Bible-beater pilots

On 25-Nov-2003, studentpilot
wrote:

I believe in life after death, only in minds of the living.

I believe in death after life (seems more logical to me).

Fred,

Religion is based on faith.

Science is based on doubt.


A good one!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Jay Honeck wrote:

However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a miracle.
THAT scares me.

Smells like resignation to me. Isn't that one of the Dangerous Attitudes
we're warned about in ground school? Pilot Decision Making for Private
Pilots and all that good stuff?

Religion could also lead to the invulnerability Dangerous Attitude. (Dog
protects me, therefore I'm safe, etc)...

Doesn't sound safe to me.

Only half joking,

Brian.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Ash Wyllie wrote:

Dan Luke opined

"Wdtabor" wrote:
America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
aren't liberal.

Where do I sign up for the new party?

WWW.LP.ORG

Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism
betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens
liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of
government, religion, labor unions or business.

Of all the organizations mentioned, only governments claim the right to shoot
first and ask questions later.

Really? Read some history before you make statements like that. I'd start
with the British East India Company, Dutch East Indies Company, the
Belgians in the Congo, and anything Cecil Rhodes was involved in.

All those wonderfully unrestrained capitalist companies - and they started
to look a lot like governments after a fairly short while. Including the
use of force and similar entertainments.

Brian.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Wdtabor wrote:

In article ,
(Teacherjh) writes:



Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with
insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.


You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.


If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.

Does consumer/public protection always equal "accomodating the stupid",
though?

Actually, what I wonder is what's in it for the *insurance companies* in
this regulation-by-insurance scheme. They don't seem to gain anything by
it except additional trouble.

Let's stick with dentists for a bit, seeing as we got their insurance
involved earlier in the thread. Currently, AFAIK, if you apply for dental
malpractice insurance, and can't produce a gov't approved Dr of Dentistry
certificate, the company is going to say, "Talk to us after you graduate,
kid."

After all, the certificate shows at least basic competence in dentistry. I
bet that most new dentists pay nearly the same insurance rates, and that
those later go up/down depending on how much you use your insurance to
protect yourself.

Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
competent now?

The company now has to somehow test the competence of everyone who applies
to get their dental practice covered, or risk going broke paying out
malpractice claims. This means additional expense & complication for the
insurance company. Why would any sane, minding-the-bottom-line company
WANT this libertarian ideal to take root?

What if a dentist wants to change insurance companies? Sooner or later
you'd wind up back at a universally accepted standard of training, and
recognition of that with... wait for it... certificates/degrees etc in
dentistry.

Don't forget that most professional colleges, associations, etc started
out as self-regulating bodies to maintain/improve the respectability of
the profession. The AMA & co sought to reduce the number of quack doctors;
more recently we've seen midwives, massage therapists & other
para-medicals organize in their sectors.

Ultimately, I think Libertarianism is based on economic & sociological
theories that are just as flawed as those in Marxism...

To drag this back on topic (sort of...) swap "pilot" or "aircraft
designer" for "dentist" in my example above.

Brian.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, G.R. Patterson III wrote:



jim rosinski wrote:

What a profoundly depressing view of one's life.

My mother believes that we inherit all our abilities and can't do any better
than our ancestors. If one of us gets training in something and turns out to be
good at it, she immediately starts trying to figure out which of our ancestors
we "got that from".

Wow. So what's she going to do when one of her grandkids/great-grandkids
becomes an astronaut & goes to the Moon?

No ancestor to 'get that from'! (Well, except for whatever descendants
twelve lucky Yanks have!)

Brian.

John,

There are far bigger issues to deal with around here than
having "Allah" or "God" or "Buddha" printed on my money.


Uh, yes? Look at what state the world is in because of people believing
in God, Allah and Buddha. Seems to me it's pretty important how we deal
with these myths.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

Sheesh. The energy you're wasting on that would be better directed to
something *really* worthwhile - like eliminating the DC ADIZ.


The DC ADIZ is there because some people took their version of "In God
we trust" just a little bit further - that's the point. Ok, they took it
a whole lot further, but I'm sure you understand my point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

Amazing what the world has come to when religion evokes less of an emotional
response than the choice of a piece of software.


Soudns to me like rationality has gone up ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Robert,

Experimentation is based on faith.


Huh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)