T1B

I did battle with the cops and was harassed by plainclothes RCMP when we tore shit up in Quebec City a couple of years ago.
Hurling a crowd control fence at riot gear laden, jackbooted thugs is a sweet experience I recommend everyone try at least once in their lives.

Unlike you pork rind eating, dirty undershirt, remote control commandos, hunkered down in your ultra-mortgaged, suburban "command and control centers".

:twisted:

We are millions, they are only G8

Summit up your ass!


....good times....~ sniff ~....good times....

Martyred wrote:I did battle with the cops

Rolling around on the ground weeping and clawing at your eyesballs hardly constitutes "doing battle"...

Martyred wrote:and was harassed by plainclothes RCMP when we tore shit up in Quebec City a couple of years ago.

Let me get this straight - you "tore shit up," and are trying to call the police response "harassment." Oh, okay. We have a lot of people who feel the same way you do.

We call them "criminals."

Martyred wrote:Hurling a crowd control fence at riot gear laden, jackbooted thugs is a sweet experience I recommend everyone try at least once in their lives.

Mmmmm...no, that's OK. I like our system of government just fine. I'm friends with the cops. I have a deputy sheriff as a neighbor. Our kids are in the same first-grade class. Police are good people. They lock up folks who "tear shit up" that doesn't belong to them.

Martyred wrote:Unlike you pork rind eating,

Never had one.

Martyred wrote:dirty undershirt,

Nope. Wrong again. We have these things in the U.S. called "washing machines" and a special chemical called "detergent." I realize that activists often share the hygiene habits of Deadheads (or lack thereof), but really, mix in a bar of soap - the patchouli thing is wearing thin.

Martyred wrote:remote control commandos,

Actually, those "commandos" are as much "veterans" as your credentials make you...

Martyred wrote:hunkered down in your ultra-mortgaged, suburban "command and control centers".

You mean sittin' back in front of a fully-paid-for computer, knockin' back a Scotch, and mocking your silly ass?

Martyred wrote:I did battle with the cops...

Sig material.

Marty the midget did battle with the coppers...from 10 or 50 rows back of course, while he hurled one devastating insult after another.

Medal of honor stuff.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:....

You've writtten a lengthy post, but you haven't said anything, you're just repeating yourself.

You claimed that science in the Soviet Union is an oxymoron. This is clearly not the case.

By science, you clearly mean 'biology' - one aspect of science. Please be more specific. The fact that biological study suffered on it's own as opposed to science as a whole, proves that what took place is a reflection of an incompetent person heading up the field and that Marxists do not 'target' scientists. The fact that Lysenko was sent packing proves that Communists do not tolerate charlatens. The fact that Cuba is a leader in bio-medical research proves that Communists do not hate biologists.

It is my 'opinion', that you are taking it personally because it relates to your job and it is something that you are quite passionate about, I applaud you for this, but the logical thing to do is to be impartial and adjust your position in the light of the situation in the country at the time, rather than taking sides. As you are someone who works in science, I find your duality to be an inconsistency which inhibits an accurate appraisal of the country on your part. I myself try and study things thoroughly before I praise or criticse them because, as you know, Marxism is a form of science. Please feel free to call me Dr_, or just Doc.

Dr_Phibes wrote:You claimed that science in the Soviet Union is an oxymoron.

Liar.

Here's EXACTLY what I wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Soviet science and biology are a frigging oxymoron

I specifically picked biology. Lysenko's ostensible field. The field germaine to the discussion. My specific field.

You effort of trying to move the goalposts for the sake of your own argument isn't going to work.

Dr_Phibes wrote:By science, you clearly mean 'biology' - one aspect of science.

Gee, why yes......the one that Lysenko claimed to be a researcher in and the one that actually pertains to the conversation.

Dr_Phibes wrote:The fact that biological study suffered on it's own as opposed to science as a whole, proves that what took place is a reflection of an incompetent person heading up the field and that Marxists do not 'target' scientists.

Tell that to the scientists exiled, imprisoned, killed, or scared into silence during Lysenko's "reign."

Dr_Phibes wrote:The fact that Lysenko was sent packing proves that Communists do not tolerate charlatens.

The fact that he was allowed to wreak the havoc he did for two and a half DECADES, despite attempts by other researchers to point out (to him and others) his errors and deliberate fraud and that he was only "sacked" after very costly, very huge failures that even his protectors/advocates in government could no longer hide doesn't speak well for their efforts regarding charlatans.

Dr_Phibes wrote:The fact that Cuba is a leader in bio-medical research proves that Communists do not hate biologists.

I never said that "Communists hate biologists." Nice straw man you try to set up, "Fibs." I'm well aware of Cuba's biotech accomplishments, especially in Hep B vaccines.

