To summarize the comments that will be left on this post...
Battlestar Galactica USED to be cool, now it sucks. Followed by... Caprica sounds lame to begin with, where is all the real sci-fi? Sci-fi Channel USED to be good, but now it sucks.

Let's see if I nailed this one.

Yeah, I agree. The first two seasons of BSG was great. Really since Baltar's trial, the show has been awful. They simply wrote themselves into a corner with the final 5, then needed Anders to have a big long monologue explaining everything. The show deserved so much better.

I'm willing to give Caprica a shot before I condemn it. I just hope the finale is good. The best finale I ever saw as "All good things" and I'd love for it to leave the same emotional impact.

Well, my girlfriend and I have really enjoyed everything up until maybe the last 3 or 4 episodes. You would think with all the loose ends to tie up that they would move their storytelling asses a bit faster, but lately the show just drags for 40 minutes and then something mildly interesting happens in the last 10 minutes. The first episode after the (way too long) mid-season break was great...don't know why they blew all their good stuff then. I'm hoping they redeem themselves this Friday, but won't be surprised if it doesn't happen. Oh well, I've still enjoyed the series.

I actually really dig where BSG headed. I'm still a fan. That being said, Caprica 90210 does not sound appealing to me. I guess that's why the corporate overlords have rebranded the network into something for women. That's ok, the current shows have no appeal for me. The network has been going downhill for a few years. most likely, not picking up firefly clinched in my mind sci-fi's waning commitment to it's fan base. The quality of content has severely dropped BSG excluded. I'm really sad to see BSG go, but really quite happy with how it turned out.

I'm not sure I would say BSG sucks. Is it as good as those first two seasons? No. Really the whole New Caprica plot was the beginning of the end for this series. While this reimagined BSG should rightly go down in TV history as one of the most innovative science fiction dramas in a very long time, it should also be acknowledged as an example of how you need to think through your plots and understand the consequences of where you're taking a series. Still, BSG is one of the finest dramas on television and an example of how science fiction can be used to comment on the times we live in.

As for Caprica. I find it so annoying that people dismiss this series without ever seeing it. Or that they're so simple-minded as to believe that science fiction can only be space battles and aliens. I look forward to seeing Caprica, but I hold no illusions about Sci Fi's willingness to stick with it if the ratings aren't where they want them to be. It's very likely Caprica will join the long list of one-season Sci Fi Channel series regardless of how good or innovative it will be.

best show to have EVER been on television. Period.

What was once a fabulous show is now limping to the end. The last few episodes have been BORING.

Yes, a few boring episodes but...maybe we need to consider them the calm before the storm...
nothing is coming on SyFylis to replace it, so relish this last hurrah...

I love BSG , even now its a very good show compared to most of the dreck on the Sci Fi channel. I will watch Caprica and hopefully it will be interesting and have some nice plot twists and mystery's. I concur with the above poster when saying All Good Things was one of the best series finale's of any show that ever graced the small screen. That episode was just brilliant. I was a little disappointed by last Fridays BSG so I hope parts 2 and 3 deliver the goods.

SyFylis!!!!! lmao.......

Loved the Ride!

Sometimes people don't understand... It will be years b4 they get it.

Thank You All for everything

I find it amazing how people can hate something before they've even seen it. Have you learned nothing from this show? Some of you obviously haven't.

Ronald D. Moore had a story to tell - his story. Not yours, not mine, HIS. Whether you like it or not is a different story. To piss and moan here is worthless, especially since you haven't even seen the end.

BSG has been a wonderful ride...right up to, and including, the last few episodes. For me, I love the character development and backstories we get glimpses of here at the end. The series has always been a character-driven one...and I've felt a great appreciation for them all, and the incredible actors portraying them. EJO summed it up, "Best frakking show..." Cheers to all involved!!

BSG has been awesome. Now it's good, I don't know what happened. The last cylon sucked. Starbuck is now a zombie or death angel. And Olmos is somehow pulling the series for a great ending.

As for Caprica all we need is exactly Caprica90210.

BSG is a character driven show, the producers are mindful of that in the final episodes. I love the show, and willing to give Caprica a chance.

I've been a bit disappointed with the networks direction myself, they are going for the 18-30 group which is sad. As for the female comment, I'm a 52 year old woman, I hate chick flicks, love Sci-Fi & adventure.

Well to Ron More, I can only say thanks for the ride. Over the years my wife and I have really enjoyed BSG, I will miss it. I agree with other posters above it is one of the best shows to have aired on TV, ever.

I am looking forward to Friday with great anticipation, and I sincerely hope that you don't frack it up either.

On a side note All Good Things, Star Trek TNG last episode, wasn't all that. Next Gen was going to have a life in the movies, short lived as it was, so to wrap up the show like they did, didn't make sense to me. I wanted to see a great battle that would shake the foundations of their universe, and set up the future movies, not more nonsense with Q.

BSG needs to tie up all the strings, and end their show. There is no BSG the Movie, so this is it. It needs to end. Or as I predict, BSG will end right were it begins, as “all of this has happened before.”

BSG needs to be seen as a whole, like B5 before it. To say it sucks because this last couple of episodes have been slow is a bad assumption - these last few episodes are gearing up for the final two episodes - taken all together, as the whole they were meant to be, I hope they will come out amazing.

I'll give Caprica a chance - why not? What better options do I have with my time? If I don't like it, ce la ve, it's not BSG, and I'll not take it as part an parcel of the BSG universe.

here's my opinion on the whole universe. starbuck just gets hotter every episode. the show was way better when cylons were attacking humans but is still better than 99% of shows out there. i often go to bed and think man it would be great to be on a good show and not work pointlessly till i die. and so in closing, 24, lost and battlestar r the best shows on tv, starbuck i would marry today and yesterday and the day before. anyone know Katee Sackhoff or Starbuck, or email, or blackberry, or xbox live name, email me, polishpenguin16@yahoo.com

Did anyone see that BSG "The Last Frakking Special"? Lucy Lawless made a stunning revelation of what kind of attitude Edward James Olmos had towards her. Apparently, he said that he was very concerned that Lawless would drag the show down because he thought she was only famous as "Xena Warrior Princess". WHAT A JERK! I had no idea Olmos was such an idiot. Lawless was ONE OF MY FAVORITE ASPECTS OF THE SHOW.

As to the show, IF RON MOORE DOESN'T ANSWER THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE BIG QUESTIONS in the Finale then BSG is a COMPLETE CREATIVE FAILURE. Because it's saying that "we just made up all this running questions to keep all of you idiots watching".

Yes, the Acting was phenomenal. However, Great acting is necessary but not sufficient for a show to be great.

In response, to something Ron Moore said in the special - he got it wrong: IT'S THE PLOT, STUPID.

This is simply the best show on tv. Regardless of genre. While some people are complaining about the more character centric nature of the show, they lack patience. Yes the pacing is slower, but the depth is more profound. This is a show that should be seen in its entirety. These "slow" episodes are the ones with real meaning and will stay with you. RDM and team, great job and thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I have to agree with those that are saying that BSG went downhill after the first couple of seasons nevertheless it was still a better show than most of the others on tv. I just hope the finale will wrap up the story in way that will satisfy most of the fans. Even if it is RM's story to tell - it is for the purpose of entertainment and if it fails to satisfy it simply fails.

As for Caprica, the trailer actually looks more interesting than BSG has been over the last couple of seasons and I'm willing to give it a chance.

The last two seasons were needed. I'd say got even better now that Cylons know that Earth is no more? This creates a Alliance and now in the end its the humans + rebel Cylons against Cabel's Cylons for control of one little girl, Hera. It has become a war of procreation between the two groups since Hera is only Cylon child that has been born.

Can't wait for to see what happens too Starbuck!!

Yeah Missing sci-fi, you pretty much nailed it. I don't get their attitude - it comes across as petty stupidity to me.

This season of BSG has rocked - and is as good if not better than any other season. And I hope the finale is as frakkin awesome as they say it will be.

I will truly mourn the passing of this show.

Now bring on Caprica - can't frakkin wait!

I'm sad that the show is ending...but very pleased that SciFi greenlit the new series Caprica. Looking forward to every bit of this 'verse we can get our hands on...RDM & SciFi: let Olmos direct some Caprica too! :-)

BSG shark jumping? Never! Whether it's been slow character driven episodes or fast action packed episodes - there's a necessary pace to the unfolding. The show had it all (has! It's not past tense yet!) The best in acting, characters, plot, FX, music, sets, atmosphere, style - all packaged together. And through it all, BSG eloquently examined the core problem that's been repeating through human history. We war between nations, within our nations, within our families, within ourselves. What do we risk breaking the cycle of hatred and extending a hand of peace? Are we slaughtered when we drop our guard?
Such grat heavy stuff to ponder.

Still, I want to know if we'll ever hear a Cylon say, "By Your Command" ???
Will Boxey return to save the day and plug the singularity with a robotic daggit?
And where's Imperious Leader? Ah yes - in Baltar's head.

I was about to stop watching and then they announced an end date. So I figured I'd finish it out, but it's been pretty painful these past two seasons (and most of season 3 as well). I certainly won't be bothering with Caprica. I loved the BSG miniseries, the first season and half of the second (and Exodus Pt. II of course). But it's fallen so hard in quality and is just a bunch of pretentious gobbledeguk now. If RDM doesn't want to do sci-fi anymore, fine, he should just make the leap into a present day drama. But he doesn't have a sci-fi bone in his body anymore. Perhaps that's why the network is changing to its ridiculous new name, since Caprica will be their only show left and they don't want to confuse the audience into believing it's a sci-fi channel anymore.

I'm hoping for 3 things Friday night:

1) Lee/Apollo suits up and flies a Viper at least one more time.

2) We find out what the deal is with Starbuck i.e. WHAT IS SHE????

3) If the Galactica has to go, she goes out in battle and in glory, not being stripped for parts.

If I get my 3 wishes, then I'll salute the cast and crew, thank them for the ride, and drink a toast to them.

I've got to say - it is people like Maltheus who make me sick.

Maltheus, BSG was always over your head! And you have no idea what sci-fi really is - what you want is fantasy. You want a Star Trek unrealistic universe with good guys and happy endings and lots of f/x. BSG has never been about that - it is about the human condition and ethics. It is the quintessential sci-fi and like Herbert's Dune series - it actually tries to seriously examine human nature.

I assume you are probably a left-wing douche bag since it is all pretentious gobbledeguk to you. I never understood how liberals could enjoy BSG since it accurately portrays human nature and not the feel-good utopian crap that dominates the progressive mentality. I love that RDM executed the two big libs on BSG!!!

So Maltheus go frak yourself!

hmmm, a scifi show with no scifi init ."caprica " sounds like it should fit in with scifi's new direction.maybe the wrestlers from tuesday night can do some cameos since they are also non scifi.then the "synergy" that is so important to scifi can be fullfilled

The only hope for Caprica lies in the hands of the producers and writers, so I have some hope - but hope can be a fleeting thing...

Considering that Sci Fi channel is changing their game, branding, and broadcast content, my hope is much lowered. They're abandoning sci fi as their niche, and I'll be disenfranchised. Too bad.

see syfy.com

"hmmm, a scifi show with no scifi init ."caprica " sounds like it should fit in with scifi's new direction."

Hmmm maybe you can explain where this so-called Caprica is? Is it in the present day? Is it a city on Earth? What? No it isn't? Hmmm but you said no sci-fi in it. I guess that makes you another frakkin douche bag!

The problem I have with Caprica is that Moore is jumping on the prequel bandwagon that started when George Lucas released the Star Wars prequels and Star Trek Enterprise went on the air. Every science fiction series does not need a prequel. Caprica, as I understand it, is the origin of the Cylons. Who cares? Moore keeps repeating that the show isn't BSG. Enough of what it isn't...I want to know what it is before it airs. It sounds like a soap with robots in it.

The new show isn't going to be SciFi, it's going to be a soap opera. The only thing that prevented BSG from being that was the space stuff. I'm not interested in watching Caprica! I'm only watching the Finale is for the Galactica herself, the best character in the whole of the series as far as I am concerned. I preferred both the Galactica and the Pegasus over all of Ronald Moore's characters!

Aramanthus - of course you did. Makes complete sense. The ship couldn't reveal it's human side - which means it's flawed bordering on evil side. You, like you other fellow libs, have a utopian view of your fellow man, which is why you vote for people like Obama who promises you good feelings deep inside your little tummy.

RDM never allowed you to invest any 'concerns' in his characters because you knew you could never trust them. So you come here and foolishly admit you cared more about a piece of floating metal, lmao.

