I was leaning on the idea of drug legalization. But maybe shouldnt take the thread that direction without the OP's permission.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Do you claim to know what is tangible and what is not ... in advance?

quote Originally posted by User00013170: In a case like this, yes.

"What good is a newborn baby?" ~ Benjamin Franklin

We disagree, you and I. I am unwilling to cede to you, or any other individual or group with a political agenda, the power to decide what research is likely to produce "tangible" results and what is not ... 50 years or more in advance.

One "tangible" example: Sir Alexander Fleming's research into common bread mold seems frivolous and irrelevant on its surface, until you remember that it eventually resulted in Penicillin ... the first highly effective antibiotic.

I do believe, however, that government funding of research is a legitimate topic of discussion. But if you really want to save money, the Department of Defense is the place to start. Over half of the total federal R&D budget goes into finding more effective or efficient ways to kill or exert military superiority over other people.

U.S. Government Research & Development Budget -- FY 2013:

50.6% -- Department of Defense
22.3% -- Department of Health & Human Services^* (primarily the National Institutes of Health)
8.5% -- Department of Energy^**
6.8% -- NASA^***
4.2% -- National Science Foundation
1.8% -- Department of Commerce
1.6% -- Department of Agriculture
0.8% -- Department of Veterans Affairs
0.8% -- Department of Transportation
2.6 % -- (all other)

^* Performs some R&D related to chemical and biological weapons and systems
^** Performs some R&D related to nuclear weapons and systems
^*** Performs some R&D related to airborne and space-based weapons and systems


There was one 400 year period in our shared Euro-American history in which there was no research ... and thus no new knowledge. Today we call it the Dark Ages. How did this happen? One human institution, the Catholic Church, held a monopoly on knowledge at the time. Not only did the Church suppress other sources of knowledge, it aggressively struck down any attempts to challenge its monopoly ... right up until the European Renaissance. I have no interest in returning such a situation, where a small ruling class determines what is worth knowing and what is not. Knowledge is good.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-31-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: There was one 400 year period in our shared history in which there was no research ... and thus no new knowledge. Today we call it the Dark Ages. How did this happen? One human institution, the Catholic Church, held a monopoly on knowledge at the time. Not only did the Church suppress other sources of knowledge, it aggressively struck down any attempts to challenge its monopoly ... right up until the European Renaissance. I have no interest in returning such a situation, where a small ruling class determines what is worth knowing and what is not. Knowledge is good.

It's shocking in this day and age to see that some people still need to have this brought to their attention. Shocking... and sad.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Over half of the total federal R&D budget goes into finding more effective or efficient ways to kill or exert military superiority over other people.

Careful Marvin, you'll be looked upon here (by a select few) of being a leftist liberal commie pinko panty-waist boy.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 07-31-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: There was one 400 year period in our shared history in which there was no research ... and thus no new knowledge. Today we call it the Dark Ages. How did this happen? One human institution, the Catholic Church, held a monopoly on knowledge at the time. Not only did the Church suppress other sources of knowledge, it aggressively struck down any attempts to challenge its monopoly ... right up until the European Renaissance. I have no interest in returning such a situation, where a small ruling class determines what is worth knowing and what is not. Knowledge is good.

It was bigger than one religion.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: There was one 400 year period in our shared history in which there was no research ... and thus no new knowledge. Today we call it the Dark Ages. How did this happen? One human institution, the Catholic Church, held a monopoly on knowledge at the time. Not only did the Church suppress other sources of knowledge, it aggressively struck down any attempts to challenge its monopoly ... right up until the European Renaissance. I have no interest in returning such a situation, where a small ruling class determines what is worth knowing and what is not. Knowledge is good.

Never mind the barbarian hordes that brought down the Roman Empire. The cause of the "Dark Ages", according to you, was the Catholic Church.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It was bigger than one religion.

I agree. There is never one single cause for a complex social and cultural phenomenon.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Never mind the barbarian hordes that brought down the Roman Empire. The cause of the "Dark Ages", according to you, was the Catholic Church.

