Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (840802)	3/5/2015 9:33:55 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576329

>> One explanation could be that they aren't genetically identical. I suppose, but they're very close (so close, in fact, that until the last year or two standard DNA testing could not tell them apart) and it would be strange, indeed, if it could account for the disparity in numbers. Again, these people are as close to genetically identical as you can get yet in some of the studies the likelihood of an identical sibling being gay is no greater than in the population at large. The main point is that there has really been no credible evidence at all that homosexuality is genetic, while there is considerable evidence that it is not. If we are going to respect science we need to respect science. If we're going to go on the basis of, "I know a guy who was obviously gay when he was 12" -- well, that's a different thing, and it isn't science. None of this is to claim that some day the science won't be different. But there is still the Ben Carson argument, which is correct, that some people go into prison heterosexual and come out as homosexual. One can make all kinds of arguments about it but it does, as Dr. Carson said, show that choices CAN be made. I don't think it has to be the end of the argument but until there is more science on the subject I think it is. I doubt there will be more science anytime soon, since the science at this time points to an outcome that most scientists in academia would not want to admit. So, it is probably better to just let it be.

To: combjelly who wrote (840802)	3/7/2015 8:47:17 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1576329

The nominal private ownership which was centrally directed by the Nazis was called Zwangswirtschaft, German for “compulsory economy.” Writes the famous economist Ludwig von Mises in Human Action, “The second pattern [of socialism] (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary market prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebfuehrer in the terminology of Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. "But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the order issued by government’s supreme office of production management. This office… tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham.”