But there is good news for you. The new show is called Caprica. It is a city and like Galactica it has no inclinations towards evil. It does not have a flawed nature. You are thus free to invest all of your concerns into this inanimate object and get the same satisfaction.

But you are right to avoid the new characters at all cost. They will definitely remind you of your true self! Run Forrest Run!

Captain Jack...Regarding your 3 Point post...OOOOH MAH GAWD!!! WE ACTUALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING! Who'd uh thunk it huh? 8^)

McTex...While I don't particularly agree with ANYTHING that Maltheus had to say...I am amazed that you have found a way to convert ANYTHING regarding BSG into a Republicans vs. Democrats discussion.

Conservatives! Liberals! Not a factor here. If that was involved I dare say you have completly misread who in the story is on which side of that argument.

Let's see, Adama and Roslin have decided to ally the fleet with Rebel Cylons. That is conservative? Don't think so Hot Shot.

Zarek and Felix led a bloody coup attempt to cancel any alliance with ANY Cylons, even the Rebals...but THEY, the ones who wish to maintain the status quo which is war with ALL Cylons, are "Libs." Adama and Roslin are of coarse, Conservative as is evidenced by thier williness to change the status quo and enter into the alliance with the Rebal Cylons!

You will of coarse will now flame the Hell out of me. You know nothing about my personal political views in the real world, but will call me a Liberal...meaning this as a curse and and insult. You will also call me a douche Bag or some other equally childish name that is commonly used on the Internet, and will tell me to go Frak myself...we are on a Science Fiction Message Board and we all use that expression instead of the real world word which originated from the expression "fornication under consent of the King."

McTex...You came pretty close to what I expected. What a bunch of doubletalk!

8^D

And to answer your question...McCain.

You will now of coarse accuse me of lying about that.

I didn't care for where they took the storyline for seasons 2 and 3. The entire arc with Admiral Cain was weak at best. I can't believe she would have kept Fisk as her X.O. when she was as much of a fitness nut as she was. The torture of Gina Envierre (not sure of spelling) was merely for revenge and not at all similar to the torture in Iraq that RDM was obviously trying to parallel.

Adama giving Baltar a nuclear weapon for the plutonium was ludicrous. Since we have so many people wanting realism (this is really sci-fi, though) we really should look at what the U.S. Navy does with nuclear bombs (like the B-61). Every weapon has a marine with a rifle guarding it ALWAYS. Adama might have had the plutonium removed from a weapon for Baltar, but he would have maintained serious control over where Baltar could have access to the plutonium as even the gas from it will mess you up. He would have definitely kept the weapon itself as the plutonium is less that useful without the ability to implode it. What were the writers thinking that Baltar could smuggle a radiological in between ships. Galactica scans EVERY other ship, but the one with the nuke?!?!

I could go on and on with more (moore?) of these flaws in the story. Don't even get me going about about how they can look ahead to plot their jumps since everything they and the cylons use for plotting jumps is lightspeed only. We never got to see any ships get smashed by unplotted debris.

I wouldn't describe Zarek as a liberal. He could just as easily have been a facist instead of a socialist. Doubt me? Look up what happened in in the 20s and 30s in Germany. I'd have to agree with jbs780's take on Adama/Roslin and Zarek/Gaeta.

There are alot of posts here. And alot of pointless nitpicking.
I think this 2nd half of the season has been phenomenal, the first half was good but not as compelling as it used to be, but these last 10 have been among the very best of the series. The middle part of the 3rd season was weak, imo. That stuff with the eye of Jupiter felt like they were just making it up and treading water. You could cut that stuff out now and it would make no impact on what's happening now on the show. I wanted the mutiny storyline to last longer though, I was disappointed it was wrapped up so quickly. I'm glad it's having lots of repercussions though, but I thought it could have been played out for another episode to really build the tension and stress level. Though then we'd need another episode for the rest of the season, so beggars can't be choosers. I used to think the first season was the best, but I rewatched it recently and it's totally rose tinted glasses. It's great, but not on the level of quality we see every week now. The acting, pacing, style, everything is much better now. You can tell, especially in the first few eps that they were still trying to figure just how they were gonna tell this story and thusly wasted alot of time on trivial things that never went anywhere.

Justo, I agree completely about this season. A lot of the stories from season 4 should have happened during the weak seasons and expanded on them. Your example of the mutiny is a good one. It's too bad RDM didn't learn from his experiences with Enterprise - it pretty much died the same way (and in the same timeframe or close to it).

Say what? RDM was NOT involved with "Enterprise" at all. Looky here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601822/

As for any of the first season being weak compared to the latest season, I still find "33" to be one of the finest episodes ever filmed by ANY television series.

And jbs780, as to us actually agreeing on something? Yeah, I think I fainted.

BSG is the best conceived and executed tv program ever. The writing is solid. The stories are compelling. The characters have the most depth I have ever seen regardless of the genre. I have high hopes for Caprica. Mr. Moore and Mr. Eick, I thanks you both for the wonderful creation.

Bobanort, I hear ya. This was some of my gripe against the series from the start. We have a spacefaring civ with faster than light travel that cannot cure cancer.....HUH! So I quit complaining long ago. Its over.....BRING ON THE NEW STARGATE SERIES and THE FARSCAPE WEB SERIES!!! This pretty much the spirit of SciFi that will be left on the channel.

IsoTek is the perfect example of what I am talking about - that liberal need for the utopian worldview. In her scifi world cancer cannot exist. Although we have gone to the moon and cannot cure the common cold, such realism cannot exist in her fantasies. It's all too much like real life and no liberal wants to go there.

So much to say, so little space:

1. I wish some sort of moderator would step into some of these threads and stop these discussions from getting out of hand. Websites are private spaces open to the public, not public property. The First Amendment does not apply to privately owned websites.

2.Yes, like any good sci fi show, BSG delved into politics. However, it was never intended to be seen in simplistic terms such as Liberal vs Conservative or Republicans vs Democrats. It was meant to reflect a realistic world that is more complex than that.

A random sampling of humans from the Colonial Fleet would likely find a wide range of political beliefs, none of them purely liberal or purely conservative, just like real life. A random sampling of BSG viewers would likely find political beliefs across the spectrum as would a random sampling of creative people involved with the series. Just as an example, in one episode Tyrol quotes nearly verbatim from Mario Savio's "gears of the machine" speech given at UC Berkeley, a liberal moment. Yet in other episodes, he sides with Adama and I would hardly call siding with an often autocratic Naval officer particularly liberal. In fact Tyrol, like any other human being makes his decisions based on circumstance not political ideology.

3.I think some people are so geared to seeing the world in simplistic black and white political terms, they can't cope when the world is more complex than political pundits of all stripes and from all eras would have us believe.

Liberal vs conservative is hardly simplistic. What's simplistic is thinking that ideology is petty. If you actually read me I only tagged two characters as libs and I feel pretty confident that RDM would back that up. They are the shows idealists. I never said anything about Adama or Roslin or Apollo or Starbuck. So it is your simplistic black and white mentality which is now trying to put words in my mouth.

Roslin in her soul is a lib but in her brain she is far too pragmatic for such weaknesses and lets herself be guided by reason. The show does an amazing job at portraying the complexities that exist in all of our inherent ideological beliefs. But that in itself is a realistic portrayal of the human condition, which only a conservative can ultimately express accurately as they don't embrace a false and corrupted view of human nature as libs do.

I love how you wish for a moderator to step in and censor those ideas that offend you. Another typical lib! It's no surprise that fascism arose from the progressive movement.

I liked BSG, like any other show it's had hits and misses...all the religious stuff with Baltar got super annoying and the last few episodes these season haven't been bad just slow. Seems like there should be alot more going on in those episodes leading to the big finale...well, more than discovering a few important things an episode. I still love....but just sayin. Caprica doesn't seem like it would be my thing but I would give it a chance...sort of. But I do miss SG1, Atlantis and soon BSG....and the whole SyFy brand thing seems SOOOOOOOO STUPID...but here we go...

1, McTex, I think you missed my point about moderators. I think people on both sides of any Internet debate have the tendency to let their passions run away from them, you're no exception. And you're paranoid, I wasn't even commenting on your posts, just the tone of the discussion in general. Get over yourself.

2. If the show says anything about ideology, it is that people often throw their ideals out the window in times of crisis. Roslin's decision on abortion is one example but so is the decision of some Cylons to ally themselves with humans so that they can survive. Ideally, the monotheistic Cylons would not join with the polytheistic humans out of fear of corruption of their faith. However, in the choice between living and dying, purity of religious faith looses out to continuing to exist.

3.. Liberal vs Conservative is simplistic because the real world doesn't operate that way. I have known Pro-life Catholics who end up choosing abortion when it is their own teenage daughter who is pregnant. The late actor Ron Silver is another example, he was liberal on many social issues but a Bush supporter following 9/11.

Robert A. Heinlein had an ideology that was impossible to pin down as liberal or conservative. He supported the military but hated the draft. He supported some "hippie ideals" such as free love and but found other liberal ideas such as unilateral nuclear disarmament untenable. He wrote about gender equality and multiracial characters when most conservatives believed the woman's place was at home and still clung to the idea of separate but equal.

4. Ron Moore is not in the room watching the show with you, so his opinion or reason behind the show is totally irrelevant. The only relevant point is what the audience takes from it or what they can potentially take from it.

I wasn't a fan of BSG at first. Then I caught up on a marathon and got totally hooked. I don't know what Caprica is going to be like, but I'll give it a shot before I condemn it.

What really worries me is the total lack of any quality shows on SyFy (how idiotic is that name anyway?), or Sci Fi. I wonder if it's at all possible for this channel to get a programming president that actually understands ANYTHING about Science Fiction? Everytime they get a really great show like Stargate Atlantis, or Eureka something happens and they are either off the air or disappear. Maybe we should just call it the Disappointment Channel. It has no concept of its own fan base.

only a conservative can ultimately express accurately as they don't embrace a false and corrupted view of human nature as libs do.

So your sayin Rush Limbaugh isn't false or corrupted. lmao

Give me a "boring" episode of BSG any day of the week when comparing it to the crap on TV lately. I am going to miss this show a great deal. It still is cutting edge. I just hope we don't get a Sopranos-like ending. That would just be awful. I faithfully await seeing Caprica. Thank you to all involved in this TV show and thank you to NBC/SciFi for allowing for the darker side of the series to shine through. It is the dark side that rarely gets explored in order to try to be politically correct.

Speaking as a liberal douche bag, I love Battlestar Galactica. And no, not all liberals (in fact, I would say, very few liberals) have a utopian view of humanity. I would say they have an optimistic view of humanity, and reject the every-man-for-himself attitude of many conservatives. But that's another argument for a different board.

Yes, without a doubt, Season One of BSG was the best, because it was exciting, suspenseful, and new. But admitting that Battlestar's first green was gold does not in any way mean the latter seasons were of poorer quality. The quality of the writing, acting, and storytelling never waned. Battlestar Galactica is not an episodic show, it's a serial. It has a complete beginning, middle, and end. The revelations about the Cylons, the slackening of tensions (or, one could argue, the changing for tensions from without to tensions from within) and the growing of characters were all natural progressions of the story. I'm awaiting the finale with bated breath.

As for Caprica, one big fear I have is that it doesn't air for over a year after Battlestar will have been long gone. Even if it is a completely different show, it's still in the same universe, and for so much time to pass between the end of BSG and the beginning of Caprica doesn't bode well considering the short attention span of viewers these days. I'm not sure I buy the whole "Dynasty on another Planet" concept, but I'm willing to give Ron Moore and David Eick the benefit of the doubt.

Well the pilot movie was damn excellent, i think this channel wont be able to produce anything better than that ever again. I hope the final will reach close to that of the pilot.

The series itself has indeed have its ups and downs story wise, but the thing that sorta got to me, when watching this last season was that the characters have started to loose the edge, wear out so to speak. I think we have become immune to all that charisma a lot of them had in the early parts. It's good that the show is ending, would be nice to see some good old Star trek with some a similiar fresh innotive approach to the genre someday. Prolly gona skip this caprica series..

I never really saw this as a left/right show. But since McTex brings it up, Zarek was acting in favor of "states" rights and was against the whole centralized domination of their lives. That makes him more of a conservative, on paper anyway. Of course the reality of it was that he was in it for himself so you can't ascribe much political ideology to him. Adama also ignored the law by ignoring the wishes of the quorom, and forcing them to install cylon jump drives (which was not a military decision, it was about finding a colony, which is clearly a civilian decision). Conservatives are about the constitution and the rule of law. So I think you're a little mixed up there.

