Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate. Die Kalte Sonne:
Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.
I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team. See it here at Die Kalte Sonne via this Google Translate link:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaltesonne.de%2F%3Fp%3D7858
With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.
It might appear Richard’s definitions are narrowly defined, and irrespective of other governing documents (e.g. the Magna Carta Libertatum AKA “The Great Charter of the Liberties of England”, the Declaration of Independence) and codifying ‘law’ (e.g. the US Constitution vis-a-vis the “government limiting” clauses espoused and enumerated in the first 10 amendments).
It is a classical “domain and range” problem wherein Richard limits the domain to that of “man”, exclusive of anything else (greater even) to win this argument.
.
To R.S. Courtney;
Socialism will allways end up with the few, the elite, opressing the many. Maybe not by shooting, but via slavery. Slavery by means of the many working for the elite’s almost religious belief of “the greater good.”
The tax level will allways go up, up, up. When , like in Norway, the tax level is, say 60-70% (Just sum up income tax of, say, 40-50% for the average, VAT and what have you….) it will mean that 60-70% of your working time is working for the State, not for youself. ( It is 80% for me)
Working for the State 70-80% of your time is 70-80% slavery. And there is nothing you can do about it. You can never get rid of such a system if it has taken hold. The EU is going bancrupt now because of it.
Socialism also leads to corruption, and hypocracy of unimaginary levels. It never ends. The Norwegian politicians are travelling the world preaching environmentalism, while at the same time their version of socialism is actually financed by income from fossile fuels. ( Discovered by British Petroleum).
I see you declare yourself as a socialist yourself. And that perhaps explains why you get so angry here? People with such beliefs tend to get angry when their beliefs are questioned.
_Jim:
Your post at February 2, 2013 at 8:05 am is nonsense.
You are talking bollocks. I pointed out practical realities. If you think e.g. The Great Charter can overcome those realities then you are deluded.
If you don’t see that you are deluded then ask a Bosnian, or a Reandan, or …
Richard
wikeroy:
In your post at February 2, 2013 at 9:03 am you ask me
No!
I am angry at the offensive, insulting and untrue smears posted in this thread of which your post is an example. Read your own words and consider how you would regard them having been directed at you.
Richard
Courtney,
I have read through the whole thread, and noone has smeared you, as you say.
But you dish it out;
richardscourtney says: February 2, 2013 at 11:04 am
-“Your post at February 2, 2013 at 8:05 am is nonsense.”
-“You are talking bollocks. I pointed out practical realities. If you think e.g.
The Great Charter can overcome those realities then you are deluded.”
richardscourtney says: February 2, 2013 at 2:41 am
-“Next time you want to distort what I have said then please remember
that your stupid assertions are so stupid they can be simply refuted.”
richardscourtney says: February 1, 2013 at 3:24 pm
-“Such appalling ignorance and naivete!”
richardscourtney says: February 1, 2013 at 10:09 am
-“I have been objecting to such “own definitions” from when right wing nutters started doing it in this thread.
richardscourtney says:January 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm
-“Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.”
So;
“Nonsense”, “Bollocks”, “Deluded”, “Stupid”, “Ignorance”, “Naive”, “Right Wing Nutter”, “Insane Ravings”, “Troll” is the words you throw at others.
And I read the others postings; The right wing nutters. Perfectly clear reasoning and discussions.
I try to understand the anger you display here, when you clearly have many interesting arguments regarding climate change and the IPCC.
The other Phil says it could not be a ban since this requires community involvement. But blocking 2000 contributors seems much the same.
Niff,
It is not much the same. Many blocks are what I call technical. You may be thinking that if you had an account, and annoyed some others, you might get blocked. That can happen, but there are many other reasons for block. For example, if someone registered the user name WattUpWithThat, and then tried to edit the article about this site, the user name would get blocked. They would be allowed, even invited, to register a different name. They could register JoeQJones, and then edit the article. The individual behind the name is quite able to contribute, they just need to use an allowable user name. In contrast. bans apply to individuals. If you get banned because you repeatedly violate policy, and try to evade the ban using a different user name, that second user name might get blocked. and the third. And, literally, in some cases, the 100th. Bans apply to people. Banning someone is a big deal and cannot be unilaterally done by any individual, not even Jimbo Wales. 2000 blocks is not a lot. 200 bans would be, but Connelley has banned zero editors.