Dr_Phibes wrote:It is my 'opinion', that you are taking it personally because it relates to your job and it is something that you are quite passionate about, I applaud you for this, but the logical thing to do is to be impartial and adjust your position in the light of the situation in the country at the time, rather than taking sides.

I didn't "take it personally." I tossed out Lysenko's name in one line of one post, and you stupidly tried to defend the man. Bad choice. When you saw you were getting your ass handed to you, you tried to expand the argument (by including Cuba, e.g.) and tried to deliberately misquote and misinterpret my statements. Didn't work.

Dr_Phibes wrote:As you are someone who works in science, I find your duality to be an inconsistency which inhibits an accurate appraisal of the country on your part.

Lysenko was a fraud whose pseudoscientific claims tried to meld socialist/communist perspective with biology and as such, he was strongly supported for 25 years by the Soviet leaders...to distastrous results for biological science (you can't wreck genetics and evolution and NOT wreck biology) and agriculture. This is indisputable, unless one is an idiot.

Dr_Phibes wrote:I myself try and study things thoroughly before I praise or criticse them because, as you know, Marxism is a form of science.

Marxism is no more science than was mesmerism, homeopathy, or phrenology. The fact that you try to legitimize Marxism by calling it "science" shows your delusional infatuation.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Please feel free to call me Dr_, or just Doc.

Until and unless you receive an actual doctoral degree from an accredited institution, your claim to being a "doctor" is as fatuous as your buddy Martyred's claim of being a "veteran."

Dr_Phibes wrote:I myself try and study things thoroughly before I praise or criticse them because, as you know, Marxism is a form of science.

Please explain this. Do you mean to say that the philosophy of Marxism is studied by social scientists? Or is it that Marxism, being a holistic philosophy, would naturally include all aspects of life, including science, so therefore it is a science?

Although I have my own issues with Marxism (and Marx in particular) Phibes is absolutely correct to describe it as a form of science. Political science. Demography, economics, environmental issues...etc...

Anyone who has ever studied in depth the labour theory of capital can see this clearly.

Marxist scientific method makes the burgeois Capitalist slave-ocracy seem like Geller-esque
spoon bending.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Liar.

Here's EXACTLY what I wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Soviet science and biology are a frigging oxymoron

I specifically picked biology. Lysenko's ostensible field. The field germaine to the discussion. My specific field.

You effort of trying to move the goalposts for the sake of your own argument isn't going to work.

I take the words "science and biology" to mean just that. If you specifically meant biology you would have simply said "biology" or perhaps "biological science", not "science and biology". This is not a stretch on my part, if that is what you meant to say, I accept your apology and withdraw my attack on the sciences in general.

The fact that he was allowed to wreak the havoc he did for two and a half DECADES, despite attempts by other researchers to point out (to him and others) his errors and deliberate fraud and that he was only "sacked" after very costly, very huge failures that even his protectors/advocates in government could no longer hide doesn't speak well for their efforts regarding charlatans.

What this tells me is that the field of research suffered, but the physical effects on the population were negligable and overstated by his critics. It's natural to assume that the political leadership at the time knew very little about biology, politicians generally don't - if millions of people were dying the situation would have been dealt with in a timely fashion. Obviously, if anyone knew he was a quack and kept quiet, they felt that there were justifiable political reasons for doing so. Keep in mind what the leadership was trying to accompish at the time and besides - denunciation is not unique to socialism, it is quite common in liberal 'democracies' aswell.

As neither you or I were there, it is impossible to say for certain.

I never said that "Communists hate biologists." Nice straw man you try to set up, "Fibs." I'm well aware of Cuba's biotech accomplishments, especially in Hep B vaccines.
I didn't "take it personally." I tossed out Lysenko's name in one line of one post, and you stupidly tried to defend the man. Bad choice. When you saw you were getting your ass handed to you, you tried to expand the argument (by including Cuba, e.g.) and tried to deliberately misquote and misinterpret my statements. Didn't work.

When did this ass handing take place? Who handed my ass? I do not recall having my ass handed by you.
I called Lysenko a charlaten and said the incident was a shame. How this can be considered "defending" him is beyond me.

My Cuba reference may have been premature, but spot on. I am not settin up a straw man or mis-interpreting your statements. Two paragraphs previous, you said this:

Dr_Phibes wrote: Marxists do not 'target' scientists.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Tell that to the scientists exiled, imprisoned, killed, or scared into silence during Lysenko's "reign."

The Cuban goverment is Marxist/Leninist as was the Soviet Union. The fact that this did not happen in Cuba blows your arguement to shit.