And I can pretty much guarantee you McTex that I am to the right of you. Anyone who complains about people voting for Obama were likely McCain supporters. True conservatives understand that they were both big government liberals and wouldn't make the distinction. You were probably a Bush supporter too and it's a matter of fact that the neo-cons descended from Troskyites. That's why it wasn't hypocritical of him to hire the former head of the KGB and the former chief of the Stasi to run programs in Homeland/Motherland/Fatherland Security. And it explains why he was such a war monger like all those 20th century liberals (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton).

As for saying that Caprica isn't on Earth, therefore it's SciFi, it sure looks like Earth to me. Other than the space docks, it looks exactly like present day Earth. I don't care if they came from there, after thousands of years, the culture would have some differences just like things look different here after a couple of decades. To compare BSG to Dune is an insult to Frank Herbert. The lowest character in Dune could easily rule all humans and cylons alike, with little effort. Every character in BSG is utterly pathetic.

BSG lost my full support when it switched from a show predominantly about the colonials to a show about the cylons, some time after New Caprica. Now it is simply the least bad thing on television.

Maltheus:

I never really saw this as a left/right show. But since McTex brings it up, Zarek was acting in favor of "states" rights and was against the whole centralized domination of their lives. That makes him more of a conservative, on paper anyway. Of course the reality of it was that he was in it for himself so you can't ascribe much political ideology to him. Adama also ignored the law by ignoring the wishes of the quorom, and forcing them to install cylon jump drives (which was not a military decision, it was about finding a colony, which is clearly a civilian decision). Conservatives are about the constitution and the rule of law. So I think you're a little mixed up there.

Me:
State’s rights – you mean those pesky state’s rights that Lincoln fought against that were the basis for the Southern slave owner’s justification? Those states’s rights that Jefferson, founder of the Democrat Party – so often praised when trashing Washington and Adam’s federalism?

Zarek seemed to me to be of the same cloth as William Ayres who also fought against that meddling central government.

Conservatives – who are really ‘classical liberals’ – didn’t mind abandoning the English oral constitution and English rule of law too much, did they? So I think you are the one who is mixed up.

Maltheus:
And I can pretty much guarantee you McTex that I am to the right of you Anyone who complains about people voting for Obama were likely McCain supporters. True conservatives understand that they were both big government liberals and wouldn't make the distinction. You were probably a Bush supporter too and it's a matter of fact that the neo-cons descended from Troskyites. That's why it wasn't hypocritical of him to hire the former head of the KGB and the former chief of the Stasi to run programs in Homeland/Motherland/Fatherland Security. And it explains why he was such a war monger like all those 20th century liberals (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton).

Me:
No you make it quite clear you are far to the left of me. First off you are completely ignorant of the meaning of the American ideological scale. You are obviously an idealist, as you didn’t vote for the lesser of the two evils (Bush and McCain) which means you share the liberal tendency towards irrational worldly possibilities and wishful thinking. You’re just a Utopianist in different clothes. Thus my assumption about you was clearly proven true!

Maltheus:
As for saying that Caprica isn't on Earth, therefore it's SciFi, it sure looks like Earth to me. Other than the space docks, it looks exactly like present day Earth. I don't care if they came from there, after thousands of years, the culture would have some differences just like things look different here after a couple of decades. To compare BSG to Dune is an insult to Frank Herbert. The lowest character in Dune could easily rule all humans and cylons alike, with little effort. Every character in BSG is utterly pathetic.

Me:
Other than? How many ‘other thans’ do you plan on tackling? Should we stop at ten? Lmao

BSG is actually superior to Herbert’s Dune in all possible ways. Not to demean the brilliance of Dune, but BSG takes less of a fancy in the evolutionary process which Herbert grossly exaggerated. However Herbert’s motives were good as the new man in his future still shared the same spiritual and natural flaws.

Gilveron:
Speaking as a liberal douche bag, I love Battlestar Galactica. And no, not all liberals (in fact, I would say, very few liberals) have a utopian view of humanity. I would say they have an optimistic view of humanity, and reject the every-man-for-himself attitude of many conservatives. But that's another argument for a different board.

Me:
The only liberals I called douche bags were those who criticized BSG because it wasn’t utopian enough like the person who hated the idea that cancer could still exist even though they have FTL drives. Those with that Trek mentality who want their Picards and a future with no poverty.

ALL LIBERALS are utopianists. That’s why they believe they can change the world – they can end poverty or global warming or whatever your cause du jour is if they only enact this gov’t program or take control of this political body.

Man is flawed, imperfect and evil thus it is impossible to hold a rationally optimistic view of humanity’s future. The fact that you are able to reconcile the two (your optimism and man’s natural state) reveals that you are irrational and that you choose to ignore the truth for things that make you feel better, as is your privilege.

Conservatives do not hold an every-man-for-himself attitude as you would know if you have ever read the Declaration or Constitution that WE wrote. Conservatives just have a more rational understanding of the importance of individual responsibility.

McTex, your black and white arguments about left/right, liberals and conservatives have missed something important. I'm an independent. I voted for Obama. I suppose you're about to call me a liberal douche bag, but before you do, consider this.

I'm a disabled veteran of the first Gulf war. I voted for Bush in his first run because I was afraid Gore would take away everyone's guns. Then I voted for Kerry in Bush's second run because I was afraid Bush would never give up the office once he was in-place as a war-president. Then I voted for Obama because I was afraid McCain was so senile he couldn't be trusted to tie his shoes let alone run the country.

So mister, unless your a war vet too, which in my mind is the ultimate conservative, and I doubt you are, let's see if you've got the stones to call me a liberal douche bag.

Tyrol:
1. McTex, I think you missed my point about moderators. I think people on both sides of any Internet debate have the tendency to let their passions run away from them, you're no exception. And you're paranoid, I wasn't even commenting on your posts, just the tone of the discussion in general. Get over yourself.

Me:
No, I don’t think I did miss your point. And I never accused you of desiring to censor me or of even directing your censorship desires towards me. Mine was a general critique of your desire to censor period – so get a grip and get over yourself.

Tyrol:
2. If the show says anything about ideology, it is that people often throw their ideals out the window in times of crisis. Roslin's decision on abortion is one example but so is the decision of some Cylons to ally themselves with humans so that they can survive. Ideally, the monotheistic Cylons would not join with the polytheistic humans out of fear of corruption of their faith. However, in the choice between living and dying, purity of religious faith looses out to continuing to exist.

Me:
I completely agree.

Tyrol:
3.. Liberal vs Conservative is simplistic because the real world doesn't operate that way. I have known Pro-life Catholics who end up choosing abortion when it is their own teenage daughter who is pregnant. The late actor Ron Silver is another example, he was liberal on many social issues but a Bush supporter following 9/11.

Me:
The real world does operate between liberal vs. conservative (always has but with just different names, like the rationalists vs the sophists) and it is way too simplistic to fancy that this isn’t so. The difference is that conservatives rightly recognize the tendency of people to throw out their ideals in times of crisis because conservatives hold a rational understanding of human nature – liberals do not thus their conclusions are questionable.

The late great Ron Silver that is!

Tyrol:
Robert A. Heinlein had an ideology that was impossible to pin down as liberal or conservative. He supported the military but hated the draft. He supported some "hippie ideals" such as free love and but found other liberal ideas such as unilateral nuclear disarmament untenable. He wrote about gender equality and multiracial characters when most conservatives believed the woman's place was at home and still clung to the idea of separate but equal.

Me:
Liberals love to complicate & confuse matters because it allows them to analyze things to death as they wallow in their own irrational hopes and try to reconcile that with their goals. I am sure I could quickly deduce his ideology with just a small handful of basic human nature-related questions.

Tyrol:
4. Ron Moore is not in the room watching the show with you, so his opinion or reason behind the show is totally irrelevant. The only relevant point is what the audience takes from it or what they can potentially take from it.

Me:
You are not arguing that all art is subjective, are you? God I hope not. Yes what the audience takes away is relevant but so is the message (which originates from a specific worldview mentality) of the originator.

Captain Jack Harkness - you are clearly - hands down a liberal douche bag.

And let me explain why.

You are obviously a liberal as you hold fantastic, irrational bordering on paranoid political views.

You believed Gore would take away your guns. I despise Al Gore but even if the man had won in a landslide he would never have the constitutional power to overturn the 2nd amendment nor would His party dare go there knowing they would lose every vote in the South, West and Midwest for the next 40 years.

You actually believed that George Bush would start a civil war by refusing to leave office - you are clearly out-there-cuckoo. Such irrationality reveals a paranoid mentality so often found amongst the conspiratorial left.

Lastly you are a liberal because you admitted voting for the most socialist, most anti-constitution, most anti-traditional American values and ideals candidate in the history of the Republic over a true war hero who is considered, by both sides of the aisle, to be the most honest and upright politician on the Hill.

Finally, you are a douche bag for suggesting that only a war veteron can challenge you and your sacred beliefs and for questioning a person's character according to your irrational belief that veterans are somehow superior to non-veterans as citizens. You douche!

You're a funny guy McTex. After you get done spouting off about "the Declaration or Constitution that WE wrote" I find out you haven't even done your part to defend it. It's okay, I and many others did it for you. Keep ranting sweetpea, it's your right, WE made sure of it. Yeah, maybe I'm a little paranoid, maybe I'm a little out there, but it's because I've run into far too many whacked-out nutjobs on the streets that think it's okay to shout people down with their "rational arguments" and their "free speech."

Well, "it's a free country, 'cept ain't nothing free. Lotta jungle out there. Whoa..."

Douche bag wrote:
I find out you haven't even done your part to defend it. It's okay,

Me:
No you haven't. You have no personal knowledge of what I have done in service to the Republic nor will you ever know because I would never dare justify the legitimacy of such a contemptible question by answering it.

What I do know is that you are not fit to serve this country and it would have been both right and just to dishonorably discharge your ass if your superiors had learned of the disgrace which you brought to the uniform. All honorable soldiers know that they are servants to the citizenry of the Republic - not the other way around you douche.

McTex' arguments are all based on a false premises and factual errors that show he doesn't know as much about politics, history, or human nature as he thinks.

1. False Premise: McTex is a conservative. He likes BSG. Ergo, BSG must be a conservative show. In actuality, like most television, BSG is politically neutral, lest it offend half its audience. Like any good dramatist, Moore allows his characters to argue over positions that are both equally valid.

The characters take actions based on pragmatic necessity not ideological positions. As in real life, his characters often hold seemingly opposing views. William Adama is a good example, an agnostic, he uses the people's faith in their legends about Earth to give them hope that they will eventually come through the disaster with the Cylons. Chief Tyrol hates Cylons with a passion but saves Boomer from rape and torture at the hands of the Pegasus crew even after he finds out she is a Cylon.

2. False dichotomy: Many of McTex's arguments are from the false idea that people can be seen as clearly liberal or clearly conservative on every issue. In fact, outside of talk radio hosts, most people hold a wide range of views that fall somewhere in the middle. In spite of what some election day maps might show, there are no red states or blue states but actually purple states.

3. Ad Hominem Attacks: McTex frequently uses the phrase "Liberal Douche Bag". Such ad hominem attacks are childish and desperate, showing an inability to attack the argument or reasoning of the person. "Why can't a society with FTL drive discover a cure for breast cancer?" is a reasonable question. The mechanism behind breast cancer is increasingly understood, the mechanism for FTL is largely fanciful and violates everything now known about physics.

4. Straw Men: The use of the phrase ALL LIBERALS BELIEVE IN UTOPIA is a straw man attack from a false premise: Some utopias in fiction are based on liberal ideals, therefore all liberals must believe in utopias. However, in reality, utopias have covered the entire range of political thought from very left leaning liberalism through to hard right Objectivism. Thomas More, who wrote the first novel about a utopia in 1516, would not be described as liberal in any sense of the word. This also another false dichotomy "either you are a conservative and a realist or a liberal who believes in utopias".

5. McTex constantly reference Thomas Hobbes but calls himself a conservative which he equates with being a "classical liberal": Hobbes never said that men were evil, he said they were selfish -- without value judgment. In Hobbes' view good and evil are relative. Things are good if they please you, evil if they don't. He was also in favor of an authoritarian government and rejected the separation of powers.

Classical liberalism is derived from John Locke who supported separation of powers and saw government as a neutral arbitrator for settling disputes.

Captain Jack, I stand corrected. Thought he was still in there for enterprise, but he left during voyager.

Now I gotta ask (mainly because a lot of the statements here made sense) . . . . what does a feminine hygiene product have to do with Science Fiction???

John Locke is right. Even Hitler believed in a utopia, as long as it was his "Thousand Year Reich". Can't get much more to the right than him.