The "cause" of the Dark Ages in their entirety? Of course not. The suppression of knowledge during the Dark Ages? The Church was most definitely the primary factor. This is part of what the Christian Reformation was about.

For an approachable introduction to the subject, I recommend Umberto Eco's historical novel The Name of the Rose (1980) and the 1986 film adaptation of the same name.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-31-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It was bigger than one religion.

Yeah, religion in general and none being worse than statism.

quote Never mind the barbarian hordes that brought down the Roman Empire. The cause of the "Dark Ages", according to you, was the Catholic Church.

"Barbarian hordes" could be (perhaps unintentionally, in this case) misleading. The Roman Empire's politics and policies had a large hand in its eventual undoing. A new generation of scholars has described Caesar's conquest of the Gauls (51 BC) as largely unprovoked, clearly out of line with Republican Roman ideals and nothing nobler than genocide, or at least attempted genocide. Caesar decimated the Gauls--and the Romans who stood up to denounce that campaign as "aggression" and alien to Roman ideals. The same or other like-minded scholars, on Alaric's sacking of Rome (410 AD), find the Roman Empire's leaders as treacherous and unjust towards the Visigoths. That was a downfall that need not have been provoked by the Romans.

Just a cautionary remark, about the pitfalls of looking at history (ancient or recent) in an unrealistically simplified way. No more. No less.

Formula88: Thanks for that most excellent video segment.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-31-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Careful Marvin, you'll be looked upon here (by a select few) of being a leftist liberal commie pinko panty-waist boy.

What do you mean, "will be"? I am what I am (quoting paraphrasing Popeye now!), regardless of labels others may seek to impose upon me.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-31-2013).]

maybe they were sacrificed BECAUSE they were drunk & stoned?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I am what I am (quoting Popeye now!)...

You're so highbrow... although it's "I yam what I yam."

quote Originally posted by Patrick: ... it's "I yam what I yam."

Feeling "Pickier than thou" today, are we? Mea culpa!

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-31-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: "Barbarian hordes" could be (perhaps unintentionally, in this case) misleading. The Roman Empire's politics and policies had a large hand in its eventual undoing. A new generation of scholars has described Caesar's conquest of the Gauls (51 BC) as largely unprovoked, clearly out of line with Republican Roman ideals and nothing nobler than genocide, or at least attempted genocide. Caesar decimated the Gauls--and the Romans who stood up to denounce that campaign as "aggression" and alien to Roman ideals. The same or other like-minded scholars, on Alaric's sacking of Rome (410 AD), find the Roman Empire's leaders as treacherous and unjust towards the Visigoths. That was a downfall that need not have been provoked by the Romans. Just a cautionary remark, about the pitfalls of looking at history (ancient or recent) in an unrealistically simplified way. No more. No less.

In other words, Rome was brought down by the barbarian hordes, just as I stated.

My "simplified" way of looking at history was a response in kind to Marvin's simplistic way of looking at it. The fact is that the start of the Dark Age or more accurately, Middle Ages, is the fall of the Roman Empire. A great deal of knowledge, and civilization was lost with the fall of Rome. That loss was not caused by the Catholic Church as Marvin seems to think.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Feeling "Pickier than thou" today, are we? Mea culpa!

Despite all the nonsense we see posted here in O/T, I just don't feel that a cultural icon such as Popeye should be misquoted. I got me standards ya know.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: For an approachable introduction to the subject, I recommend Umberto Eco's historical novel The Name of the Rose (1980) and the 1986 film adaptation of the same name.

A novel? Really? How about I just watch the The Da Vinci Code too while I'm at it.

No thanks. I'll stick to reading history books and watching documentaries when I want to learn something.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: That loss was not caused by the Catholic Church as Marvin seems to think.

Stop misrepresenting what I posted. I did NOT say that the Dark Ages were "caused by the Catholic Church." I said that the Church was responsible for actively suppressing new knowledge during that period. I stand by what I actually said.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Stop misrepresenting what I posted. I did NOT say that the Dark Ages were "caused by the Catholic Church." I said that the Church was responsible for actively suppressing new knowledge during that period. I stand by what I actually said.

