More specifically: Stokley Carmichael, the man who popularized the slogan, defined it pretty clearly in his speech at Berkeley. What Black Power ultimately represents is the capacity of blacks to act freely and of our own will within society, or to not require permission to perform x or y action.

Some do. Some are also just assholes. Being in the military in and of itself should never warrant respect or admiration or gratitude. Good conduct, first and foremost, and service, second, should.

The computer is a product of labor--and labor exists independent of the market system within which it operates. To attribute the very existence of things to an economic system is misguided.

Fascism is philosophically opposed to liberalism. This was actually explained quite explicitly by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile in the treatise "The Doctrine of Fascism".

National Socialism is actually a fairly apt nomenclature of the German absorption of Fascist ideals from a political standpoint, because Fascism specifically views the society, and its subsets of individuals, corporations and other legal entities as only relational to the nation-state apparatus.

It's also important to note that the Nazi party was quite literally the most right wing political option during Germany's elections, while they were still going on.

This isn't a very helpful answer, and I don't think you're able to provide me the type of answer that I'm looking for.

Anyway, have a good day.

Thank you for the response. Let's ignore whether animals evolve in the scientific usage. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care if speciation occurs. Or whether limbs can be grown or lost, or an alligator can turn into a snake or vice versa.

I'm just concerned with clarifying what you mean when you say "adaptation".

So to my first question: if genes are programmed to be adaptive, what is happening in or to them? Mechanistically, how does adaptation occur at the genetic level?

I need some clarity on this.

Let us agree for the moment that genes are programmed to adapt, whether by some kind of externality or basic chemistry. I don't entirely disagree with using the word adaptation as an overarching term, but I don't think it's particularly precise enough.

We're still left with (1) identifying what mechanism activates to allow adaptation to occur, and to occur in beneficial ways, when genes are put up against new selective pressures. And I think more importantly, we still have to identify (2) whether adaptation occurs within the same generation first encountering new selective pressures or between/across multiple generations experiencing new selective pressures.

So, when you argue that genes are adaptive, what is happening in or to the genes when adaptation is occurring? And does it occur within or between generations?

Liberal here:

most of the federal debt is government owned: a mix of inter-state and inter-agency debt from federal bond issuances. That is, the government owes itself a lot of money. Of the total debt, a significant but not remotely debilitating portion is foreign debt. However, America is owed more in loans that it owes in debt to nearly a 9:1 ratio.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce the debt. But it's not as significant a problem in the way that many conservative republicans suggest it is.

The story of Judah and Tamar strongly suggests that your view of sex and marriage is out of sync with god's.

Whether god does or does not exist seems irrelevant to our moral considerations. Morality is a fully human convention.

Multiple lines of research actually predicted this a few years ago. In fact, there was already an announcement made in 2011 that a new solar minimum would occur. You can do a quick Google search to verify this. But the expectation was that we quite possibly should have already been experiencing it.

Solar activity is generally very predictable. Around every 11 years, the sun enters a cycle of increased activity. And then after a while it settles down. If this announcement is in fact accurate, it looks like it's making the already established prediction more precise, not establishing a totally new body of knowledge that contradicts climate science.

That being said, solar activity isn't the primary agent for the current rise in average global temperatures. Multiple lines of independent evidence strongly suggest that human activity is the primary cause and that hasn't changed.

AIDS is a clinical state caused by an immunodeficiency virus. It can't go airborne. Even if that wasn't the case, having legal recognition won't make anything except for gay marriage more widespread. I'm not even sure if you're serious, which is unfortunate.

I am actually intimately familiar with the Communist Manifesto. I will even summarize it for you: it is first important to note, however, that the Communist Manifesto is not only a call to arms, but a post-Hegelian historical analysis and critique involving what has come to be known as the Dialectical and Historical Materialism(s).

Marx begins: there is a specter in Europe called Communism. 1a. Enemies of whatever political party will use it to denigrate their opponents. Communism represents that which haunts the bourgeoisie establishment and its supporters

But, this is a historical analysis. And as such, we must deal with history. 2a. The history of all hitherto human society is the history of class struggle. (Dialectical materialism) 2b. The modern bourgeoisie (capitalists) have not gained their status through ability, but the theft of resources from the preexisting Feudal system in Europe, and the passage of history. 2c. The modern bourgeoisie society, with its classes and systems of discipline (i.e. an education) that would teach the petite bourgeoisie (shop operators, small business owners, artisans etc.), and the proletariat that the bourgeoisie are in their "proper place" is merely a continuation of that feudal system. 2d. Thus, history is one of antagonism, and the Capitalist society is merely a space for which the bourgeoisie may operate so as to perpetuate their historical, "feudal" power over the masses. According to Marx, we are living a kind of Hegelian master-slave dynamic in a Capitalist society.