Bobanort, no problem, we're cool, as to your last question, hopefully McTex went to douche his mouth out. I think John Locke might have scared some sense into him. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

My answer to McTex is I now know for a fact that you've never served in the military because if you've ever sworn the oath you'd know it was to protect and defend the Constitution, to obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over you. There's nothing in the oath about being "servants to the citizenry of the Republic" - unless you were a "jedi," you freak.

John Locke:
McTex' arguments are all based on a false premises and factual errors that show he doesn't know as much about politics, history, or human nature as he thinks.

Me:
We got ourselves a playa – but for the love of God can I get someone with a half a brain who actually bothers to read what I write without putting words in my mouth?

Locke:
1. False Premise: McTex is a conservative. He likes BSG. Ergo, BSG must be a conservative show. In actuality, like most television, BSG is politically neutral, lest it offend half its audience. Like any good dramatist, Moore allows his characters to argue over positions that are both equally valid.

Me:
Nope – false assumption number 1 on your part douche bag. I never said BSG is a conservative show. I said that I don’t care for the irrationality of the liberal criticisms and that BSG has a rational (thus conservative) representation of human nature. Maybe next time you will bother to read what I have to say before you put your foot in your mouth again.

Locke:
The characters take actions based on pragmatic necessity not ideological positions. As in real life, his characters often hold seemingly opposing views. William Adama is a good example, an agnostic, he uses the people's faith in their legends about Earth to give them hope that they will eventually come through the disaster with the Cylons. Chief Tyrol hates Cylons with a passion but saves Boomer from rape and torture at the hands of the Pegasus crew even after he finds out she is a Cylon.

Me:
I actually acknowledged this fact. Again read, absorb and then add your own two-cents worth and then you won’t embarrass yourself so much.

Locke:
2. False dichotomy: Many of McTex's arguments are from the false idea that people can be seen as clearly liberal or clearly conservative on every issue. In fact, outside of talk radio hosts, most people hold a wide range of views that fall somewhere in the middle. In spite of what some election day maps might show, there are no red states or blue states but actually purple states.

Me:
Nope – false accusation # 2. I assume most people are liberals regardless of their individual views on the issues. Some of the biggest libs I know think they are right-wingers. Again if you had bothered to truly read what I said to Maltheus, who claimed to be to my right, you would have known this. Jebus how many times you gonna strike out?

Locke:
3. Ad Hominem Attacks: McTex frequently uses the phrase "Liberal Douche Bag". Such ad hominem attacks are childish and desperate, showing an inability to attack the argument or reasoning of the person. "Why can't a society with FTL drive discover a cure for breast cancer?" is a reasonable question. The mechanism behind breast cancer is increasingly understood, the mechanism for FTL is largely fanciful and violates everything now known about physics.

Me:
Possibly true – or on those few occasions those individuals actually are liberal douche bags. I know where I’d wager my money.

FTL does not violate the laws of physics but actually is in accord with them.

My problem wasn’t with the question of how they could invent FTL and not cure cancer but with the attitude that the idea that they could create FTL yet still were incapable of curing cancer was somehow illegitimate, illogical or went against the spirit of honest science fiction.

Was this over your head boyo?

Locke:
4. Straw Men: The use of the phrase ALL LIBERALS BELIEVE IN UTOPIA is a straw man attack from a false premise: Some utopias in fiction are based on liberal ideals, therefore all liberals must believe in utopias. However, in reality, utopias have covered the entire range of political thought from very left leaning liberalism through to hard right Objectivism. Thomas More, who wrote the first novel about a utopia in 1516, would not be described as liberal in any sense of the word. This also another false dichotomy "either you are a conservative and a realist or a liberal who believes in utopias".

Me:
Believe what you want but ALL LIBERALS ultimately prescribe to a utopian mindset which is why they reject a true and historically proven understanding of human nature.

Locke:
5. McTex constantly reference Thomas Hobbes but calls himself a conservative which he equates with being a "classical liberal": Hobbes never said that men were evil, he said they were selfish -- without value judgment. In Hobbes' view good and evil are relative. Things are good if they please you, evil if they don't. He was also in favor of an authoritarian government and rejected the separation of powers.

Me:
BWAAAA what a bunch of sophistic crap. Of course Hobbes made a moral judgment and he judged man’s natural state in the negative, which is why he then… uh…. makes certain recommendations, lol.. Read a book dude.

And I think I referenced him once. A conservative clearly does not base his belief on a Hobbesian worldview anymore than they do a Lockean worldview. An American conservative’s view come from a wide range of thought including Scripture, Greek philosophy and Roman history to name a few. A classical liberal looks to Federalist Papers as an example of the kind of scholarship and source material essential for conservative apologetics.

Locke:
Classical liberalism is derived from John Locke who supported separation of powers and saw government as a neutral arbitrator for settling disputes.

Me:
So Locke is the only footnote in Federalist? Lmao – talk about a simplistic POV.

Bobanort - don't talk about what you don't know - Hitler was on the European right - that is American LEFT on our ideological scale. Europe and America use completely different ideological scales.

Hitler was a fascist and fascism, like its cousin communism, is a branch of socialism.

Captain douche bag - who does the Constitution serve? Could it be we the people?

Captain Jack: No doubt we will continue to disagree on the Star Trek movie issue...and agree on the BSG issue...whatever...THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY!

McTex: What is WRONG WITH YOU?!? I'm trying REAL HARD here to not sink down to your level. Not going to argue with you any more other than to say that you have NO CONCEPT about that which you speak...what a bunch of whacked out foolishness! You need counceling...REAL BAD.

Gentlemen...Ladies...the best thing we can all do, is to start ignoring this...person. Maybe if we do...he'll go get some help.

Back to Sci Fi...Capt...come on now...admit it...Zach Quinto DOES look good as Spock! ;^)

1. Again with the douche bag? You sound like a 12 year old. Calling names doesn't win arguments, it only makes your position weaker. It says you can't find fault with the other person's argument or you are trying to cover holes in your argument. It also hints at a limited vocabulary. Also, nobody is putting words in your mouth, it's called paraphrasing. And saying it has a rational/conservative view of human nature is the same as saying it is conservative. Your opinion of the of the show is still based on the assumption that it reflects your view of the way the world works. Your view, as you plainly stated it is that most people are liberals and some are conservative. The show depicts a world where no one operates from just a singular ideological standpoint. This is not a conservative or liberal view it is just good writing.

2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh. It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

3. You referenced Hobbes in different words about five times. It's never people he is judging but conflict between them that makes life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He thought that people had a basic right to whatever they wanted but that created conflict and peace, in his view, is better than war, so men give up that basic right and create governments in order to avoid unnecessary war. I never said that Locke was the only source for 'classical liberal thought' but the primary one -- at least more so than Hobbes considering we don't live in Hobbes' type of authoritarian state.

4. FTL is only possible if we ignore special relativity, give up causality, give up absolute relativity, or assume the existence of some other realm. If the people on BSG can do something like that, than there is no reason they couldn't have a cure for cancer, at least a common type like breast cancer. Roslin's cancer was a crack in the show's internal logic.

5. What part of false dichotomy don't you understand? It doesn't matter if you assume people are liberal or conservative. You are falsely dividing the world into polar opposites. Real human beings don't function that way. I don't wake up and think to myself "Is this decision liberal or conservative". I think "Is this practical".

6. No two political scientists have ever agreed on where to place Hitler on the political spectrum. He opposed both ends of it, he was as much opposed to communism as he was opposed to liberal democracy. Fascism, as a concept, has never been clearly defined either, it has largely been watered down by over-use.

Locke:
1. Again with the douche bag? You sound like a 12 year old. Calling names doesn't win arguments, it only makes your position weaker. It says you can't find fault with the other person's argument or you are trying to cover holes in your argument. It also hints at a limited vocabulary. Also, nobody is putting words in your mouth, it's called paraphrasing. And saying it has a rational/conservative view of human nature is the same as saying it is conservative. Your opinion of the of the show is still based on the assumption that it reflects your view of the way the world works. Your view, as you plainly stated it is that most people are liberals and some are conservative. The show depicts a world where no one operates from just a singular ideological standpoint. This is not a conservative or liberal view it is just good writing.

Me:
Yes douche bag makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Locke:
3. You referenced Hobbes in different words about five times. It's never people he is judging but conflict between them that makes life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He thought that people had a basic right to whatever they wanted but that created conflict and peace, in his view, is better than war, so men give up that basic right and create governments in order to avoid unnecessary war. I never said that Locke was the only source for 'classical liberal thought' but the primary one -- at least more so than Hobbes considering we don't live in Hobbes' type of authoritarian state.

Me:
I only remember referencing him once. And my only point was to describe the fallen, craven, evil nature of man – nothing more. So you can quit reading so much into it. I could have just as easily referenced Adams, Jesus or Dostoyevsky.

Locke:
4. FTL is only possible if we ignore special relativity, give up causality, give up absolute relativity, or assume the existence of some other realm. If the people on BSG can do something like that, than there is no reason they couldn't have a cure for cancer, at least a common type like breast cancer. Roslin's cancer was a crack in the show's internal logic.

Me:
Wrong again. FTL obeys the laws of physics by taking special relativity into account. The ships are not traveling faster than light speed in all reality but traveling between two locations by gravitationally bending space.

Locke:
5. What part of false dichotomy don't you understand? It doesn't matter if you assume people are liberal or conservative. You are falsely dividing the world into polar opposites. Real human beings don't function that way. I don't wake up and think to myself "Is this decision liberal or conservative". I think "Is this practical".

Me:
Truth is not subjective no matter how much you wish it so. All people live their lives based on a false understanding of reality since all people are imperfect and thus incapable of holding a perfect understanding of anything.

Liberal and conservatives are just words that, in all truth, have very little meaning. Most people have no clue what they mean – even you fall short and you are better than most on this board. I could just as easily revert to biblical terminology and call it righteous and the wicked.

At the end of the day, perfection Itself or Himself is the only Thing or One who can impart to imperfect man the way to the path of truth.

Long and wide is the road to hell – short and narrow is the path to righteousness.

Boy I know that probably no one will grasp what I just wrote but I can’t wait to read the rabid replies. This is gonna be a blast baby!

Locke:
6. No two political scientists have ever agreed on where to place Hitler on the political spectrum. He opposed both ends of it, he was as much opposed to communism as he was opposed to liberal democracy. Fascism, as a concept, has never been clearly defined either, it has largely been watered down by over-use.

Me:
Blah blah blah – give it a rest – I am so sick of hearing this lame argument. No two liberal political scientists maybe (out of a deep sense of subconscious guilt) but any academic worth a grain of salt would laugh at your defense of Hitler. Hitler was hardly opposed to communism. Most of his earliest recruitment during the infant stages of the Nazi party was done at commie party meetings.

The difference between Russian socialism and German socialism is that the Russians believed that the workers of the world should unite whereas the Germans merely believed that the workers of Germany should unite.

Hitler may have been a bit smarter when it came to allowing a modicum of private corporate existence than Stalin but true capitalists in Germany didn’t sleep easy at night. Hitler was just smarter than Stalin at knowing how to have a more productive economy.

Locke:
1. Again with the douche bag? You sound like a 12 year old. Calling names doesn't win arguments, it only makes your position weaker. It says you can't find fault with the other person's argument or you are trying to cover holes in your argument. It also hints at a limited vocabulary. Also, nobody is putting words in your mouth, it's called paraphrasing. And saying it has a rational/conservative view of human nature is the same as saying it is conservative. Your opinion of the of the show is still based on the assumption that it reflects your view of the way the world works. Your view, as you plainly stated it is that most people are liberals and some are conservative. The show depicts a world where no one operates from just a singular ideological standpoint. This is not a conservative or liberal view it is just good writing.

Me:
Yes douche bag makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Locke:
3. You referenced Hobbes in different words about five times. It's never people he is judging but conflict between them that makes life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He thought that people had a basic right to whatever they wanted but that created conflict and peace, in his view, is better than war, so men give up that basic right and create governments in order to avoid unnecessary war. I never said that Locke was the only source for 'classical liberal thought' but the primary one -- at least more so than Hobbes considering we don't live in Hobbes' type of authoritarian state.

Me:
I only remember referencing him once. And my only point was to describe the fallen, craven, evil nature of man – nothing more. So you can quit reading so much into it. I could have just as easily referenced Adams, Jesus or Dostoyevsky.

Locke:
4. FTL is only possible if we ignore special relativity, give up causality, give up absolute relativity, or assume the existence of some other realm. If the people on BSG can do something like that, than there is no reason they couldn't have a cure for cancer, at least a common type like breast cancer. Roslin's cancer was a crack in the show's internal logic.