Human kind’s nature, our specific identity as an entity, should be the basis of designing a government that does not violate human nature. Government should not aid our human nature, it should be limited to recognizing what is required for our nature’s potentiality.
The primary task before entering a political discussion is to clearly identify human nature. We started the political discussion in this thread without that necessary identification of human nature.
Shall we do that now? I am up for it.
As to the those initiating and maintaining the talk of right wing nut job versus left wing nut job, it is unproductive. Lets stick with logical concepts and disciplined reasoning. Lets not resort to imprecise labels like left or right and conservative or liberal, etc, etc.
I look forward to calm and civil pursuit of this attempt at a clear political balance sheet.
John
John Whitman says:
February 2, 2013 at 7:12 pm
“Human kind’s nature, our specific identity as an entity, should be the basis of designing a government that does not violate human nature.”
A very good point. If so, I think it is important to recognise that there is two main human natures; The feminine brain versus the masculine brain. The sex of the brain is set by hormones ( while still in fetus stage)
http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.html
Example;
-The Feminine brain wants safety and security, etc etc. ( Family, children…)
-The Masculine brain wants challenges and change, etc etc.( Hunting, exploring….)
It seems evolution shows us that this combination is the “strongest”. ( More children, etc etc)
If you let the feminine brain go to far in trying to obtain 100% safety and security, it will violate the freedom of the masculine brain.
If you let the masculine brain go too far regarding challenges and change, it will violate the safety and the security of the feminine brain.
And so on……
A lady friend of a friend I know of is a paid activist and that is her total job. She organizes protests on any number of topics. It means rounding up useful fools from campuses mainly which, oddly, seems to be a huge resource of non-think-for-yourself sheep. Who the heck is running such a show. What have we done wrong in this society.
Some thoughts on ‘What does “majority” decision have to do with rights?’ (Feb 1, 1:45 pm)
Do rights exist? Most certainly.
Much law specifically references them. These are Rights mentioned specifically in Amendments 1 through 10 of the US Constitution.
1: the right of the people peaceably to assemble
2: right of the people to keep and bear Arms
4: right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
6: right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….
7: In Suits at common law, …the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Where do rights come from?
From Nature? I do not think that holds, but some people do.
Do Rights come from Government? No.
Government SECURES rights. The history of 1774-1804 is ample proof that the concept of rights predates the formation of the different US governments.
In the
Declaration of Independence, where “one people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, ”
Do rights come from a Majority of Society? No.
From the same document that said “self-evident that all men are created equal”, was struck <a href=http://daverosenberg.net/articles/IndependenceDay.htm Jefferson's anti-slavery draft clause.
S. Carolina, N. Carolina, and Georgia demanded the passage stricken before they’d give the required unanimous approval of the Declaration. New England Maritime didn’t mind the trade continuing, too. A minority was the critical factor in failing to secure the rights of another group of people.
I conclude Rights come from centuries of a human culture and history. Government can fail to secure these rights, but Rights have been with us at least as long as the concept of slavery, outliving empires, dynasties, and governments.
(Links and summaries supporting 2:07pm above)
In Federalist 84, (Hamilton, 28 May, 1788) wrote that enumerating Rights in the Constitution might do more harm than good, for it would limit rights under government rather than securing rights above government.
In the end, Hamilton lost the argument. 11 of 13 States had ratified the Constitution, but there was opposition in many quarters that Rights were not adequately protected. Madison (8 June 1789) urged the House concentrate on the Bill of Rights amendments as a committee of the whole:
The genius of Madison was that the House did not lose its way itemizing rights, but fenced off broad areas where this and future Congresses “shall make no law” so as to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The concept that Government SECURES Rights, not create, nor grant, nor guarantee them is in some case law. This concept is not limited to a couple of decades in the late 18th Century.