So, the arrival of the bourgeoisie (capitalists: those who own the means of production (not to be confused with simply "rich people")) is the result of a historical process. 3a. And with each revolution in the means of production and exchange, the bourgeoisie have attained an equivalent level of political power. 3b. This power according to Marx rises to the extent that "the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." For many Americans, that should sound very familiar.

And since the end of the feudal era, Man's natural connection to his production has been replaced with a heartless "cash payment". We are all no more than wage laborers, individual commodities ourselves, who have lost a level of consciousness and identity, and lowered to a level of simple economic calculation. 4a. it should be noted that the bourgeoisie requires the constant revolutionizing of the means of production. And it has functioned in such a manner that property and so forth have become increasingly centralized into the hands of a few (plutocrats). 4b. But so to has the labor been increasingly centralized, transported from the rural areas to the great metropolises.

But, "we" (Communists) strive for Democracy. And the "battle for Democracy" can only be won when the masses acquire political and economic solidarity, and political and economic power. 5a. This requires the ultimate dissolution of the class system, as such. Since it is the historical force of the dialectical materialism (2a.) that does injury to the democratic process, and the ability of the masses to move within the political sphere. 5b. Class consciousness arises, calling for a direct struggle with the bourgeoisie. 5c. At first, the bourgeoisie will be able to move the proletariat as they begin to revolt. And for a time, they will succeed in encouraging the proletariat to fight the enemies of the bourgeoisie on their behalf. The proletariat end up fighting the proletariat (the progressive liberal vs the reactionary conservative), and this will continue throughout the struggle. 5d. But, because the bourgeoisie have centralized labor, and labor now sees the common thread of their un-powered and unconscious, disfranchized state, begin to form union. 5e. As the bourgeoisie see the strength of the proletariat class rising, they will begin to attempt to fortify their already "acquired" status. But, having no meaningful "thing" to fortify themselves, the proletariat class (which includes the proletariat, the petite bourgeoisie and those bourgeoisie who are sympathetic) will seek to destroy all previous institutions of individual private property, since that property is not in their hands and only in the hands of the very few.

The aim of the Communist Party is to form the proletariat into a class, and dissolve bourgeoisie supremacy. 1a. The Communist Party merely expresses already existing relationships (i.e. between production and history, and of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie).

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property (means of production: factories etc.. That is to say, capital, as such, would be removed as "private property"). 2b. "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! There is no need to abolish that..." Marx argued. ...industry has already destroyed much of it, and still does. 2c. Wage labor does not produce property. It produces capital. 2d. But, to be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production ( a distinction between "a capitalist" and a wage laborer in a capitalist society). Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. 2e. Capital is a social commodity and not a private one. The Communist Party would see capital belonging to those who created it (the collected action of the society). It belongs to "everyone", as such.

In the bourgeoisie society, wage labor only seeks to increase labor (or the labor force). And as such, labor exists to increase the available capital to the capitalists. 1a. In such a society, it is the capital that is independent and has individuality, because it is that which all of our concerns are oriented. The laborer (what he calls "the living person") has no individuality, nor is he/she independent, because the laborer is dependent on capital and their wage. 1b. In the Communist society, labor is used to enrich the laborer. 1c. But, because the capital has been tied to individuality and independence, any attack on capital (and its system) becomes an assault on "freedom and individuality". 1d. The historical laborer (he/she who is trapped in the class struggle, and the education of the bourgeoisie) is horrified at the promise to do away with private property. But the Communists only seek to socialize that property, which nine-tenths of the population are already without. Its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. 1e. You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" the capitalist means no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property, since you neither own the property, nor can claim individuality as you are a dependent laborer. You are defending the private property of someone who has been subjugating you (see Malcolm X's House vs Field Slave/Negro dichotomy).

But, Communism seeks to dissolve private property so that no man may subjugate another man's labor. It does not deprive a man of attaining the fruitful products of his or her society.

According to Marx, there will be a transitional period between the revolution and the Communist society. 1a. It will require that the state retains ownership of the means of production. But the state is no more than the class of the proletariat. This ownership will require despotic inroads on property and production. It will require a centralized bank (crediting etc), control of communications and transportation networks. Free public education, equal obligation to work, to retain the education of the masses and the "class consciousness" as such. 1b. But, if history has been supplanted, then also will the proletariat as a class cease to exist. It is at that time when the transition to Communism is complete: no classes, no "state" as such; it will be dissolved, since the collective proleteriate was the state. 1c. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Communism.