Me:
Wrong again. FTL obeys the laws of physics by taking special relativity into account. The ships are not traveling faster than light speed in all reality but traveling between two locations by gravitationally bending space.

Locke:
5. What part of false dichotomy don't you understand? It doesn't matter if you assume people are liberal or conservative. You are falsely dividing the world into polar opposites. Real human beings don't function that way. I don't wake up and think to myself "Is this decision liberal or conservative". I think "Is this practical".

Me:
Truth is not subjective no matter how much you wish it so. All people live their lives based on a false understanding of reality since all people are imperfect and thus incapable of holding a perfect understanding of anything.

Liberal and conservatives are just words that, in all truth, have very little meaning. Most people have no clue what they mean – even you fall short and you are better than most on this board. I could just as easily revert to biblical terminology and call it righteous and the wicked.

At the end of the day, perfection Itself or Himself is the only Thing or One who can impart to imperfect man the way to the path of truth.

Long and wide is the road to hell – short and narrow is the path to righteousness.

Boy I know that probably no one will grasp what I just wrote but I can’t wait to read the rabid replies. This is gonna be a blast baby!

Locke:
6. No two political scientists have ever agreed on where to place Hitler on the political spectrum. He opposed both ends of it, he was as much opposed to communism as he was opposed to liberal democracy. Fascism, as a concept, has never been clearly defined either, it has largely been watered down by over-use.

Me:
Blah blah blah – give it a rest – I am so sick of hearing this lame argument. No two liberal political scientists maybe (out of a deep sense of subconscious guilt) but any academic worth a grain of salt would laugh at your defense of Hitler. Hitler was hardly opposed to communism. Most of his earliest recruitment during the infant stages of the Nazi party was done at commie party meetings.

The difference between Russian socialism and German socialism is that the Russians believed that the workers of the world should unite whereas the Germans merely believed that the workers of Germany should unite.

Hitler may have been a bit smarter when it came to allowing a modicum of private corporate existence than Stalin but true capitalists in Germany didn’t sleep easy at night. Hitler was just smarter than Stalin at knowing how to have a more productive economy.

ALL LIBERALS are utopianists. That’s why they believe they can change the world – they can end poverty or global warming or whatever your cause du jour is if they only enact this gov’t program or take control of this political body.

Man is flawed, imperfect and evil thus it is impossible to hold a rationally optimistic view of humanity’s future. The fact that you are able to reconcile the two (your optimism and man’s natural state) reveals that you are irrational and that you choose to ignore the truth for things that make you feel better, as is your privilege.

McTex Wrote: "Conservatives do not hold an every-man-for-himself attitude as you would know if you have ever read the Declaration or Constitution that WE wrote."

WTF? Conservatives wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? The reason the constitution provides for a bicameral legislature and an independent judiciary is to prevent tyranny by the majority. If you don't believe me, I suggest you re-read Marbury V. Madison, where it was declared the Supreme Court had the right to declare laws unconstitutional. As for the declaration, Jefferson is probably the quintessential of liberal, as were all the men of the Enlightenment (where men like John Stewart Mill, Voltaire, and John Locke--whose "Declaration of the Rights of Man" provided the basis for our Declaration of Independence--created liberalism (from which, by the way, Conservatism sprang).

McTex Wrote: "Conservatives just have a more rational understanding of the importance of individual responsibility."

No, Conservatives believe that individuals have no responsibility, except to themselves. Liberals believe in the idea of a social contract, meaning that both government and the individual exist symbiotically, each having responsibilities to the other.

McT wrote: "ALL LIBERALS are utopianists."

Untrue. You could argue that all liberals are progressives, but not utopianists. And while we're on the subject of progressivism and the constitution, the preamble begins, "We the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..." Sounds pretty progressive to me.

McTex wrote: "Man is flawed, imperfect and evil thus it is impossible to hold a rationally optimistic view of humanity’s future. The fact that you are able to reconcile the two (your optimism and man’s natural state) reveals that you are irrational and that you choose to ignore the truth for things that make you feel better, as is your privilege."

There is absolutely NO TRUTH in the statement that humanity is innately evil. This is a silly argument. First of all, good and evil are not states of being, they are value judgments largely based on subjective criteria. Homo Sapiens, like most higher primates, is a social species which has survived and thrived mostly because of its evolved ability to cooperate and coexist.

You attack my statement that conservatives have an "every man for themselves" attitude, yet with your own assertions, you confirm that very sentiment.

Also, a point about FTL; it's something of a misnomer. In his initial mission statement for the series, Ron Moore states that, "the speed of light is a law, and no one can break it." FTL is probaly some sort of either spacial warping technology, or a wormhole-generating device. Neither violates the laws of special relativity, but both are impractical beyond belief. However, this is, after all, just a TV show.

If he intended it to be something other than FTL he should have called it something else.

Yes, he should have called it the "Deus ex Machina," and hid it in a box marked "Hamdingers."

Also, before McTex jumps on the various formatting, grammatical, and spelling errors in my previous post, desperately trying to use them as proof of the invalidity of my argument, let me say that I am aware of them. I tried to proofread, and obviously missed some things. I would have cleaned it up, but there is no edit feature here. So yes, I know it's John Stuart Mill, Not John Stewart Mill. The sentence should read that Thomas Jefferson was the quintessential liberal, not the quintessential of liberal. I also omitted Thomas Hobbes from my list of thinkers and philosophers who helped shape liberalism. And yes, I admit, it was a glaring omission. So there.

Caprica this doesn't sound since fiction at all ... is looks like family drama ... or theatre .. what the hek? It will be only on a planet, no cylons or similar ... THIS IS NOT SCI-FI

Instead of bunch of family dramas I expect from SciFi to do SCIFI movies ... with universes, imaginations, planets, aliens ... like Galactica, Farscape, Stargate .. whats this?

Locke:

1. Again with the douche bag? You sound like a 12 year old. Calling names doesn't win arguments, it only makes your position weaker. It says you can't find fault with the other person's argument or you are trying to cover holes in your argument. It also hints at a limited vocabulary. Also, nobody is putting words in your mouth, it's called paraphrasing. And saying it has a rational/conservative view of human nature is the same as saying it is conservative. Your opinion of the of the show is still based on the assumption that it reflects your view of the way the world works. Your view, as you plainly stated it is that most people are liberals and some are conservative. The show depicts a world where no one operates from just a singular ideological standpoint. This is not a conservative or liberal view it is just good writing.

Me:
Yes douche bag makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Locke:
3. You referenced Hobbes in different words about five times. It's never people he is judging but conflict between them that makes life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He thought that people had a basic right to whatever they wanted but that created conflict and peace, in his view, is better than war, so men give up that basic right and create governments in order to avoid unnecessary war. I never said that Locke was the only source for 'classical liberal thought' but the primary one -- at least more so than Hobbes considering we don't live in Hobbes' type of authoritarian state.

Me:
I only remember referencing him once. And my only point was to describe the fallen, craven, evil nature of man – nothing more. So you can quit reading so much into it. I could have just as easily referenced Adams, Jesus or Dostoyevsky.

Locke:
4. FTL is only possible if we ignore special relativity, give up causality, give up absolute relativity, or assume the existence of some other realm. If the people on BSG can do something like that, than there is no reason they couldn't have a cure for cancer, at least a common type like breast cancer. Roslin's cancer was a crack in the show's internal logic.

Me:
Wrong again. FTL obeys the laws of physics by taking special relativity into account. The ships are not traveling faster than light speed in all reality but traveling between two locations by gravitationally bending space.

Locke:
5. What part of false dichotomy don't you understand? It doesn't matter if you assume people are liberal or conservative. You are falsely dividing the world into polar opposites. Real human beings don't function that way. I don't wake up and think to myself "Is this decision liberal or conservative". I think "Is this practical".

Me:
Truth is not subjective no matter how much you wish it so. All people live their lives based on a false understanding of reality since all people are imperfect and thus incapable of holding a perfect understanding of anything.

Liberal and conservatives are just words that, in all truth, have very little meaning (or more accurately have had their proper meanings corrupted). Most people have no clue what those words mean – even you fall short and you are better than most on this board. I could just as easily revert to biblical terminology and call it the righteous and the wicked.

At the end of the day, perfection Itself or Himself is the only Thing or One who can impart to imperfect man the way to the path of truth.

Long and wide is the road to hell – short and narrow is the path to perfection.

Boy I assume that probably no one will grasp what I just wrote but I can’t wait to read the rabid replies. This is gonna be a blast baby!

Locke:
6. No two political scientists have ever agreed on where to place Hitler on the political spectrum. He opposed both ends of it, he was as much opposed to communism as he was opposed to liberal democracy. Fascism, as a concept, has never been clearly defined either, it has largely been watered down by over-use.

Me:
Blah blah blah – give it a rest – I am so sick of hearing this lame argument. No two liberal political scientists maybe (out of a deep sense of subconscious guilt) but any academic worth a grain of salt would laugh at your defense of Hitler. Hitler was hardly opposed to communism. Most of his earliest recruitment during the infant stages of the Nazi party was done at commie party meetings.

The difference between Russian socialism and German socialism is that the Russians believed that the workers of the world should unite whereas the Germans merely believed that the workers of Germany should unite.

Hitler may have been a bit smarter when it came to allowing a modicum of private corporate existence than Stalin but true capitalists in Germany didn’t sleep easy at night. Hitler was just smarter than Stalin at knowing how to have a more productive economy.

Locke:

1. Again with the douche bag? You sound like a 12 year old. Calling names doesn't win arguments, it only makes your position weaker. It says you can't find fault with the other person's argument or you are trying to cover holes in your argument. It also hints at a limited vocabulary. Also, nobody is putting words in your mouth, it's called paraphrasing. And saying it has a rational/conservative view of human nature is the same as saying it is conservative. Your opinion of the of the show is still based on the assumption that it reflects your view of the way the world works. Your view, as you plainly stated it is that most people are liberals and some are conservative. The show depicts a world where no one operates from just a singular ideological standpoint. This is not a conservative or liberal view it is just good writing.

Me:
Yes douche bag makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Locke:
3. You referenced Hobbes in different words about five times. It's never people he is judging but conflict between them that makes life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He thought that people had a basic right to whatever they wanted but that created conflict and peace, in his view, is better than war, so men give up that basic right and create governments in order to avoid unnecessary war. I never said that Locke was the only source for 'classical liberal thought' but the primary one -- at least more so than Hobbes considering we don't live in Hobbes' type of authoritarian state.

Me:
I only remember referencing him once. And my only point was to describe the fallen, craven, evil nature of man – nothing more. So you can quit reading so much into it. I could have just as easily referenced Adams, Jesus or Dostoyevsky.

Locke:
4. FTL is only possible if we ignore special relativity, give up causality, give up absolute relativity, or assume the existence of some other realm. If the people on BSG can do something like that, than there is no reason they couldn't have a cure for cancer, at least a common type like breast cancer. Roslin's cancer was a crack in the show's internal logic.

Aww someone complained and now I can no longer blog here. LMAO

Or maybe my reply was just too long...

Locke: Again with the douche bag?...

1. Yes, using ‘douche bag’ makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten it up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Or maybe my reply was just too long...

Locke: Again with the douche bag?...

1. Yes, using ‘douche bag’ makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten it up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Or maybe my reply was just too long...

Locke: Again with the douche bag?...

1. Yes, using ‘douche bag’ makes me laugh and since I don’t take any of this as seriously as many of you douches do (ha ha I just laughed – really no really lol) I prefer to lighten it up with the occasional bitch slap.

And using ad hominems or personal slurs have no power to make my arguments weaker or stronger. Only those led by emotions would make such a ridiculous claim. My arguments either stand or fall on the merits of the meat and potatoes not the ketchup. Capiche? Either my arguments contain a logical rationale or they don’t. If I write ‘hey douche – 2 frakkin bitches plus 2 frakkin bitches equals 4 frakkin bitches – are you going to now argue that my math is weaker for including such distasteful adjectives?

Lastly, preacher who put you in the pulpit? Live your life the way you want to but take your holier than thou condemnations and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I really could care less how you think I should debate. I will argue the way I want to whether you like it or not. Most people don’t have the intellectual gravitas or knowledge base to ever be going on to some board and expressing their opinion. Yes they have the 1st amendment right but the don’t have the qualitative ability to stand toe to toe with those of us who have actually spent the time it takes to learn this shit. So those people are not going to get my respect. That must be earned.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
2.Believing all liberals believe in utopia is like saying all conservatives quote from Rush Limbaugh.

Me:
Now that’s a straw man. Utopia is a certain philosophical idea and in no way equates to the sayings of a certain individual.

