tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4713366994237919885..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: NYT: There was a sustained lack of productivity growth from 1300 to 1700. Really, what's the NYT printed on?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84333843719661481492012-10-22T15:50:30.674-07:002012-10-22T15:50:30.674-07:00If it's the toxic properties of the chemicals ...<i>If it's the toxic properties of the chemicals rather than their explosive properties that kill, harm, incapacitate, etc., then it's a chemical weapon.</i> <br /><br /><br />Napalm is not toxic. You can take a bath in the stuff and not die, or even get very sick. Its non-toxicity is why it's not a chemical weapon. <br /><br />Napalm, like gunpowder or like modern high explosives, will sit there harmlessly unless a source of ignition is introduced. It's perfectly safe to touch any of the three with your skin. Once ignition begins, what is known as an "exothermic reaction" commences - it is this chemical reaction which produces the weapon's effect. There is no ignition source or exothermic reaction in chemical weapons. Instead it's the poisonous result of physical contact with the chemical which kills/injures its victims.<br /><br />Stick to liberal arts, kid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82547688459432020692012-10-22T15:34:50.124-07:002012-10-22T15:34:50.124-07:00Europe was a theocracy before the Reformation.
Y...<i>Europe was a theocracy before the Reformation.</i> <br /><br />You either don't know what the word "theocracy" means, or you don't know anything about European history. Europe was never a "theocracy" - a form of government in which God/ a priesthood is the supreme <i>civil</i> ruler.<br /><br /><i>The CofE was much more tolerant of non-conformist protestants.</i> <br /><br /><br />I notice you don't try to claim that it was tolerant of <i>non</i>-protestants. But you don't know anything about English history. The reason why there is a "no establishment of religion" clause in the US Constitution is because the CoE was famously <i>in</i>tolerant of everyone outside the CoE. You could look it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26058716032165751592012-10-21T09:23:31.506-07:002012-10-21T09:23:31.506-07:00"They were "Dark" even for technica...<i>"They were "Dark" even for technical development because those developments pale in comparison to the explosion in natural knowledge and technology that came after the Dark Ages."</i><br /><br />Which begs the question, did that explosion happen because of a break with the past and with previous developments, or because of them? Why did this explosion (say, 1400 to 1800) happen in Europe? Gunpowder production in England started in 1346... Much of the power for the Industrial Revolution came from water wheels, for instance, all those mills at Lowell, Masachusetts (the initial point at which the industrial revolotion came to the US): <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_wheel&section=7#Economic_influence" rel="nofollow">"By the eleventh century there were parts of Europe where the exploitation of water was common place.[35] The water wheel is understood to have actively shaped and forever changed the outlook of Westerners. Europe began to transition from muscle labor, human and animal labor, towards mechanical labor with the advent of the Water Wheel."</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7523149409797765662012-10-18T22:45:53.282-07:002012-10-18T22:45:53.282-07:00You know absolutely nothing about the history of r...<i>You know absolutely nothing about the history of religion in Europe. Why do atheists feel the need to shoot their mouths off on topics they don't understand?</i><br /><br />I think you're the one who's ignorant here. Why do papists feel the need to shoot their mouths off on topics they can't understand?<br /><br /><i>Europe was never a "theocracy". Parts of it more closely approached that status after the Reformation, under the the various "national religions". The Church of England, for example. But the Church (later the Catholic Church) was always an example of the separation of church and state.</i><br /><br />Europe was a theocracy before the Reformation. The CofE was much more tolerant of non-conformist protestants. The Catholic Church didn't have genuine separation of church and state. It was simply a division of labor. It tolerated Catholic leaders who submitted to its authority on morals.<br /><br /><i>You're tossing around words you don't understand. Like all ideologues, you are ignorant of history.</i><br /><br />"Primacy", "argumentation", "experimentation" are very basic terms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26785956347035182012012-10-18T22:29:49.383-07:002012-10-18T22:29:49.383-07:00People who die when a bomb goes off die "from...<i>People who die when a bomb goes off die "from the chemical properties" of the weapon, so according to your own asinine definition, bombs are chemical weapons.</i><br /><br />No, they die from the explosive force of the weapon. This means it's a conventional weapon.