Marx then proceeds to make distinctions between "types of Communism'. But, for the purposes of the Manifesto as a historical analysis, the summary is complete.

Why did god have to rest after creation if he is all powerful?

Omnipotence does not make stamina a non-issue. But, "rest" is used in a particular way, which denotes a ceasing of action.

Higher taxes for everybody. Allowing people to keep their money to spend may help the economy, but it doesn't directly, indirectly or necessarily invest in education or forms infrastructure, which prove more vital to the overall success of a country than how much money businesses are making or people are saving.

You're certainty isn't supported by the evidence. According to present statistics on the NFL website, Robert Griffin III (67%) completes more passes than both Andrew Luck (56%) and Eli Manning (60%), while averaging nearly a yard longer per pass attempt. Robert Griffin is also one of only two Quarterbacks to every get a perfect quarterback rating in his rookie season, and currently has a higher average quarterback rating than both of the players you've mentioned at 104.

The situation is a bit more nuanced than the Fox article and the comments here suggest.

Yawn.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

If you've got it in your head that it's possible to be prosperous in America independent of public help, then you're deluded, and I've got no time for indulging delusional people. If your response - whether it's made public or held private - isn't anything but, "I made a mistake in quoting Obama out of context," I've got no time for you either. You can take your bullshit elsewhere.

Your choice of words is a little misleading.

First, the Bible isn't "Christian". It's just a canon. And the canon that is commonly referred to as the Bible contains two different books, in its most popular form: the Tanakh (the Old Testament), which includes the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim comprise one book; and the Greek Scriptures (New Testament), which include the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse make up the other book.

The Tanakh is included in many Bibles because it's considered sacred by many denominations of Christianity, but not the covenant Christians believe they have made with their god. And this is why not all canons actually contain the Old Testament, or all of the Old Testament, or even all of the New Testament. However, the Christian "Bible" is only characterized by the New Testament in whatever form it's presented, and the Tanakh is not part of the New Testament and therefore not "in" the Christian Bible.

Christian homosexuals are hypocrites

Old Testament = Jewish =/= Christian = New Testament.

My contention evades you still.

No, it doesn't. You chose, in the middle of our discussion, to introduce that contention. That is not, in fact, the contention I have been responding to. Nor do I care to respond to it, which is why I have never once acknowledged it.

Your point is provided in a few responses.

(1) To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime?

Implicit in this language is not the issue of whether the term is appropriate, but whether there is a difference between a murder - as hate crime - and a murder that is not. The question is not a terminological one, but one of meaningful distinction between the types of criminal activity. You reiterated this sentiment in the very following sentences:

(2) Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice.

(3) The same crimes should receive the same punishments.

Again, the issue you introduced is not one of terminological faults, but that there isn't any reason to distinguish the two kinds of behavior.

I beg to differ.

You can't beg to differ. I did not argue that the terms weren't necessary. I simply stated that they weren't sufficient. So, that they are included in the description of a hate crime isn't a contradiction of the point I made.

Your claim was that murders motivated by prejudice and bigotry pose a greater threat to society.

I argued that hate crimes are (1) indiscriminate, because anyone who fulfills the category that the victim represents was and is also a potential victim. Therefore, the entire category that the victim represents is endangered. That is why a man who kills his cheating wife isn't committing a hate crime and there is a difference between it and murdering a Jewish person, because he's Jewish. The latter presents a danger to every Jew. The former isn't a danger to every "cheating wife". (2) Non-hate crimes are discriminate, because they are not based on category judgements, and thus, only impact the intended victim. (3) Hate crimes can do greater injury to society, if they are not given proper attention - i.e. recognizing their difference and impact on the pluralism that underpins our societal formation.

As if to say the fact that the perpetrator was a murderer AND a racist somehow makes the crime worse.

You're making a category mistake. A person who murders a member of another race, who also happens to be racist, isn't necessarily committing a hate crime. His or her racism could have been purely incidental. The issue, as you have acknowledged, is largely one of motivation. You fail to acknowledge, however, that acting on that specific motivation presents a danger to more people than just the specific victim(s) in question. The victim in hate crimes are representative.

If he isn't likely to murder again then he isn't posing a danger to all women....

This isn't an appropriate response to the emboldened quote.