Locke:
It doesn't match any kind of reality. It's a false premise and shows you can't think of something better to say. By your logic I can say all conservatives are saber rattling warmongers who agree with every military endeavor our nation has ever undertaken. But that would be silly because it's not a valid argument because conservatives, like every one else, pick and choose which conflicts they support, and which they don't.

Me:
Until you define what I mean by Utopianist you are not in any position to reach the judgments you make. If you want to knock down my theory then first outline what my theory is and then show how it violates a rule of logic or a known objective truth. I won’t hold my breath. You continuously make a habit of taking the easy way out by passing your judgment as if you were Moses speaking from on high.

Let me give you a hand – why don’t you start by defining liberal and we’ll see if you are even close to the mark. And then we will see if your definition contains a utopianist mentality.

Locke:
3. You referenced Hobbes in different words about five times. It's never people he is judging but conflict between them that makes life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He thought that people had a basic right to whatever they wanted but that created conflict and peace, in his view, is better than war, so men give up that basic right and create governments in order to avoid unnecessary war. I never said that Locke was the only source for 'classical liberal thought' but the primary one -- at least more so than Hobbes considering we don't live in Hobbes' type of authoritarian state.

Me:
I only remember referencing him once. And my only point was to describe the fallen, craven, evil nature of man – nothing more. So you can quit reading so much into it. I could have just as easily referenced Adams, Jesus or Dostoyevsky.

Locke:
4. FTL is only possible if we ignore special relativity, give up causality, give up absolute relativity, or assume the existence of some other realm. If the people on BSG can do something like that, than there is no reason they couldn't have a cure for cancer, at least a common type like breast cancer. Roslin's cancer was a crack in the show's internal logic.

Me:
Wrong again. FTL obeys the laws of physics by taking special relativity into account. The ships are not traveling faster than light speed in all reality but traveling between two locations by gravitationally bending space

Locke:
5. What part of false dichotomy don't you understand? It doesn't matter if you assume people are liberal or conservative. You are falsely dividing the world into polar opposites. Real human beings don't function that way. I don't wake up and think to myself "Is this decision liberal or conservative". I think "Is this practical".

Me:
Truth is not subjective no matter how much you wish it so. All people live their lives based on a false understanding of reality since all people are imperfect and thus incapable of holding a perfect understanding of anything.

Liberal and conservatives are just words that, in all truth, have very little meaning because their proper meanings have been corrupted over time (sometimes intentionally). Most people have no clue what they mean – even you fall short and you are better than most on this board. I could just as easily revert to biblical terminology and call it the righteous and the wicked.

At the end of the day, perfection Itself or Himself is the only Thing or One who can impart to imperfect man the way to the path of truth.

Long and wide is the road to hell – short and narrow is the path to perfection.

Boy, I assume that probably no one will grasp what I just wrote but I can’t wait to read the rabid replies. This is gonna be a blast baby!

Locke:
6. No two political scientists have ever agreed on where to place Hitler on the political spectrum. He opposed both ends of it, he was as much opposed to communism as he was opposed to liberal democracy. Fascism, as a concept, has never been clearly defined either, it has largely been watered down by over-use.

Me:
Blah blah blah – give it a rest – I am so sick of hearing this lame argument. No two liberal political scientists maybe (out of a deep sense of subconscious guilt) but any academic worth a grain of salt would laugh at your defense of Hitler. Hitler was hardly opposed to communism. Most of his earliest recruitment during the infant stages of the Nazi party was done at commie party meetings.

The difference between Russian socialism and German socialism is that the Russians believed that the workers of the world should unite whereas the Germans merely believed that the workers of Germany should unite.

Hitler may have been a bit smarter when it came to allowing a modicum of private corporate existence than Stalin but true capitalists in Germany didn’t sleep easy at night. Hitler was just smarter than Stalin at knowing how to have a more productive economy.

Gilveron:
WTF? Conservatives wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? The reason the constitution provides for a bicameral legislature and an independent judiciary is to prevent tyranny by the majority. If you don't believe me, I suggest you re-read Marbury V. Madison, where it was declared the Supreme Court had the right to declare laws unconstitutional. As for the declaration, Jefferson is probably the quintessential of liberal, as were all the men of the Enlightenment (where men like John Stewart Mill, Voltaire, and John Locke--whose "Declaration of the Rights of Man" provided the basis for our Declaration of Independence--created liberalism (from which, by the way, Conservatism sprang).

Me:
Yes ‘classical liberals’ (i.e. conservatives) wrote the Declaration & Constitution – that is a historical fact. A modern day liberal – what should be called a progressive (or as I would prefer neofascists) are not classical liberals. They call themselves liberals (or some do at least) because they have been ‘liberated’ from classical liberalism (or absolutes which were a cherished & essential component of 18th century liberalism).

Gilveron:
No, Conservatives believe that individuals have no responsibility, except to themselves. Liberals believe in the idea of a social contract, meaning that both government and the individual exist symbiotically, each having responsibilities to the other.

Me:
Conservatives do not believe that they have no responsibility except to themselves? Why would you spread such a vile lie? You must be blatantly ignorant of the meaning of both conservative and liberal.

Gilveron:
Untrue. You could argue that all liberals are progressives, but not utopianists. And while we're on the subject of progressivism and the constitution, the preamble begins, "We the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..." Sounds pretty progressive to me.

Me:
No, it is true. Utopianism is an essential component of the progressive paradigm. I could argue that all liberals are neofascists too, which is also true. And a more perfect union may sound progressive to you; it was actually the cementing of a long argument about the feeble powers and ‘imperfection’ of the government instituted under the Articles of Confederation. What surely doesn’t sound progressive, though, is the words ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty’ since liberals have since liberated themselves from any concept of a God (not to mention a Holy God who imparts Blessings).

Gilveron:
There is absolutely NO TRUTH in the statement that humanity is innately evil. This is a silly argument. First of all, good and evil are not states of being, they are value judgments largely based on subjective criteria. Homo Sapiens, like most higher primates, is a social species which has survived and thrived mostly because of its evolved ability to cooperate and coexist.

Me:
BWAAA how hilarious. So like a typical lib to argue that good and evil are subjective value judgments. Of course that is why I also label you a neofascist. I can’t wait to read how you will weasel your way out of your belief that Hitler was not evil.

Goodness absolutely equates perfection. Anything less than perfect is imperfect. Thus anything less than perfect is un-good. Thus anything less than perfect is evil. Are you perfect? Mmmmhmmm….

You write that there is no truth in my statement. Is it good to be writing untruths? Let’s say I intentionally promote untruths – you would make no moral judgment about that? Doing that would be neither a good thing nor a bad thing? Are you really refusing to make a moral judgment about those who intentionally write untruths? Would you intentionally lie? Is it good to lie?

lol

Gilveron:
You attack my statement that conservatives have an "every man for themselves" attitude, yet with your own assertions, you confirm that very sentiment.

Me:
How? I, like all Conservatives, believe in the Republic – fully support the Constitution and the institutions it creates. Are you really going to make the laughable argument that our Constitution promotes an ‘every man for themselves’ attitude?

Lastly, I haven’t criticized anyone else’s misspellings or grammar – why should I start with yours? And Jefferson may have started off as a classical liberal but, after his time in France, became far more radicalized. So no, he was not a quintessential liberal – I would give that honor to Adams.

PS. I don’t think FSL Drive (not speed) is a misnomer. Clearly they are moving from one location to the next in a time that is faster than what it would take for light to travel.

McTex, I can't believe you quoted...er...misquoted the Bible at me. That's probably the weakest move there is in a debate. But hey, it's your religious revelation, so whatever...I hope you find your "Perfection"...Maybe you can look me up in my "Utopia."

To say that "good" and "evil" are absolutes is to admit that there is some force which defines them, in other words, a god, a force of creation, call it what you will. Since you are no doubt aware that it is impossible to prove or disprove an ontological imperative, I will not presume to start with you that debate. I will simply point out that since you are so fond of rational thought, science has pretty convincingly reduced the likelihood of there being a god to somewhere in the vicinity of nil. Therefore, to believe in such in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is irrational.

Hitler was human. The bulk of his actions were certainly motivated by self-interest and a disregard for their consequences, which I personally would define as evil, but he also took Germany from a third-rate power to arguably the most powerful nation on earth in the space of about a decade (and then, of course, destroyed it again). If the measure of a man is the sum of his actions, then yes, Hitler was an evil man. You might call that sophistry, and I might even agree it is. But the point is this; Hitler was not "evil" because some supernatural being inhabited him and made him act this way. He acted this way freely and of his own accord. He was not the agent of some "devil". Further, the fact that I personally can define his actions as evil does not mean that good or evil are a priori constructs. Aztecs, Inca, Olmecs, Maya, they all committed mass murder in the service of their gods (so, for that matter, did most ancient religions). But this was not considered evil to them; in fact, it was the exact opposite. Some victims even thought it noble to sacrifice their lives for the cause. Thus, good and evil are relative.

And this, to put this on task, is the heart of Battlestar Galactica. Humanity in Galactica is not good. Cylons in Galactica are not evil. It could be argued that what the Cylons were doing was noble, trying to rid the universe of what they saw as a dangerously savage and irresponsible species--a sentence to which Adama admits in his speech at the decommissioning in the pilot. And don't forget that when given the opportunity during season three, humanity was just as willing to commit genocide against the Cylons, no thanks to Helo. One of the central questions of this show is what is good, what is evil, and who decides? Also, what are the consequences of blindly holding to ideology or faith? The entire quest for earth was a giant object lesson in the dangers of faith. Earth was supposed to be a paradise; a new beginning. It turned out to be a war-ravaged wreck. You're right; ideology often crumbles in the face of catastrophe. It is often necessary to create new paradigms of belief. But this is a liberal, not a conservative value. Conservatism would have you hold to the old paradigm no matter what. Liberalism allows for the flexibility to challenge old ways of belief. This is an argument as old as the constitution; is it a codex set in stone, or a living document that should change as society changes? We're faced with a similar predicament now with the economic crisis; should we doggedly hold to capitalism, or should we abandon it in favor of something else? If we abandoned it, what would that something else be? Certainly not communism, that is a failed ideology. Socialism, communism's bastard cousin, has some good ideas, but is simply unpalatable to too many Americans. Or, do we change our perception of capitalism? The ideology itself is sound, but it is clear that the concept of laissez-faire is too easily corruptible by those at the top. So we must introduce market reforms, stricter regulations, and more oversight. But the conservative notion is that the system is not broken, and does not need to be fixed.

Battlestar Galactica has been science fiction at its best; a forum for taking our real-world problems and extrapolating them to extremes and then exploring all their aspects. In the end, minutiae like whether or not FTL violates special relativity is unimportant. Fans who obsess over such details completely miss the point. I agree, if you want to argue about whether the Death Star could win in a battle against Pegasus, then watch Star Trek. If you want to argue about what a show has to say about humanity, then watch Battlestar Galactica. But I disagree that Battlestar Galactica has ever espoused any one political or moral point of view. If anything, the show has pointed up the silliness and ultimate futility of all our human (or Cylon) institutions. Whatever our origins, what matters is that we are living beings, and we must learn to transcend belief and live together if we want to survive--indeed, if we deserve to survive. That is Battlestar Galactica in a nutshell.

Locke, you mean I misquoted the English translation? lmao

I'm actually disappointed, I was hoping for a bit more outrage.

And I know that this will probably come as a shock to you but the writings of those Hebrew giants - philosophers, judges, kings, teachers and religious leaders - remain the most brilliant writings in the library of human knowledge that exists today. To censor or refrain from using those works of literature would be asinine in the least.

BTW, Perfection found me - not the other way around. Perfection can find you too, but I doubt you are willing. You likely prefer your dreams of a man-made utopia.

Tex, I do know about World War 2 history. You, yourself, an an arrogant and annoying display of ignorance stated all liberals believe in a utopia. I merely made the point that Hitler was also a believer in a utopia, so long as it was "Thousand Year Reich". I know very well he was on the European Right as far as politics go, but you are wrong. Communism is not a "cousin", as you put it, fascism. Socialism and Fascism are at the EXTREME opposite ends of the political spectrum. Please check to following link:

http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/data/thumbnails/181_Pol.%20Spec.%20diagram.pdf.0.jpg

Hitler and Stalin hated each other and only made a deal with one another to get their forces into position to invade each other. Germany only became socialist after the fall of Hitler!! He was a nazi and the nazis were fascists!! Please refer to the link above and review the diagram at this time.

I would also make the point that Zarek would make a better fascist than a socialist. My main points for that are:

1). He was smart enough to keep the black market running.

2). He would mercilessly (but quietly) eradicate any opposition to his cause.