<br /><br /><i>The chemical properties of a bomb are the explosives.</i><br /><br />If the weapon kills by explosive force, then it's a conventional weapon. <br /><br />If it's the toxic properties of the chemicals rather than their explosive properties that kill, harm, incapacitate, etc., then it's a chemical weapon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81584030364079338352012-10-18T21:46:01.180-07:002012-10-18T21:46:01.180-07:00The Reformation ushered in the end of a single dom...<i>The Reformation ushered in the end of a single dominant theocracy embodied in the Catholic Church</i> <br /><br /><br />You know absolutely nothing about the history of religion in Europe. Why do atheists feel the need to shoot their mouths off on topics they don't understand?<br /><br />Europe was never a "theocracy". Parts of it more closely approached that status after the Reformation, under the the various "national religions". The Church of England, for example. But the Church (later the Catholic Church) was always an example of the separation of church and state.<br /><br />Catholic Spain had a Throne and an Altar. In Anglican England the two were fused together. <br /><br /><br /><i>Theocracy is the primacy of argumentation over experimentation.</i> <br /><br />You're tossing around words you don't understand. Like all ideologues, you are ignorant of history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39150974910283378642012-10-18T21:34:56.616-07:002012-10-18T21:34:56.616-07:00My definition is the definition for chemical warfa...<i>My definition is the definition for chemical warfare.</i> <br /><br />Is it? Where you you getting this definition from, and what makes it "the" definition?<br /><br /><i>The fact is that when used in war, napalm kills not only by contact or as part of an explosion, but by consuming oxygen out of an area and causing asphyxiation. These deaths arise from the chemical properties of napalm</i> <br /><br /><br />The fact remains that this argument, if it can be called such, is imbecilic. People who die when a bomb goes off die "from the chemical properties" of the weapon, so according to your own asinine definition, bombs are chemical weapons. Or at least, you have yet to offer a credible argument for why they are not.<br /><br /><br /><i>They're killed by the explosives. The chemical properties themselves don't directly kill.</i><br /><br />Like every lefty I've ever encountered, you posses the intellect of a head of cabbage. The chemical properties of a bomb <i>are</i> the explosives. If you wrote "People are killed by bullets, but not by the physical properties of bullets", you'd have something equally stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61735559283611023402012-10-18T19:37:40.216-07:002012-10-18T19:37:40.216-07:00If the "domination of sophistry" denotes...<i>If the "domination of sophistry" denotes a "Dark Age" then we're living in one right now. You need a better definition than that.</i><br /><br />You don't need a better definition for an anti-scientific age. And yes, we are in a theocratic age that places religious taboos and restrictions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24462256148225122532012-10-18T19:35:41.760-07:002012-10-18T19:35:41.760-07:00People killed by bombs are killed by the "che...<i>People killed by bombs are killed by the "chemical properties" of the high explosives, which are what cause the explosive force.</i><br /><br />They're killed by the explosives. The chemical properties themselves don't directly kill. When chemical properties directly kill, that's what qualifies something as a chemical weapon.<br /><br /><i>The term "chemical weapons" has a legal definition, and yours isn't it. Mustard gas is a chemical weapon. "Nerve gas" is a chemical weapon. Napalm is not a "chemical weapon" under any of the international agreements covering chemical weapons. Your own private opinions don't count.</i><br /><br />My definition is the definition for chemical warfare. Napalm isn't officially classified as a chemical weapon under certain agreements, but that isn't purely objective and has to do with politics.<br /><br />The fact is that when used in war, napalm kills not only by contact or as part of an explosion, but by consuming oxygen out of an area and causing asphyxiation. These deaths arise from the chemical properties of napalm, and thus qualifies napalm as a chemical weapon. This has been demonstrated repeatedly to occur. Officially, napalm is claimed not to do this when it's used in war, and that's why it's not officially classified as a chemical weapon. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90240462254361489762012-10-18T19:24:25.076-07:002012-10-18T19:24:25.076-07:00You're switching gears. Even if we assume that...<i>You're switching gears. Even if we assume that the Reformation ushered in the end of theocracy, which it didn't, that has nothing to do with science.</i><br /><br />The Reformation ushered in the end of a single dominant theocracy embodied in the Catholic Church.