Again with the misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. There can only BE one theory. There are many hypotheses, but those fall away one by one to become a single, very authoritative, theory. If something better comes along, then the theory of evolution goes away and is replaced by the new theory, be it evolution 1.0.1 or ID 12.6.1.3

That's very true, of course. But you can't grow wheat, barley, and Ford Pintos. I'm arguing that physics, philosophy, and automobile repair are fields of study, while ID is not. It is a platform. An agenda. It's like saying the people paid by the tobacco companies to falsify studies on the effects of tobacco smoke are conducting science. Apples to orangutans.

I'm sure this was unintentional, but it is insulting in the extreme to label ID a 'field'.

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying this because the Wii only comes with one controller and one nunchuk, and you have to buy four, whereas the 360 is different? Or are you saying that the cost of the Wiimote ($40) plus nunchuk ($20) plus Wii motion plus ($10 with a game) is too high?

I admit if you bought EVERY controller piece you possibly could right up front it would be a lot of money, but who does that? And is it so different for any other console?

Then you imagine an economic system that sums to zero, which is false. You also imagine that a person who creates something of great value to many, and who asks compensation, is a thief. This is also false.

Yes, so long as you place great emphasis on "through any means." Those who want to live in a world where they can earn much more than others through honest labor, innovation, and intelligence are not psychopaths, and are among our greatest treasures.

You and I must disagree on this point. Apparently you conceive of financial means as, by definition, a denial of others and an evil. I assume that you live in abject poverty and give away any resources as soon as they are acquired, living only on the charity of others? Or do you take the best paying job available over others whose souls are equally deserving, even though their fortunes have left them in want of equal talents? Are you glad to have what you have, and glad you aren't forced to have less? You have very boldly set a standard that will prove difficult to live up to without hypocrisy.

You are relating the beating of slaves to the capitalistic opportunity to build an economic future limited chiefly by one's own capabilities, which represents the opposite of slavery. In a capitalistic system, no one is "beaten" if they choose not to be productive. They simply live the lifestyle of a person with low productivity. Quoth Office Space: "Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."

Is it your contention that, for humans, freedom equates to the ability to live comfortably while contributing nothing to your lifestyle? Surely not. That would be a definition of freedom that defies all others.

So you can describe an implementation of communism where there is not a small group of individuals making decisions with far-reaching consequences? If so, how could this work? You have an economic system based on shared wealth and pooled advantage, yet no central mechanism for evening wealth and ensuring no-one accumulates too much economic power?

Also, if I am living in this society, why, exactly, am I interested in working my ass off to create innovative solutions to any of society's problems? It would seem that I could just live as well as anyone off the fat of the economic system, should there prove to be any.

Is that not the very definition of working communism? A central authority of chosen individuals making decisions for everyone according to their necessarily flawed understanding of what is best? And I don't think Capitalism is that idea. That may be an unintended consequence, sometimes, but that's hardly the fault of the philosophy. It's merely a feature of human relations. Communism, on the other hand, uses it as its primary mechanism of action.

...you certainly write well for a two year old!

In case you were curious about other things:

- Bill Gates will not send you any money for forwarding an email.

- The Nigerian royal family is not interested in giving you money.

- Your penis will grow larger all by itself until you're about 17. No need to respond to those emails either.

What saved him? God didn't save him, nor did Jesus, or the Bible, which is what you are implying. What "saved" him was a shrewd appeal to an operational technicality in the court proceedings. Namely, the idea of "swearing to tell the whole truth". The religious part of it was just icing on a farcical cake.

Open your eyes, indeed.

How can a pregnancy be aborted if there is no pregnancy at all?

It should be made clear that the people to whom Zappa refers (knowingly or not) are MBAs who do a bad job at their eventual jobs. This notion of an unfeeling horror at the helm of a company of soul-less androids wrecking everything they touch for the sake of pure profit is nonsense. Corporations are simply groups of people gathered for a goal, one important factor of which is financial.

Go to any business school of ANY repute, and you will find instructors who give TOOLS to future business workers. Just like programmers gave managers the tool called "spreadsheet", business schools give tools like finance, accounting, operations, and so on. A very real component of this education is a notion of what is right, not just what is expedient or lucrative. In fact, every class I've ever seen has a powerful component of quality built in, along with philosophy and discussion about why quality is worth doing, how much, and when.

If some students fail to absorb this message, or fail to make use of it in the workplace, that is hardly a mark against the education, especially since so many of them do.

Sadly I don't have mod points, but I laughed.