3). Seize any opportunity to reduce the size of government (down to one, if he had his way . . .him).

4). Turn the public against his foes in such a way that their hands would be stained with the blood of the innocent for following him, and by default they could not convict him of something they too were guilty of.

5). He was quoted several times that he believed civil rights needed to be suspended for the duration of the emergency.

Gaeta couldn't really be called a liberal either. He was more of a "little hitler youth". All he did was spout dogma fed to him by Tom Zarek. He wouldn't have even mutinied if it wasn't for Tom seizing the opportunity to try and gain control of the fleet (please see my list of reasons why Tom Zarek is a right-wing fascist).

One more thing I almost forgot Tex. Take the advice you gave me and apply it to yourself.

Gilveron:
To say that "good" and "evil" are absolutes is to admit that there is some force which defines them, in other words, a god, a force of creation, call it what you will. Since you are no doubt aware that it is impossible to prove or disprove an ontological imperative, I will not presume to start with you that debate. I will simply point out that since you are so fond of rational thought, science has pretty convincingly reduced the likelihood of there being a god to somewhere in the vicinity of nil. Therefore, to believe in such in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is irrational.

Me:
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Science overwhelmingly VALIDATES (not proves – proof requires empiricality) the existence of God and has since the times of the ancient Greeks. In fact the more we learn about cosmology the more valid the idea of a First Cause that exists independently to our nature becomes. It’s amazing that people in our day and age would hold the kind of medieval mentality that you hold. Our universe – call it Nature – is finite and temporal. Thus the only logical explanation for its existence is that it was caused by a non-natural or super-natural infinite and eternal object. Unless you are going to try and make the ridiculous argument that the universe is infinite (even though we know it is expanding and only finite objects can expand) and eternal (in light of the laws of thermodynamics) then you best stop right here lest I continue to school you in public.

Gilveron::
Hitler was not "evil" because some supernatural being inhabited him and made him act this way. He acted this way freely and of his own accord. He was not the agent of some "devil". Further, the fact that I personally can define his actions as evil does not mean that good or evil are a priori constructs.

Me:
I never said that Hitler was a demonic agent or made by a supernatural evil being to act the way he did. However you don’t know, anymore than I do, if that is the case. Maybe Hitler was possessed. I would tend to agree that Hitler acted the way he did of his own free accord but that is still no more than an unproven assumption. Since we scientifically know that the supernatural is a valid concept then there is no reason to rule out the possibility that Hitler was the Devil’s tool.

Gilveron:
Aztecs, Inca, Olmecs, Maya, they all committed mass murder in the service of their gods (so, for that matter, did most ancient religions). But this was not considered evil to them; in fact, it was the exact opposite. Some victims even thought it noble to sacrifice their lives for the cause. Thus, good and evil are relative.

Me:
Of course it was considered evil which is why it never happened to the ruling class, lmao. Watch Apocalypto – those being sacrificed didn’t believe what was happening was a good thing. This notion of yours has been repudiated time and again. Every culture, be it ancient or modern, universally shares the same standards of good and evil – at least when you analyze it from the perspective of the way the ruling class demanded to be treated. CS Lewis wrote extensively on this – you should check it out.

Gilveron:
And this, to put this on task, is the heart of Battlestar Galactica. Humanity in Galactica is not good.

Me:
Exactly my point which is why BSG is the greatest tv show in this history of the medium.

Gilveron:
Cylons in Galactica are not evil. It could be argued that what the Cylons were doing was noble, trying to rid the universe of what they saw as a dangerously savage and irresponsible species--a sentence to which Adama admits in his speech at the decommissioning in the pilot.

Me:
Of course they are evil – they even admit they are evil. The question isn’t whether they are evil or even if they are more evil than man. The question is do they have a soul and will God forgive them.

Gilveron:
And don't forget that when given the opportunity during season three, humanity was just as willing to commit genocide against the Cylons, no thanks to Helo. One of the central questions of this show is what is good, what is evil, and who decides?

Me:
Actually you are just proving my point that the question being addressed is do cylons have a soul – will they be loved by God (or the gods). That is the dilemma that not only the humans have to rectify but Cylons themselves yearn for an answer to.

Gilveron:
Also, what are the consequences of blindly holding to ideology or faith? The entire quest for earth was a giant object lesson in the dangers of faith. Earth was supposed to be a paradise; a new beginning. It turned out to be a war-ravaged wreck.

Me:
Ha, RDM pulled the wool over your eyes as well. The whole lesson of the last few episodes as well as the finale will be that faith is more important than they could possibly imagine. That’s what Adama grudgingly realized in last weeks episode which is why he went to Anders for guidance. What in the world do you think Starbuck is coming to terms with?

See what I mean when I wrote I utterly have no idea why libs would enjoy BSG. Apparently because much of it is simply over your heads.

Gilveron:
You're right; ideology often crumbles in the face of catastrophe. It is often necessary to create new paradigms of belief. But this is a liberal, not a conservative value. Conservatism would have you hold to the old paradigm no matter what. Liberalism allows for the flexibility to challenge old ways of belief. This is an argument as old as the constitution; is it a codex set in stone, or a living document that should change as society changes?

Me:
Exactly now you are getting somewhere – liberals can change paradigms because they hold no absolutes sacred. There are no ultimate truths for them so it’s easy for a liberal to be a human ping pong. Conservatives hold some truths to be self evidence and believe they are revealed to us from both nature and nature’s God. That is why conservatives founded this nation and liberals will do everything they can to destroy it. Conservatives also understand that we humans are imperfect (i.e. evil) and as so will never hold a perfect understanding of all truth – thus the need for a Constitution that is living – not living in the sense that it should be interpreted by the whims of the age but living in the sense that it can be modified and amended.

Gilveron:
We're faced with a similar predicament now with the economic crisis; should we doggedly hold to capitalism, or should we abandon it in favor of something else? If we abandoned it, what would that something else be? Certainly not communism, that is a failed ideology. Socialism, communism's bastard cousin, has some good ideas, but is simply unpalatable to too many Americans. Or, do we change our perception of capitalism? The ideology itself is sound, but it is clear that the concept of laissez-faire is too easily corruptible by those at the top. So we must introduce market reforms, stricter regulations, and more oversight. But the conservative notion is that the system is not broken, and does not need to be fixed.

Me:
See people – how dangerous liberals are. First they cause the near collapse of our housing and banking systems with their socialist economic policies that forced our capitalist system to give loans to those who could not possible pay them back and then after the ‘crisis’ arises they use it as a justification to abandon the market system all together for something ‘new and untried’. And you say you’re not a utopianist – what a frakkin joke!

Seriously now – I am curious – why can’t you libs just admit that the Community Reinvestment Act – in all of its manifestations – was a mistake? Why is that so hard? Is it because admitting that would mean admitting that the socialist utopian dream which spawned it is also a mistake?

Gilveron:
Battlestar Galactica has been science fiction at its best; a forum for taking our real-world problems and extrapolating them to extremes and then exploring all their aspects. In the end, minutiae like whether or not FTL violates special relativity is unimportant. Fans who obsess over such details completely miss the point. I agree, if you want to argue about whether the Death Star could win in a battle against Pegasus, then watch Star Trek. If you want to argue about what a show has to say about humanity, then watch Battlestar Galactica.

Me:
It’s nice that you and I can have at least this one thing to fully agree upon. You stated it very well.

Gilveron:
But I disagree that Battlestar Galactica has ever espoused any one political or moral point of view. If anything, the show has pointed up the silliness and ultimate futility of all our human (or Cylon) institutions. Whatever our origins, what matters is that we are living beings, and we must learn to transcend belief and live together if we want to survive--indeed, if we deserve to survive. That is Battlestar Galactica in a nutshell.

Me:
You forget one small but very essential point – the angels and/or demons – the prophecies – the guiding hand of a higher force – are all essential to the BSG reality.

And they are to ours as well. That’s the genius of RDM. And I imagine those are points either lost or ignored by those on the left. I can understand why.

First of all, to Gilveron, I applaud you sir, for the finest oration I've read to date on this site, and for what may be the greatest summation of BSG. Bravo. I salute you.

To Bobanort, that was a fine example of WWII history. I know you know your stuff, but as for your intended party, it probably fell on deaf ears.

To jbs780, I've given it great thought, and I'm sorry. I'm sorry I've dumped on you and everyone else about the new Trek movie. We may respectfully disagree with each other about it, and we've found common ground and agree with each other about BSG, but I have no right to dump on you or anyone else about wishing to see the new Trek movie so I apologize to you and everyone else, here and now, publicly, and I hope you go see the new Trek movie and enjoy it. Don't let me being a grumpy old fart about it rain on your parade.

As for McTex, from his rants today, I can see he's mad as a bucket of frogs. Now he's apparently got the inside track on perfection like he thinks he's the second coming or something. I'm not even going to talk about him anymore. He's dismissed.

Bobanort:
Tex, I do know about World War 2 history. You, yourself, an an arrogant and annoying display of ignorance stated all liberals believe in a utopia. I merely made the point that Hitler was also a believer in a utopia, so long as it was "Thousand Year Reich". I know very well he was on the European Right as far as politics go, but you are wrong. Communism is not a "cousin", as you put it, fascism. Socialism and Fascism are at the EXTREME opposite ends of the political spectrum. Please check to following link:
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/data/thumbnails/181_Pol.%20Spec.%20diagram.pdf.0.jpg

Me:
I am fully versed on the subject and I am well aware that liberals deny their fascist past. If you are interested in knowing the truth about fascism then I suggest you read Liberal Fascism.

Communism was also on the European right as the commies, under Stalin, also embraced the return to authoritarianism (previously known as a monarchy which is what the Right in Europe did their best to conserve).

Bobanort:
Hitler and Stalin hated each other and only made a deal with one another to get their forces into position to invade each other. Germany only became socialist after the fall of Hitler!! He was a nazi and the nazis were fascists!! Please refer to the link above and review the diagram at this time.

Me:
So what – Mussolini hated Hitler – what’s your point. Stalin felt betrayed by his two cousins Hitler and Mussolini who altered one of the defining attributes of their ideology from global socialism to national socialism.

Bobanort:
I would also make the point that Zarek would make a better fascist than a socialist. My main points for that are:
1). He was smart enough to keep the black market running.
2). He would mercilessly (but quietly) eradicate any opposition to his cause.
3). Seize any opportunity to reduce the size of government (down to one, if he had his way . . .him).
4). Turn the public against his foes in such a way that their hands would be stained with the blood of the innocent for following him, and by default they could not convict him of something they too were guilty of.
5). He was quoted several times that he believed civil rights needed to be suspended for the duration of the emergency.
Gaeta couldn't really be called a liberal either. He was more of a "little hitler youth". All he did was spout dogma fed to him by Tom Zarek. He wouldn't have even mutinied if it wasn't for Tom seizing the opportunity to try and gain control of the fleet (please see my list of reasons why Tom Zarek is a right-wing fascist).

Me:
You really don’t get it. All fascists are socialists. Not all socialists are fascist though – capiche? It’s similar to saying all Conservatives are Republicans but not all Republicans are conservative. Get it now?

That's why I wrote that fascism is a branch of socialism just as Communism is also a branch of socialism.

And since liberals/progressives are also socialists then it should be obvious to you why I wrote that Zarek and Gaeta are the show’s quintecential liberals.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Science overwhelmingly VALIDATES (not proves – proof requires empiricality) the existence of God and has since the times of the ancient Greeks. >>

Rubbish. You know very well that nearly every scientific precept, from natural selection to quantum mechanics (in fact I would say, especially natural selection and quantum mechanics) INVALIDATE the existence of god. In fact, as we now decode and read more and more genomes, we can see precisely how and where information was passed down from one descending generation to the next, how frequently mutations occur, and how they affected future populations. There is simply no evidence of a guiding hand, it is all completely random. Copernicus proved the cosmos was not a system of perfect spheres in perfect orbits, blowing to bits the scholastic ideals which Thomas Aquinas attempted to coalesce from Aristotelian cosmology and Christian thought. Furthermore, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics fall completely apart on a quantum level. Call my ideas dumb if you will, but don't say the same of those of Nils Bohrs, Werner Von Heisenberg, and the other giants of Quantum Mechanics.

>

Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Despite decades of experimentation, scientists still have yet to see a single particle of matter disappear, thus supporting the law of conservation of matter.

>

The universe has no center point and no edge. Scientists know it is expanding because they can gauge its movement. As it expands, it is slowly tearing itself apart. So the universe is "finite and temporal" only in the sense that it began with the big bang and will end when it fizzles because it simply expands so far as to completely lose cohesion. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that this process was set into motion by any sort of supernatural being, and you know damn well that of all prominent scientists, there are only a paltry handful that believe in any sort of thing.