You insult my intelligence.

Not intentionally. However, being aware of the particular definition in use and acknowledging it are two different things. By suggesting that all murders constitute a hate crime, you are not acknowledging the difference and are instead choosing to equivocate the two uses of the term.

Oh, but hate is an adequate term?

Neither prejudice nor bigotry are sufficient terms.

Everybody belongs to one group or another. Everybody can can be categorized in one way or another, whether or not they were targeted because of this category.

Correct, but the premise upon which we allege bias-motivation characterizing the hate crime is on the relationship with the offender, the victim and the category, and not only the offender and the victim. The victim in a hate crime is merely incidental. The victim could have been anyone who fit the appropriate criteria. However, in non-hate crimes, the victims aren't purely incidental. The man who discovers his wife's infidelity isn't murdering a woman because she's a woman, thus posing a danger to all women or any woman. He's murdering his wife who cheated on him - and she's the object of his ire, not the category of "woman" to which she belongs. She doesn't substitute for the category. She isn't merely a representation. It is, in fact, not the case that "murder committed for nearly any reason" constitutes a danger to everyone in a particular category.

Perhaps what you're trying to say, is that a man who commits a crime based on bigotry is more likely to commit murder again, but juries and court systems already take into account the likelihood of a repeat murder.

This is, however, not at all what I was trying to say. I wrote what I meant to communicate.

What sense does it make to call a racially motivated murder a hate crime, but somehow a man who murders his wife because she cheated on him isn't committing a hate crime?

In the sense that precising definitions describe different uses for terms. You're using the word "hate" normatively (i.e. a particular emotional state that may or may not give impetus to activity). However, the term "hate" - in hate crime - delineates a particular biased-motivation in which the impetus is underpinned by categorization. "Hate" is a homonym in this case, and without being precise, in extending lexical definitions, we get muddled in convoluted back and forths, like we are now. You're using the word "hate" inappropriately in this case, to be concise. It's like the difference between "theory" in regular conversation and "theory" in scientific vernacular. Same word connoting different uses depending on the context.

Perhaps "Prejudice crime" doesn't have the same ring to it...

Prejudice isn't necessarily an adequate term to attend to the issue.

How do hate crimes do more damage to society?

That's a difficult question, and one that I don't think can be satisfactorily addressed here. Nor do I think that I'm adequately prepared or capable of making an even half-decent argument. But, I'll try. I think that, first and foremost, we must at least acknowledge that there are some axioms that we use to evaluate the severity of crimes and their proportional punishments. For example, we generally agree or assume that the intentional and unjustified act of taking someone's life is worse than an accidental act of taking someone's life. Implicit in this is the recognition of contextual differences: state of mind, specific impetus etc. And it is from this particular axiom where our judgments depart.

A murder, let's say, that does not constitute a hate crime is generally recognized as only involving the two parties: the offender and the victim in the crime. While we certainly take into consideration those people involved in the victim's life, it is not for them for whom we seek justice (presumably). It is the victim. Hate crimes, however, aren't simply acts of violence that do injury to the specific victim - because the victim is only a representative of the greater category to which the hatred is actually aimed. That is to say, the victim in this case only acts as a substitute for the category. And it is that category that is, thus, victimized.

But, how does that do injury to society? Hate crimes are not simile to other crimes. The crime, while committed against a single individual or group of individuals is actually an intended crime, substitutively, against a category of people to which the victim belongs. To not take into consideration that fact is to (1) give credence to the impetus that gave character to the crime, by not openly repudiating it. And (2) it ignores the fact that the impetus in question presents a danger to everyone in that category. That does direct injury to the pluralistic philosophies and practices that underpin much of societal formation in a variety of countries. To not reject the impetus and treat it as a "normal" crime is to suggest that while the crime is wrong insofar as a law has been broken, the motivation isn't by necessity wrong as well.

To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime?

I disagree. Not all murders are hate crimes. For example, a mother who murders her children because she thinks the world is going to end isn't committing a hate crime - not under jurisprudence and not definitionally.

Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice.

According to Chief Justice Rehnquist in his closing opinion on Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a sentiment I agree with, hate crimes do more damage to individuals and to society. And as he cites Blackstone: "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." Hate crimes, as they are defined, certainly fit that bill. And we also have to consider that we do take into consideration the circumstances of various violences. That's why we distinguish between degrees of murder. A premeditated murder is more severely punished than one that wasn't willfully conceived (i.e. voluntary manslaughter). And, there's little reason not to.