chadwbaker

Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book Democracy in America was translated in English in 1840 (published in French in 1835) used the term as well. Tocqueville described Americans as highly individualistic and believed that this individualism was inseparable from the new American concept of egalitarian democracy. He wrote, "Not only does democracy make men forget their ancestors, but also clouds their view of their descendants and isolate

i agree. all i originally meant to point out is that it took some time before Newton's original inspiration turned into a well-defined theory; does anything about the mythical accretions discount that idea? As a pagan I got nothing against myths, but you often sound like your against other peoples myths so I figured that it was alright to show you one of your own. We all have myths and its ok. like other iconic figure

But the way the apple is use is considered myth... oh really? maybe it didn't hit his head while he dozed off to sleep, but there's a firt-hand account that his initial suppositions on gravity were formulated involving an apple: at the very least, Newton used an apple as an example in his initial hypothesis. A contempo

ah, the myth of the heroic scientist. unfortunately, many historians of science consider it a myth. most discoveries occur as the result of an accumulation of knowledge reaching a kind of critical mass. the individual isn't too important to the equation (the reason calculus was developed twice and why quantum field theory doesn't have a single founder the way relativity does). don't get me wrong. Einstein, Curie, Darwin, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo (I'd even include Ma

(it did take Newton 20 years after the apple to come up with gravity, IIRC). But the way the apple is use is considered myth...

1: Marx wasn't exactly clear when he described the shape of a communist polity, but it was certainly an organic outgrowth of proletairan sensibilities, anarchistic in some ways. I have always felt that Marx was not very good with his Roman history, cause of his use of the word proletairate. The Prol's were a class of free Roman that was considered only useful for the children they bared. He should have used the word Plebian instead thats the comm

There are very, very, rich people who could spend loads of money to better the economy of the world and make this planet a better place, but they don't. Why? does self centered ring a bell? Yes, they do give donatoins to charities sometimes, but, I think those are just publicity stunts, I hear the self centered bell again. <IMG id=ImageResize_Image_1 src="http://images.stardock.com/gc2/T_DL/smiles/Laugh.gif" onload=ImageResizer.createOn(this); align=absMiddle

also those crowbar things must have been a very special material to not disintegrate in the atmosphere. sounds like an interesting plot device. The military was working on satelites that would throw rods from orbit to earth... they called it the "rods from god". Yes it is a special material... I believe it was tugsten rods. But I am pretty sure they are much larger than crowbars. i guess what i find unreali

hmm i guess i was wrong in saying that it started around the depression; perhaps it would have been better to say that the new conservative platform had crystalized by then? No I d say that Goldwater is more the reason for today's conservative platform. Though I am getting curious when the Repulicans and Democrates switched the liberal and conservitive labels... It may just be the way we think today. Is it more liberal or conservitive to

indeed, and the line wasn't even that clear until recently. the shift first seemed to start around the Great Depression, but many republicans between then and the 70s were still fairly progressive compared to some of today's. the wikipedia article on the republican party is pretty extensive (how reliable is another question). No, it was earlier than that. Republicans mostly voted against the New Deal, basicly

Whiq party OOPS the Whig party.

I figured the US system was more varied than is shown over here. Ove her, the Dems would be red, and cosnervatives blue, can add to the confusion a little. lol Well at one time Republicans were the liberal party and the Democrates were the conservetives over here so maybe they just kept the old colors. The Democrates can trace their party history back without hitch to Jefferson's Anti-Federalist party (the folk who wanted the states to be more

Chad, Cobra... i can't remember who was questioning how evolution can explain more than the emergence or supression of traits. I agree with evolution for the most part. All I do is question "science" belief that it so much diffrent then what came before. For when it comes to words like: as far as contribution to history, i do think it's unique because it's cumulative in ways other disciplines are not. <br/

i'd credit science as the set of tools that empower people to rid themselves of superstition. that doesn't make scientists "better" people in any sense, but they do contribute to history in a qualitatively unique way. But Science started in the realm of religion and also other religions have said this before. The problem is what is a superstition? I have heard that believing that its bad luck to walk under a ladder is a su

I agree, we don't need food, were all ethereal beings, leaves what are they, i know animal food. I'm an animal too. I will live on bollox like you, please teach me. before I starve, i need cows cut into chunks and cooked with plants and gravy to live. don't forget onions and cow slices. with chips. Ooookay. I asked you how you live with out taking life. I didn t say you should not. So why isnt it right to kill someone in

Ok lest think we need to live. food chain and life. do plants have feelings, eeeeeeern, NO. are you mental? We don t need to live we want to. Eating and breathing are only needed if you want to live. I don t know if plants have feelings. But they are alive. But what gives you the RIGHT to take their life? Have you even asked yourself this?<br

i don't want anyone to misunderstand my point. i'm definately not saying that the theory of general relativity is wrong - but its apperant incompatibility with quantum theory should suggest that our understanding of something is incomplete. science involves a good deal of imagination. at one point all the subatomic particles we now take for granted as certain were merely theory, and even remaining within the standard

I don't I pity people that think they need to take life. I especially pity people that expect others to give or take life at the point of a gun I hate war and anyone who want's it My response was ironic. KILL KILL KILL, MORON MORON MORON Marcus So how do you live if you don t take life? Even plants are alive they have life. Are you some kind of god who doesn t need to

they can. they can also come again if we DO preserve this culture. pagans and christians were living in europe side-by-side for quite some time for the burning times; jews and christians and pagans long before the Inquisition; christians and muslims and jews before the crusades. yeah but I also know that the Jihad's was before the Crusades. Also that right now the christians are more willing to say its a crime to kill other peoples wi

I think you misunderstand the nature of megalomania. it doesn't have to be despotic. ahh but you have said he is despotic which is it? Now is this in the constitution, that it can be debated. i think not Have you ever read the constitution? The amendments are NEW laws put into it. These laws are debated tested and retested we have even repealed an amendment with another. ah

Bush is a megalomaniac that has totally lost touch with his power and his accountability. He is by his actions a truly scary man. I d say that Bush is just a dreamer who believes in a democracy that has no problems. Also Megalomaniacs when in power tend to have their pictures EVERYWHERE, and those who appose them disappear. MM your still here, you can talk all you want about him and he will even defend your right to do so. So no h

hmm... off the bat, i never meant to suggest that you shouldn't speak your mind. i'm not sure what i did to give that impression; maybe the word 'digression.' all i meant to say with that was that our discussions had gone off the original topics; i don't consider that a bad thing at all. sorry the word disgression makes it to me sounds like its something that should not be said. I am sorry I took it diffrently than you. <div class="Article_

it's actually a fairly recent movie, and yes it's a like Brave New World, but with really good gun fights. intresting I may try to see it. i think you're also in error about the need to breed (not the sex drive, but needing to ensure survival of a society or species). i mean, obviously people still need to breed or we'll go extinct, and i don't want that. in 12th grade i spent a lot of time study

I have to say that even having someone bring up sexual practices in an internet forum is depressing, to me. I'm sure it's all for the benefit of discussion (cough) but my personal experiences with any discussions about sexual practices is -> it's sometimes just a come-on ... a form of phishing, and IMHO it has no place in any serious discussion. I'm sure the "crocidile tears" will flow freely if I refuse to jump in the water, but I'm not impressed.

Are you really busy at work dystopic? You OK man? I have never seen you not post on a week day.