyal

Yes, but marking something Interesting or Insightful and certainly Underrated is usually a "Like" vote. Certainly "Overrated" is a unlike vote, but Troll and Flamebait often substitute if the mod has the inability to tolerate a worldview very far from their own.

If you see a fairly well fleshed out post with reasonable, albeit extreme view points, and you see it has been marked as "Troll", you know exactly what has happened.

I suspect you're right, but that's not the way things are supposed to be. In fact, the FAQ on moderation says:

Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. Try to be impartial about this; simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. The goal here is to share ideas, to sift through the haystack and find needles, and to keep spammers and griefers in check.

When I moderate, I take that directive seriously; I have marked posts with which I disagree as interesting or insightful.

~Loyal

Inflation is also not "money printing", it is the value you lose in buying power on your currency per year.

Actually, udachny is right. He's merely using the original definition of "inflation." Some people starting using your definition of inflation once they observed that the one almost always leads to the other.

How did this get modded +5?

Well, possibly because modding is not supposed to be for whether the modder agrees with it, or even whether it's right. It's supposed to be for when something is on-topic and interesting.

~Loyal

"what makes sense and actually works to produce favorable outcomes".

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Favorable outcomes cannot be judged absent a true morality. Scientists seek to describe what is, or even what will be. Jesus sought to describe what should be.

~Loyal

BAM there it is, another nut turning everything around so they are the one being persecuted.

I hate to admit it, but I'm confused. However, if I could get you to do me a favor I think it would clear things up for me. The favor is to look at two statements and tell me which one is persecuting. Would you do that for me, please?

The first statement is: It seems to me that you're being hypocritical because you're doing the same thing to me that you decry when others do it to you.

The second statement is: Everywhere you turn some atheist nutjob is screaming about the "War on Atheists". Seems to me that the "civil rights for atheists" groups LOVE to berate and belittle every belief, nonbelief, and outlook that isn't theirs and the second anybody points this out it's suddenly a war on atheists.

Which of those statements is the more persecutory, if any? It seems to me that one of those is persecuting and the other isn't, but it's certainly possible that neither are, or even that both are. Would you let me know? Because I'm really having a problem understanding.

~Loyal