No. Newton had no explanation for WHY his math worked out (in the small part of the Cosmos he could observe at the time) Einstein had an explanation, the math to predict and confirm his explanation, and observations that have proved his explanation correct (so far) It is wrong to compare Newton and Einstein this way. Einstein did MUCH more than refine Newton's incorrect math.
Longevity? Yes for sure. Enlightenment? The denial of scientific methodology is not very enlightened, is it? I could be wrong. And you assume to much about the gentile part don't you? maybe? I'm just saying...
Suspected of doing evil. Not the same thing as having survivability. Lots of evil things may survive the test of time. That doesn't make them less evil. I could be wrong though...
I accept your apology. My comments were clearly in the context of indoctrinating children into a religious creed (which was also the topic of the original post). Pretty good smoke screen though.
Any creed that requires the indoctrination of children for its survival is suspect. If it can't wait until adulthood to present evidence in its favor there is a very good chance that something evil is at its core. Forced ignorance is evil. Voluntary, self enforced ignorance is only slightly less evil, but at least an adult has a choice about being ignorant.
"hunters tend to be one of the most conservation-oriented groups out there"
On the other hand, hunters, and the money they spend on hunting related stuff, have had a negative impact on predator restoration efforts. Some state wildlife managers have decided that we can't have wolves competing for live targets (prey animals) and thus reducing the money their harvest brings in.
French inferiority complex. Well earned though they may be, surrendering to them is a sign of French weakness. Here's an idea French speakers...why not just put on your big boy pants and do something that would actually give people the urge to use the French language voluntarily. Viva la Lafayette!
I kind of agree. Even without the personal baggage, I'd feel better if our stamps honored contributions to humanity, not stylistic creativity, monopolistic business strategies, or modern day robber baron philosophy. I recognize his contribution to technological progress, I just don't think, on balance, that we should honor him with a stamp. That's just my gut reaction...I could be wrong.
Ohio rubes and marks need to buy only internal combustion cars I guess. More and more it seems to me as though Republicans (or perhaps it's only their big business sponsors) regard us not as free individuals, but rather as consumers and serfs. They seem to believe that we shouldn't have job flexibility (how awful that because of the ACA we might be free to change jobs, or even quit our jobs), should not control our family size (no birth control for you, they need more consumers and serfs), should not have a clean environment (clean air and water regulation is OK..., but not if it interferes with, or reduces, their profit margin). Democrats are about as bad...maybe only marginally less obvious about it is all. Libertarians are pretty much Republicans only without the urge to stick their noses into our bedrooms and bodies. It wasn't always this bad. Was it?
wearing these? And will they be liable if they are involved in a crash while driving distracted by same?
An unborn child has as many, or as few, rights as the mother says it does. It is really no one else's business, unless she chooses to make it someone else's business. The right to mind our own business is something I believe most Americans, Libertarian or otherwise, cherish. As awful as abortion sometimes is, losing the right to mind our own business would be even more awful. As qualified as you may think you are to mind a woman's business for her, it is not your place to do so (unless she relinquishes that right to you). Not in America. Maybe in some other culture, perhaps in the shadow some radically paternalistic religion, but so far at least, not in America. I pray it is ever so.
I don't see that libertarion enters that part. Only IF you believe it's "her body" and only hers, then THAT libertarian wouldn't interfere.
OK then..We may infer that you do NOT believe that a woman's body is her's alone. Thanks for clearing that up. Now we may end this conversation as there is no point in trying to find common ground, as I believe that if women are equal, free, and to have equal protection, and privacy rights equal to mine, her body is most certainly her's alone. Can't really have it both ways. Libertarian philosophy is pretty much right in line with that.
I thought I was clear. If not I apologize. Yes, I believe a woman has (should have)the right to terminate her pregnancy, at any time, for any reason. And yes, I think she is taking a human life when she does so. A terrible tragedy, and not the choice I would encourage her to make. But I honestly don't believe it can be otherwise if women are to be free. I love and respect women. I respect them enough to insist that they have the right to make their own decisions, just as I insist on the right to make my own decisions. It's a Golden Rule thing, maybe you don't understand. And just to be clear you have not stated whether you believe women should have equal rights or not. You keep dancing around it very nicely though. In any case, and back to the original point, sticking your nose into someone else's (very personal) business is not in the Libertarian philosophy.
Yes, I read every emotional word you wrote. And I must point out that you still have not clearly stated that you do not believe women should have equal rights. Why not just say what you believe?
If I were a woman and if I became pregnant, I'd like to think that abortion is not the choice I would make. But I have to insist that it would be my choice to make. Not yours, nor even a majority of my neighbors. In a free country, with equal rights, it would have to be mine alone. I will continue to work with (vote for) anyone to help make this the kind of world where no woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy (murder her unborn child if you insist on using that terminology). But I'm not such a control freak that I would deny people the freedom to choose to do something I would not. Denying choice to women is not Libertarian (my original observation if we could stay on topic).
A woman's blood chemistry is altered by a pregnancy. Her internal organs are pushed around and rearranged. She experiences much discomfort, especially as she gets closer to delivery. She risks injury and, on admittedly rare occasions, death in the birth process. Telling her she has no choice in this is draconian, paternalistic, unspiritual, and, if you are concerned with such things, inconsistent with the principle that women should have equal rights. If you do not believe that women are entitled to equal rights, then say so, plainly, and without equivocation. That would be honest..but it's not Libertarian.