<br /><br />It has everything to do with science. Science is the primacy of experiment over argumentation. Theocracy is the primacy of argumentation over experimentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61527211125499544582012-10-18T14:16:21.512-07:002012-10-18T14:16:21.512-07:00If you don't regard an environment of theocrac...<i>If you don't regard an environment of theocracy, anti-experimentalism, the domination of sophistry and Scholastic disputation, etc. as "Dark", then yes, there were no "Dark Ages".</i> <br /><br /><br /><br />If the "domination of sophistry" denotes a "Dark Age" then we're living in one right now. You need a better definition than that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56829637631998733192012-10-18T14:13:59.392-07:002012-10-18T14:13:59.392-07:00Napalm kills not only by contact or simply as part...<i>Napalm kills not only by contact or simply as part of an explosive force, but by consumption of the oxygen from the surrounding environment, thus causing asphyxiation. This is clearly a case in which deaths arise from the chemical properties of napalm, and thus qualifies napalm as a chemical weapon.</i> <br /><br /><br />That's incredibly idiotic. People killed by bombs are killed by the "chemical properties" of the high explosives, which are what cause the explosive force.<br /><br />The term "chemical weapons" has a legal definition, and yours isn't it. Mustard gas is a chemical weapon. "Nerve gas" is a chemical weapon. Napalm is not a "chemical weapon" under any of the international agreements covering chemical weapons. Your own private opinions don't count.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65706139397688460362012-10-18T14:01:46.678-07:002012-10-18T14:01:46.678-07:00You've never seen a historical timeline?
I h...<i>You've never seen a historical timeline?</i> <br /><br />I have, you clearly have not. Check out the post at 10:41 PM.<br /><br /><i>If you don't regard an environment of theocracy, anti-experimentalism, the domination of sophistry and Scholastic disputation, etc. as "Dark", then yes, there were no "Dark Ages"</i><br /><br />You're switching gears. Even if we assume that the Reformation ushered in the end of theocracy, which it didn't, that has nothing to do with science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9291257730553509312012-10-18T13:38:02.316-07:002012-10-18T13:38:02.316-07:00Hardy har har. High explosives are chemical weapon...<i>Hardy har har. High explosives are chemical weapons too, under that usage of the term. What are Amatol and PTX-1 and Torpex if not "chemical weapons"?</i><br /><br />Napalm kills not only by contact or simply as part of an explosive force, but by consumption of the oxygen from the surrounding environment, thus causing asphyxiation. This is clearly a case in which deaths arise from the chemical properties of napalm, and thus qualifies napalm as a chemical weapon. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65672065077429552512012-10-18T13:30:39.156-07:002012-10-18T13:30:39.156-07:00In short, the dark ages may have been dark regardi...<i>In short, the dark ages may have been dark regarding uniform government authority, but apparently were not for technical development.</i><br /><br />They were "Dark" even for technical development because those developments pale in comparison to the explosion in natural knowledge and technology that came after the Dark Ages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80309705096646774152012-10-18T13:26:31.150-07:002012-10-18T13:26:31.150-07:00The fact is that there was no "scientific rev...<i>The fact is that there was no "scientific revolution" which quickly followed the Reformation.</i><br /><br />You've never seen a historical timeline?<br /><br /><i>There were no "Dark Ages".</i><br /><br />If you don't regard an environment of theocracy, anti-experimentalism, the domination of sophistry and Scholastic disputation, etc. as "Dark", then yes, there were no "Dark Ages". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3138021025453410282012-10-18T09:54:15.734-07:002012-10-18T09:54:15.734-07:00The fact is that it was no accident that the scien...<i>The fact is that it was no accident that the scientific revolution quickly followed the Reformation. </i> <br /><br />The fact is that there was no "scientific revolution" which quickly followed the Reformation. <br /><br /><i>the kind of revisionism you see glorifying the Dark Ages</i> <br /><br />There were no "Dark Ages".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72898178366563572852012-10-18T09:47:55.220-07:002012-10-18T09:47:55.220-07:00The US was using chemical weapons heavily during t...<i>The US was using chemical weapons heavily during the Korean War - around 70,000 gallons of napalm a day</i> <br /><br />Hardy har har. High explosives are chemical weapons too, under <i>that</i> usage of the term. What are Amatol and PTX-1 and Torpex if not "chemical weapons"? <br /><br />Why are lefties so depressingly stupid?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65185855486534241562012-10-17T21:59:53.855-07:002012-10-17T21:59:53.855-07:00He made accusations that the United States had use...<i>He made accusations that the United States had used biological weapons in Korea.