Your implication was clear and wrong. Even your clarification is wrong. There were scientific studies and discoveries made, including by Catholic monks and scholars during the Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...e_in_the_Middle_Ages

I love the subject matter of page 2!
This stuff is so interesting to me.

It's what I would talk about in real life, with real friends, if I had those things!

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I love the subject matter of page 2! This stuff is so interesting to me. It's what I would talk about in real life, with real friends, if I had those things!

R/L is over rated.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: R/L is over rated.

I know, but it's the only place I can make this thing they call money.
They say I gotta' have it.

I hate they.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I know, but it's the only place I can make this thing they call money. They say I gotta' have it. I hate they.

There are other ways to stay virtual and still make money that translates into R/L money.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: There are other ways to stay virtual and still make money that translates into R/L money.

Yeah, but no one will pay me to whack off...

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-31-2013).]

Vodka's solid state.

Kinda' makes me think of my life as just that; in a stupor slowly walking to my sacrifice.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your implication was clear and wrong.

No, I meant exactly what I said ... neither more nor less. Your misrepresentation does not change that.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-01-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It was bigger than one religion.

The Daily Banter's Ben Cohen takes issue with part of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's presentation.

Mr. Cohen disputes that Al Ghazali's "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" can be reduced to "mathematics is the work of the devil", and he disputes that Al Ghazali was single handedly responsible for the decline of Islamic innovation that started about 1100 AD, after 300 years of spectacular Islamic inventions in the fields of math and science during the Islamic Golden Age.

Mr. Cohen also points out the impact of the Crusades, starting with the First Crusade in 1096.

http://thedailybanter.com/2...slamic-anti-science/

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-01-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Kinda' makes me think of my life as just that; in a stupor slowly walking to my sacrifice.

Life is pretty much what we make it I suppose.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: No, I meant exactly what I said ... neither more nor less. Your misrepresentation does not change that.

What you actually posted:

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: There was one 400 year period in our shared history in which there was no research ... and thus no new knowledge. Today we call it the Dark Ages. How did this happen? One human institution, the Catholic Church, held a monopoly on knowledge at the time.

If we look at the structure of your statements then it goes like this: observation, rhetorical question, answer to rhetorical question.

Observation: "There was one 400 year period in our shared history in which there was no research ... and thus no new knowledge. Today we call it the Dark Ages."
Rhetorical question: "How did this happen?"
Answer: "One human institution, the Catholic Church, held a monopoly on knowledge at the time."

The question, "How did this happen?", is asking for a cause. Your obfuscation does not change that.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: If we look at the structure of your statements then it goes like this ...

I don't know what set you off, but your misunderstanding and/or intentional misrepresentation changes nothing. I meant exactly what I said ... neither more nor less.

Hint: "How did this happen?" This refers to the suppression of knowledge, not to the epoch in which it occurred.

I decline to continue this silly argument. My apologies to Boondawg for my part in derailing his thread.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-01-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Valium. My chemical romance...

Sure it wasn't Quaalude?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I don't know what set you off, but your misunderstanding and/or intentional misrepresentation changes nothing. I meant exactly what I said ... neither more nor less. Hint: "How did this happen?" This refers to the suppression of knowledge, not to the epoch in which it occurred. I'm done with this silly argument.

Let me know when you are done rewriting history and spreading your religious bigotry.

The truth is that there was no Catholic inquisition running around Europe for a thousand years suppressing scientific pursuits. That is a fiction that exists only in your mind. There was the mishandling of Galileo and the Condemnations of 1210-1277 which actually caused scholars to question Aristotelian science and find its flaws. The incident with Galileo happened after the Middle Ages and the Condemnations happened in the late Middle Ages and can hardly be blamed for the lack of scientific discovery during the entire period.

