Re: POLITICS - ephedra - should we license herbalists?

[Guest guest]

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> For

> the rest of the populace, you must insist that libertarianism also works

> better, but unfortunately, what evidence and science we have are against

> you.

Your evidence for that, I presume, would be a reference to the oft-cited " My

Being Right and Your Being Wrong: A Comprehensive Review, " from the

International Journal of Because I Said So?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>Your evidence for that, I presume, would be a reference to the oft-cited " My

>Being Right and Your Being Wrong: A Comprehensive Review, " from the

>International Journal of Because I Said So?

>

This is a good one, . I'm going to have to remember this one.

>--

> Berg

>bberg@...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

>Your evidence for that, I presume, would be a reference to the oft-cited " My

>Being Right and Your Being Wrong: A Comprehensive Review, " from the

>International Journal of Because I Said So?

Have you already forgotten your stunningly anti-dictionary anti-usage of

the word " socialism " which I was required to correct at length? And how

about 's insistence that libertarianism is in perfect accordance

with human nature based on (or supported by) a citation which argues from

something called " natural law " which doesn't resemble anything in all of

nature, including the human portion? Or how about your doctrinaire

certainty that because lipids are made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen,

plants must be manufacturing them entirely out of air and purely using

solar energy, meaning that unlimited fuel oil could be harvested from soil

without any net input from man or any net reduction in soil fertility

provided the non-lipid portions of the plant were composted and plowed back

into the ground?

Any of that nonsense ring a bell?

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> -

>> Your evidence for that, I presume, would be a reference to the

>> oft-cited " My Being Right and Your Being Wrong: A Comprehensive

>> Review, " from the International Journal of Because I Said So?

>

> Have you already forgotten your stunningly anti-dictionary anti-usage

> of the word " socialism " ...

Apparently one of us has. As I remember it, one of the bases of my

argument was the fact that my definition of the word was the one given

in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Hardly anti-dictionary.

> which I was required to correct at length?

That's definitely not how I saw it.

> And how about 's insistence that libertarianism is in perfect

> accordance with human nature based on (or supported by) a citation

> which argues from something called " natural law " which doesn't

> resemble anything in all of nature, including the human portion?

No comment. I wasn't following. I was responding to your claim that the

available science and evidence suggested that most people would not be

better off in a freer economy. Putting aside the question of that

claim's verity, it certainly requires a great deal more support than you

provided.

> Or

> how about your doctrinaire certainty that because lipids are made of

> carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, plants must be manufacturing them

> entirely out of air

Specifically, carbon dioxide. And water.

> and purely using solar energy, meaning that

> unlimited fuel oil could be harvested from soil without any net input

> from man or any net reduction in soil fertility provided the

> non-lipid portions of the plant were composted and plowed back into

> the ground?

What do you want? A detailed explanation of the chemical processes

involved in photosynthesis? I don't think I said anything that you

wouldn't find in any biology textbook, and I pointed you to a study

which purported to show a net energy gain for corn-based ethanol

production. Your apparent belief that the energy content of crops is

somehow related to the amount of fuel oil expended in raising them

totally flies in the face of everything I know about biology (not much,

but enough to see something strange in the picture you're painting). If

you would like to explain this hypothesis of yours, then I'd be happy to

consider it, but I can't very well provide a rebuttal when I can't even

begin to guess the mechanism which you believe to be involved here.

By the way, if I'm tilting at strawmen, it's unintentional. If this is

all a miscommunication, I would be very grateful for a clarification,

because I'm completely mystified at this point.