</i><br /><br />The US was using chemical weapons heavily during the Korean War - around 70,000 gallons of napalm a day - so it wasn't that much of a stretch to argue biological weapons were being used as well. <br /><br />It isn't a completely settled question. It isn't implausible that biological weapons may have been used. And it hasn't been just eccentric characters like Needham that have made the claim, but contemporary scholars and historians have claimed it as well. Endicott and Hagerman are mainstream contemporary historians who wrote a book arguing that the US did engage in biological warfare during the Korean War, launching a number of biological attacks to spread anthrax, cholera, and smallpox viruses, as well as other disease-causing agents:<br /><br />http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=19891Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34007520074892248212012-10-17T21:30:51.461-07:002012-10-17T21:30:51.461-07:00The problem is that Jesus was NOT BORN on that cer...<i>The problem is that Jesus was NOT BORN on that certain date. Maybe you think he was (and on December 25 to boot), but unbiased historians say most likely 7 BC to 4 BC</i> <br /><br /><br />What a moron you are. The people saying that are Christian scholars who base it on the text of the Bible. The same Bible you don't believe in.<br /><br />Whether Jesus was "born on that certain date" is really irrelevant. Unless you think that MLK Day can't really have anything to do with MLK, because MLK Day does not actually fall on MLK's birthday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14363681679439159122012-10-17T21:30:49.414-07:002012-10-17T21:30:49.414-07:00It is largely wrong because it was standard Judeo-...<i>It is largely wrong because it was standard Judeo-Protestant propaganda slamming the "backward Catholics". The liberals and progressives picked it up too. In many ways, the Reformation was a step backwards from both the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance.</i><br /><br />Anti-Catholic bias may color the negative reputation of the Dark Ages, but pro-Catholic and anti-Protestant bias also colors the kind of revisionism you see glorifying the Dark Ages.<br /><br />The fact is that it was no accident that the scientific revolution quickly followed the Reformation. The experimentation in religious and moral belief unleashed by the Reformation encouraged the application of experimentation to all questions and overthrew the hegemony of Scholastic argumentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70852010464509920342012-10-17T20:34:31.434-07:002012-10-17T20:34:31.434-07:00The problem is that Jesus was NOT BORN on that cer...<i><br />The problem is that Jesus was NOT BORN on that certain date. Maybe you think he was (and on December 25 to boot), but unbiased historians say most likely 7 BC to 4 BC.</i><br /><br />Seriously folks, it doesn't matter at all how close the year 1 A.D. is to the actual birth of Jesus. I would have thought that obvious at least to iSteve commenters. We have that calendar because of the cultural influence of Christianity on Europe and the world has Europe's calendar because of the influence of Europe on the world. <br /><br />That is it. That is all there is. <br /><br />Of course Christians wanted the calendar to begin accurately right at Jesus' birth, but hey, that is actually hard to do after centuries have passed. So, they settled on something they hoped was accurate and the gov't enforced it. Pretty simple. You don't have to believe the Jesus was born right then. You just have to believe that Christians in Europe set up the Christian calendar. If you don't believe that, you are an idiot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72110885044956467432012-10-17T18:57:58.496-07:002012-10-17T18:57:58.496-07:00>while tax rates went down the amount of taxes ...>while tax <i>rates</i> went down the amount of taxes people actually pay keeps going up<<br /><br />A sign of a healthy economy, if true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19732347721621973042012-10-17T17:15:37.791-07:002012-10-17T17:15:37.791-07:00Deregulation and the lowering of federal tax rates...<i>Deregulation and the lowering of federal tax rates has been the overall story for the past 40 years.</i><br /><br />In what universe? In this one we've seen more and more regulation, and while tax <i>rates</i> went down the amount of taxes people actually pay keeps going up.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82520600122371782622012-10-17T15:28:18.979-07:002012-10-17T15:28:18.979-07:00The problem here is the widespread belief in a &qu...<i>The problem here is the widespread belief in a "Dark Age" in Europe. This belief (which is of European origin but which has been picked up by non Europeans) is largely wrong.</i><br /><br />It is largely wrong because it was standard Judeo-Protestant propaganda slamming the "backward Catholics". The liberals and progressives picked it up too. In many ways, the Reformation was a step backwards from both the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com