You're playing with semantics. You're taking good parts. If you say social security isn't needed, then lead by example and do without it.

You're not being forced to take the social security payments.

Please read the last part of my one-line post. You have a good case to make the claim that you're forced to pay it, and thus are not a hypocrite. I covered that.

The Church has a long history of finding their way around such inconsistencies. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly aren't identical, yet somehow they're all said to be true. and Luke appear to contradict each other on Joseph's lineage for example.

I'm not clear on the theology behind it, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of he speaks for God, when he does that he's infallible as God is infallible. I know the pope does not always invoke infallibility. In other words, he only maintains that he can't be wrong when he says he can't be wrong.

Yes, it is goofy, but it's not quite as simple as you're suggesting.

Because someone submitted it and it didn't get rejected in "firehose" or by an editor.

Let me pose my own question: did you do anything to keep it off of slashdot?

Followup question assuming you're in the US: Do you vote in political primaries?

Perhaps eldavojohn meant that such people were the cause of a transition to atheism but not the basis for his continued atheism. "I don't know if God exists, but the people who claim to be speaking on his behalf are clearly wrong or at least insane" is probably a common thought that leads one to initially reject a theology, or never take one up in the first place.

Either that or Eldavojohn was making a minor hyperbole. Or eldavojohn's beliefs aren't purely logical, like most of us.

If you speak out against something then partake of it, you're still undermining your own credibility unless you have a damn good reason why you're forced to.

Without being familiar with Ayn Rand, I'd guess it was the other things she said beyond "Work in your own self interest." She said more than that one line, right?

The second and third criteria seem a bit artificial. Why not just cost vs benefit? On economics, did you mean factoring in externalized costs? If one were to demonstrate that switching to nuclear from coal would save more money from having to deal with climate change than we'd save by sticking with coal, then the smart move to make would be to switch, unless you're a coal fired power plant owner or remarkably short-sighted. Efficiency makes even less sense to me if you're talking in terms of energy production only. If solar is a fraction of the efficiency but can still meet our needs and is the better alternative, then we should switch.

Indeed. It's a bit like accusing the police of having double standards. "What? You get to carry a gun wherever you go but when I do it I get arrested for bank robbery!?!?!"

That's not a difference between google or MS though. That's adblocking software, which works fine with google as well.

Yes it would have. The (unfortunately large) subset of voters that is mainly concerned with whether an official is a good spouse or member of his or her religion are not the people who are ever going to care about important things. Such people aren't interested in politics, they're interested in celebrities, or in feeling good about their own morality. If the media were to stop all reporting of politicians screwing around, those morons would simply increase the attention they pay to reality TV stars screwing around. The other subset of voters who are concerned with the "things that matter" already don't care about politicians having sex.

I think so, yes. Context is important. In the Assange case, it's true that he's being charged with rape. "Assange is wanted for rape!" is true, but it's a smear campaign. They leave out that it was consensual at the time and that Swedish rape laws are weird.

With google, "they read your mail!!!" is a smear campaign even though it's arguably true. For instance, MS is probably going to avoid the subjects of "Is it reading if it's automated and no one ever sees your e-mails, and only the keywords are used to target ads at you" and, more importantly "Does MS do the exact same things?"

Default settings? You mean 3/5ths compromise, senators being appointed rather than elected, and white men are the only ones who get to vote? Well, no, we haven't tried that... You think that would help?

I'd imagine that they'd come up with a less-than-ten-word mantra to make it sound like a very bad idea to enough people. Actually, it seems like two word catchphrases are bigger these days. Death panels, job creators...

There are also probably real reasons why that would be a bad idea, ones that would not be brought up in the campaign to defeat such a bill. Such as "some scapegoat would always take the fall rather than the real criminals, as already happens, because our justice system sucks compared to what we think it should be, especially when it comes to rich people."

So I don't think that magic bullet would ever come to pass, nor do I think it would be a magic bullet.