Lysenko was a fraud whose pseudoscientific claims tried to meld socialist/communist perspective with biology and as such, he was strongly supported for 25 years by the Soviet leaders...to distastrous results for biological science (you can't wreck genetics and evolution and NOT wreck biology) and agriculture. This is indisputable, unless one is an idiot.

I did not dispute this. You are trying to tie it to Marxist/Leninism as you have done in other threads and I have refuted you. I suggest you re-evaluate your position.

BSmack wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:I myself try and study things thoroughly before I praise or criticse them because, as you know, Marxism is a form of science.

Please explain this. Do you mean to say that the philosophy of Marxism is studied by social scientists? Or is it that Marxism, being a holistic philosophy, would naturally include all aspects of life, including science, so therefore it is a science?

Fraternal greetings, BJuche! I knew you'd show an interest sooner or later. Simply put, "scientific socialism" by contrast with utopian socialism or libertarianism - is based in empirical understanding of history rather than on a "pure" vision of what the future ought to be. It is a social science, and studies the interaction of human beings to create its plan of action.

Some branches of Marxism continue this analysis into other things. Some stop it at a certain point... time to stop patting yourself on the back for getting blacks a seat on the front of the bus and get busy fighting imperialism!

Dr_Phibes wrote:If you specifically meant biology you would have simply said "biology" or perhaps "biological science", not "science and biology".

Nice try, Kreskin, but I know what I meant. As do you.

Dr_Phibes wrote:This is not a stretch on my part, if that is what you meant to say, I accept your apology and withdraw my attack on the sciences in general.

No apology was offered. You misread or deliberately tried to misinterpret my post to help your argument. Trying to backpeddle now is only making you look sillier.

What this tells me is that the field of research suffered, but the physical effects on the population were negligable and overstated by his critics.

Then your reading comprehension is flawed. People starved, in the USSR and China, partly thanks to the idiocy of his agricultural theories. Oh, and the exile, imprisonment, repression bit may seem like a minor gig to you, but we Americans kind of like our "freedom of expression" and think it's a big deal when folks are imprisoned for exercising it. waving it off as minor is offensive.

Dr_Phibes wrote:It's natural to assume that the political leadership at the time knew very little about biology, politicians generally don't - if millions of people were dying the situation would have been dealt with in a timely fashion. Obviously, if anyone knew he was a quack and kept quiet, they felt that there were justifiable political reasons for doing so.

There are never justifiable reasons for doing so. The fact that you're willing to accept that there might be speaks volumes about your political views' willingness to allow and encourage disinformation and fraud if it serves your political beliefs.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Keep in mind what the leadership was trying to accompish at the time and besides - denunciation is not unique to socialism, it is quite common in liberal 'democracies' as well.

It doesn't matter what the "leadership was trying to accomplish." Not one bit. Scientific integrity can never be rightfully subordinated to political ends. It was wrong for the Soviets to do it and it's wrong when the Bushies attempt it.

Dr_Phibes wrote:When did this ass handing take place? Who handed my ass? I do not recall having my ass handed by you.

Of course not....you'd never admit it.

Dr_Phibes wrote:I called Lysenko a charlaten and said the incident was a shame. How this can be considered "defending" him is beyond me.

You have repeatedly attempted to minimize his impact, as if he were a minor lab tech with a nutty idea. A mere crackpot. You asked for proof that he was a bigger deal. I gave it. I win.

Dr_Phibes wrote:My Cuba reference may have been premature, but spot on. I am not settin up a straw man or mis-interpreting your statements. Two paragraphs previous, you said this:

Dr_Phibes wrote: Marxists do not 'target' scientists.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Tell that to the scientists exiled, imprisoned, killed, or scared into silence during Lysenko's "reign."

The Cuban goverment is Marxist/Leninist as was the Soviet Union. The fact that this did not happen in Cuba blows your arguement to shit.

Bringing in 21st century Cuba in as a defense of early-to-mid-20th century USSR doesn't blow anything to shit. Lysenko was a useful tool for the Soviet government, as he claimed that socialist theory applied to biology (including agriculture). Soviet scientists who dared dissent from this purely politically-driven pseudoscience were persecuted. That is a fact. They were not persecuted for their religion or the weakness of their science. They were persecuted specifically because they contradicted or questioned the officially state-sanctioned, socialist biology as put forth by Lysenko and endorsed by the government.

Dr_Phibes wrote:I did not dispute this. You are trying to tie it to Marxist/Leninism as you have done in other threads and I have refuted you. I suggest you re-evaluate your position.

I suggest you take off your red-colored glasses and realize that regardless of one's own political views, the fact remains that Lysenko was allowed to do what he did because it concurred with the government's socialist perspective ("wow, if Marx's views apply to even biology, then it MUST be true!"). It was bad science, with bad consequences. Good people within the USSR suffered needlessly.