The true cause of the lack of scientific discoveries of the Middle Ages was the loss of knowledge from the fall of the Roman Empire. That is the elephant in the room you refuse to acknowledge. Your theory of the Catholic Church as the main cause is absurd and not supported by any historians that I can find.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac Newton

Take away the "giants" that Newton stood on, and his an all other scientists of that era would have either not existed or would have struggled with rediscovering what was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...c_Church_and_science

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Let me know when you are done rewriting history and spreading your religious bigotry. The truth is that there was no Catholic inquisition running around Europe for a thousand years suppressing scientific pursuits. That is a fiction that exists only in your mind. There was the mishandling of Galileo and the Condemnations of 1210-1277 which actually caused scholars to question Aristotelian science and find its flaws. The incident with Galileo happened after the Middle Ages and the Condemnations happened in the late Middle Ages and can hardly be blamed for the lack of scientific discovery during the entire period. The true cause of the lack of scientific discoveries of the Middle Ages was the loss of knowledge from the fall of the Roman Empire. That is the elephant in the room you refuse to acknowledge. Your theory of the Catholic Church as the main cause is absurd and not supported by any historians that I can find. "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac Newton Take away the "giants" that Newton stood on, and his an all other scientists of that era would have either not existed or would have struggled with rediscovering what was lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...c_Church_and_science

scientists were labelled witches, sorcerers and devil worshipers. and guess what happened to them?

yes, blaming the Dark Ages on this might be going a bit far. But, when did Gods Word get translated to a common tongues? before, during, after, the dark ages? should be an important clue as to how Gods Word was used. I wont say they are guitly of the charges - but they most certianly are not innocent.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: scientists were labelled witches, sorcerers and devil worshipers. and guess what happened to them?

You are basing this statement on what? I have a number of history books and not a single one gives a single account of the Catholic Church doing anything like what you state or allude to.

I posted several Wiki articles above that support my statements and describe the true history. Unfortunately, Hollywood movies put out so much disinformation that the true history is drowned out.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: You are basing this statement on what? I have a number of history books and not a single one gives a single account of the Catholic Church doing anything like what you state or allude to. I posted several Wiki articles above that support my statements and describe the true history. Unfortunately, Hollywood movies put out so much disinformation that the true history is drowned out.

of course not. not the Catholic Church. Just its members.

so, how did people get labelled as witches, sorcerers, etc? are you claiming they did REAL magic?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: of course not. not the Catholic Church. Just its members. so, how did people get labelled as witches, sorcerers, etc? are you claiming they did REAL magic?

We are talking about science and scientists being suppressed by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. What examples do you have of that happening.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 08-01-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: We are talking about science and scientists being suppressed by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. What examples do you have of that happening.

causes of sickness. weather/earthquakes/lightning. earths place in the universe. geology. genetics. chemistry/alchemy. psychology.
I think "heretic" is the word?

but, of course, I would expect the church was all in for any science which would help kill infidels. so, I suppose there is that....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: causes of sickness. weather/earthquakes/lightning. earths place in the universe. geology. genetics. chemistry/alchemy. psychology. I think "heretic" is the word? but, of course, I would expect the church was all in for any science which would help kill infidels. so, I suppose there is that....

We are talking about science and scientists being suppressed by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. What examples do you have of that happening?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: My apologies to Boondawg for my part in derailing his thread.

No, no, I always garner something from these exchanges.
And anytime someone can get Pyrthian (i'm a fan!) to throw in, hell yeah, in for a penny in for a pound!

Besides, i've been verbally reminded MANY times that I have no rights, claims, or control over any posts or threads I create.
In that sense, the desire of responders staying on topic is nothing more then a pleasent fiction.

There are a few people here who's words I relish reading.
You are one of those people.

But don't ask who else.......you might not like the company you keep!

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-01-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Did I say that? No, I did NOT say that. Please don't make assumptions about what I post to try and pigeon-hole me.

Ok, well this is what you said: "...I certainly hope you're not suggesting that this is just a recent phenomenon."

So, at best, you're being cryptic...