Lysenko was a useful tool for the Soviet government, as he claimed that socialist theory applied to biology (including agriculture). Soviet scientists who dared dissent from this purely politically-driven pseudoscience were persecuted. That is a fact. They were not persecuted for their religion or the weakness of their science. They were persecuted specifically because they contradicted or questioned the officially state-sanctioned, socialist biology as put forth by Lysenko and endorsed by the government.

Why aren't you getting this, phibes? ^ This in a nutshell is what Mike has been claiming all along, yet you keep trying to bend it another way.

Well, apparently I am Kreskin - I am supposed to know what people mean, regardless of what they say. Why do you think I posted the articles on the other branches of science? And since when does explanation equal justification?

Mike is fobbing off socialism and Marxism on a fallacy. By focusing on a singular incident he is employing faulty logic, it is no different than:

Mister X is tall and intelligent - therefore tall people are intelligent.

Marine Y raped a girl - therefore all marines are rapists.

I am simply trying to get Lab Rat to employ scientific reason, rather than rely on half-thought-out subjective outrage. Think like a scientist Mike - think like me!

Watch out Phibes, You are going up against the juggernaut of MtLR's conjecture.

You must feel like that lone comrade that stood in front of that tank in Tiananmen Square, pleading for the Red Army to return to the square and disperse the CIA funded rabble.

You are not alone in this struggle, comrade. Here is some inspirational music for you in these
trying times:

The Internationale

Dr_Phibes wrote:Well, apparently I am Kreskin - I am supposed to know what people mean, regardless of what they say. Why do you think I posted the articles on the other branches of science? And since when does explanation equal justification?

Mike is fobbing off socialism and Marxism on a fallacy. By focusing on a singular incident he is employing faulty logic, it is no different than:

Mister X is tall and intelligent - therefore tall people are intelligent.

Marine Y raped a girl - therefore all marines are rapists.

That'd work...except that's not what I'm doing.

Once again, your deliberate attempt to misrepresent my arguments has failed.

Lysenko was using his science as a form of validation for socialist theory, misapplying it to biology. For this, he was endorsed via an official government position for two and a half decades. His proposals became edict, and all who questioned the edict were punished. That's a fact. Not a "quirk," an "aberration," but how business was done. It wasn't until the consequences became clear to all and unable to be hidden by propaganda that they conceded that Lysenko was a fraud.

I am simply trying to get Lab Rat to employ scientific reason, rather than rely on half-thought-out subjective outrage. Think like a scientist Mike - think like me!

You don't know the first thing about how to employ scientific reason. The fact that you earlier tried rationalizing fraudulent data and suppression of debate in the name of political ends has shown that in spades.

Why are you trying to marry Lsenko to Dr_Phibes? He's already said earlier:

Dr_Phibes wrote:Yeah, Lysenko... Lysenko. Good stuff Mike, you've managed to discover a scientific charlatan in the history of the Soviet Union who was thrown out on his arse.
Why do you constantly bang on about him? Shall we go through the scientific achievements of the Soviet Union together? You would look quite bad, I think.

You keep propping up this strawman, and Phibes laughs at you tilting at windmills.

Why don't you run along and show a spooky AIDS video to some kindergardeners?

Martyred wrote:Why are you trying to marry Lsenko to Dr_Phibes? He's already said earlier:

Dr_Phibes wrote:Yeah, Lysenko... Lysenko. Good stuff Mike, you've managed to discover a scientific charlatan in the history of the Soviet Union who was thrown out on his arse.
Why do you constantly bang on about him? Shall we go through the scientific achievements of the Soviet Union together? You would look quite bad, I think.

If you bothered to remove your head from Phibs' sphincter, you'd realize that:

1) he tried saying that I was overstating Lysenko's impact and even asked me to prove otherwise. I did, citing specific sources, including one from a Nobel laureate.

2) When he offered to to go about the USSR's scientific accomplishments, I gave a link to a page comparing nations' Nobel Prize numbers. The Soviet Union didn't do so well.....and what's more, you'd be hard-pressed to look in a bio text and find many (if any) positive references to USSR contributions.

Martyred wrote:You keep propping up this strawman, and Phibes laughs at you tilting at windmills.

Maybe the motion of windmills' blades has you confused, 'cuz your hero has done nothing but spin, spin, spin, and backpeddle...

Martyred wrote:Why don't you run along and show a spooky AIDS video to some kindergardeners?

Actually, I teach high school...then again, you haven't gotten much right yourself when debating with me either...

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Lysenko was using his science as a form of validation for socialist theory, misapplying it to biology.

Yes, that would be the tenth time you've repeated the same story.

It's done. It's over. It didn't happen in any other field. It didn't happen again. Get over it.