...liberals can change paradigms because they hold no absolutes sacred. There are no ultimate truths for them so it’s easy for a liberal to be a human ping pong.>>

The ability to innovate and change is hardly being a "human ping pong." Liberals hold much sacred, especially liberty, unless, by chance, you want to argue the ACLU is a conservative organization?

>

Forgive me, but if I remember my history correctly, the very reason this country came into being is because liberals--e.g. those who wish to bring about change--decided they could no longer brook the tyranny of the English Crown. Wouldn't have conservatives, as you have defined them, necessarily been royalists? As to god and the founders, most of them, as I'm sure you know, were deists, who absolutely rejected the idea of a personal, loving god. But let me play devil's advocate; let's say there's a god, and he sets the ideal of what is "good." Which, then, is more evil; trying with good intention to move society toward that paradigm, or saying pessimistically that humanity is incapable of good and thus doing nothing?

See people – how dangerous liberals are. First they cause the near collapse of our housing and banking systems with their socialist economic policies that forced our capitalist system to give loans to those who could not possible pay them back...>>

Typical conservative re-writing of history. Yes, much of the deregulation of the banks that led to the housing crisis that led to the financial meltdown began under President Clinton, while Republicans held solid majorities in both the House and Senate. But lest you think I believe otherwise, Clinton is not blameless. He had his hand in cheerleading the race for home ownership. But look, all FNMA and FMHC do is set the guidelines for what constitutes an "A" Paper loan. Banks and other securities companies then ostensibly set their lending guidelines by Fannie and Freddie's example. They then sell the mortgage instruments back to FNMA and FMHC in exchange for liquid capital. The problem was, after 9/11, the Fed cut rates on mortgages to stir the economy. It worked. But it created a false and unsustainable rise in the housing market that was wholly the fault of predatory mortgage companies in collusion with hedge fund managers. It wasn't until 2002 or 2003, under the Bush administration, that FNMA and FMHC were gently "encouraged" to slacken their lending standards. Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the housing bubble, they were its first victims. Then these hedge fund managers started packaging good loans--that is, prime, or "A Paper" loans, together with subprime, that is, loans that don't meet standards to be sold to Fannie and Freddie, together, and selling them as derivatives on the securities market for obscene profits. AIG, the world's largest insurance company, provided backing for these. When the mortgage bubble burst, these derivatives became worthless overnight, bankrupting AIG and nearly causing a global depression. All the while, NO ONE at the Bush Administration, not the SEC, not the Fed, no one, did anything or said anything to stop this. Bush's only solution was to give these people, the hedge fund managers and greedy bank executives, more money without strings to allow them to do this all over again. Bush did not start this fire, he just poured gasoline on it and then got rid of all the firemen.

>

It was not a mistake in that it was designed, and did in fact, function, to encourage lenders to invest money in low-income communities. When I worked for Unnamed Giant Bank That is Now Nearly Bankrupt, they did a lot of charitable lending under the auspices of this act. It was not the act itself that was a mistake, it was the predatory lenders and their actions that were criminal. In short, they took the ball and ran out of bounds with it.

You forget one small but very essential point – the angels and/or demons – the prophecies – the guiding hand of a higher force – are all essential to the BSG reality.>>

I did not forget this. I simply take Ron Moore at his word, that the BSG universe is "naturalistic science fiction." There are no gods, angels, or demons in a naturalistic world (I'm speaking of naturalism as it relates to a dramatic form here, not of the scientific practices or beliefs of naturalists). The prophecies of Pythia came to the Colonials from Kobol, which had already witnessed once this cycle of violence. The "angels" of the Cylon god are of uncertain origin. God does not seem to be a force of creation for the Cylons, rather the personification of an ideal, a perfect being, to which they strive. Ellen programmed belief in god into the humanoid cylons--she admits as much--she simply says she didn't come up with the concept of god. Whatever the true nature of the human Lords of Kobol or the Cylon god, I do not believe them to be actual supernatural beings. They are simply higher-evolved life forms. Whatever the case, it is clear that the message Ron Moore is giving us is not that one set of beliefs will supplant the other, but that both sets need to be put aside, or reconciled, so that both species can live in peace. The wages of clinging to these outdated prejudices is the continuation of the cycle of violence--"All of this has happened before, and will happen again." But as Lee correctly stated, it doesn't have to.

McTex, the reason you can't use the Bible in a debate is that it is based on unverifiable claims. God may or may not exist but science can not measure or observe God in any way. Science can only verify those things that can be observed. And by the way, it falls to you to define Utopia, since you are the one who first used it. You made the claim that liberals (as defined in contemporary parlance) believe in Utopia, it is up to you to establish the evidence that they do. It's one of those basic rules of debate. Somehow you totally missed those when you went to school.

Gilveron:
Rubbish. You know very well that nearly every scientific precept, from natural selection to quantum mechanics (in fact I would say, especially natural selection and quantum mechanics) INVALIDATE the existence of god. In fact, as we now decode and read more and more genomes, we can see precisely how and where information was passed down from one descending generation to the next, how frequently mutations occur, and how they affected future populations. There is simply no evidence of a guiding hand, it is all completely random. Copernicus proved the cosmos was not a system of perfect spheres in perfect orbits, blowing to bits the scholastic ideals which Thomas Aquinas attempted to coalesce from Aristotelian cosmology and Christian thought. Furthermore, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics fall completely apart on a quantum level. Call my ideas dumb if you will, but don't say the same of those of Nils Bohrs, Werner Von Heisenberg, and the other giants of Quantum Mechanics.

Me:
I will. Your ideas are dumb and so are many of those whom you call giants. Outright idiotic because they embrace fanciful fiction that is often blatantly illogical. Even Einstein rejected quantum leap. To act like quantum mechanics is settled science is to play games with THE VERY MEANING of science. Shame on you. It is people like you who destroy knowledge. Play with your theories all you like – propose them, debate them, get off on them – what ever you liberals do – but do not start preaching that your theories – many of which fail the logic test – are settled science.

Gilveron:
Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Despite decades of experimentation, scientists still have yet to see a single particle of matter disappear, thus supporting the law of conservation of matter.

Me:
What’s your point? Context please!

Gilveron:
The universe has no center point and no edge. Scientists know it is expanding because they can gauge its movement. As it expands, it is slowly tearing itself apart. So the universe is "finite and temporal" only in the sense that it began with the big bang and will end when it fizzles because it simply expands so far as to completely lose cohesion. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that this process was set into motion by any sort of supernatural being, and you know damn well that of all prominent scientists, there are only a paltry handful that believe in any sort of thing.

Me:
So you admit that the universe is finite and temporal. So, bright guy, where did this finite and temporal object come from? Sadly for you, as all real scientists know, there is only one answer that does not violate the laws of logic and science. And that answer is the cause of the universe MUST BE eternal, infinite and exist independently to our universe.

And as you damn well know – the creators/inventors/discoverers of all the great branches of science and philosophy have mostly been God-fearing throughout the ages.

Gilveron:
The ability to innovate and change is hardly being a "human ping pong." Liberals hold much sacred, especially liberty, unless, by chance, you want to argue the ACLU is a conservative organization?

Me:
Don’t twist my words. I said the fact that liberals hold no absolutes sacred makes them willing to embrace any new idea that comes along, regardless of the lack of wisdom or past record of such ideas.

The thing that liberals definitely don’t hold sacred is liberty. To suggest that they do makes me laugh out loud. You have got to be kidding, right? Whose liberty – property owners? LMAO Affirmative action which means one can’t hire some dude because of the color of his skin even though he is more qualified yet one must hire another dude because of the color of his skin even though he is less qualified promotes liberty? Put the crack pipe down. Seriously. And how do I know you are smoking crack? Because you actually have the audacity to suggest that the ACLU defends liberty. BWAAAAAAAAAA … Whose liberty – that of a rapist or illegal alien?

Gilveron
Forgive me, but if I remember my history correctly, the very reason this country came into being is because liberals--e.g. those who wish to bring about change--decided they could no longer brook the tyranny of the English Crown. Wouldn't have conservatives, as you have defined them, necessarily been royalists? As to god and the founders, most of them, as I'm sure you know, were deists, who absolutely rejected the idea of a personal, loving god. But let me play devil's advocate; let's say there's a god, and he sets the ideal of what is "good." Which, then, is more evil; trying with good intention to move society toward that paradigm, or saying pessimistically that humanity is incapable of good and thus doing nothing?

Me:
Geez you are clueless. What in the hell do you think conservatives are conserving? The old royal monarchial order? Did you actually go to college? If yes, your school should be shut down for extreme negligence.

Conservatives conserve classical liberalism. 21st century conservatives are the heirs of 18th century liberals. Like most progressives you are confusing European conservatives with American conservatives. During the Revolution my people were on the Left. But once we created the new order we immediately moved to the Right as we sought to conserve that new order. The new left that started to arise during Jefferson’s admin but really saw its American birth under Woodrow Wilson sought change from the new order that our Founders had created. They liberated themselves from that now old order thus becoming the new liberals.

I can see once again the fruits of your liberal education as you ignorantly believe that most of the Founders were deists. I have a question for you – have you ever – once in your life questioned authority – have you ever had an original thought or do you simply sup up whatever is fed to you? Ask yourself how a person can be a Deist and simultaneously believe in Providence. It’s not possible. I know of only a few Revolutionaries who rejected Providence, like Payne, but even the heathen Jefferson believed in Providence. You really should challenge your biases with just a smidgen of logic once in a while.

Gilveron:
Typical conservative re-writing of history. Yes, much of the deregulation of the banks that led to the housing crisis that led to the financial meltdown began under President Clinton, while Republicans held solid majorities in both the House and Senate. But lest you think I believe otherwise, Clinton is not blameless. He had his hand in cheerleading the race for home ownership. But look, all FNMA and FMHC do is set the guidelines for what constitutes an "A" Paper loan. Banks and other securities companies then ostensibly set their lending guidelines by Fannie and Freddie's example. They then sell the mortgage instruments back to FNMA and FMHC in exchange for liquid capital. The problem was, after 9/11, the Fed cut rates on mortgages to stir the economy. It worked. But it created a false and unsustainable rise in the housing market that was wholly the fault of predatory mortgage companies in collusion with hedge fund managers. It wasn't until 2002 or 2003, under the Bush administration, that FNMA and FMHC were gently "encouraged" to slacken their lending standards. Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the housing bubble, they were its first victims. Then these hedge fund managers started packaging good loans--that is, prime, or "A Paper" loans, together with subprime, that is, loans that don't meet standards to be sold to Fannie and Freddie, together, and selling them as derivatives on the securities market for obscene profits. AIG, the world's largest insurance company, provided backing for these. When the mortgage bubble burst, these derivatives became worthless overnight, bankrupting AIG and nearly causing a global depression. All the while, NO ONE at the Bush Administration, not the SEC, not the Fed, no one, did anything or said anything to stop this. Bush's only solution was to give these people, the hedge fund managers and greedy bank executives, more money without strings to allow them to do this all over again. Bush did not start this fire, he just poured gasoline on it and then got rid of all the firemen.

It was not a mistake in that it was designed, and did in fact, function, to encourage lenders to invest money in low-income communities. When I worked for Unnamed Giant Bank That is Now Nearly Bankrupt, they did a lot of charitable lending under the auspices of this act. It was not the act itself that was a mistake, it was the predatory lenders and their actions that were criminal. In short, they took the ball and ran out of bounds with it.

Me:
Talk about rewriting history. Deregulation did not lead to the housing crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act did. And Bush warned in 2003 about the collapse of Fannie and Freddie and called for the creation of a Super Regulator. What was the liberals’ response? Absolutely not. Barney Frank, Sen Dodd, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton – all voted it down. And as you know Republicans never had a +60 majority in the Senate which would have allowed them to shut down a democrat filibuster – never in the 12 years that they ran the Congress. Hell even SNL ran a skit that mocked the Dems – Pelosi and Franks - and exposed their culpability in causing this mess. Left-wing SNL got it right – at least you can own up to it as well.
Ask yourself one simple question: why did you ignore the question I asked you? You ignored it because you know – deep in your thick skull – that if you admit that the Community Reinvestment Act was bad politics that you would be culpable. Shame on you! Once again you reveal why the Left is unqualified to govern. You and your side can never admit when they are wrong and would rather continue to make the same mistakes over and over ad infinitum before admitting failure.

Gilveron:
I did not forget this. I simply take Ron Moore at his word, that the BSG universe is "naturalistic science fiction." There are no gods, angels, or demons in a naturalistic world (I'm speaking of naturalism as it relates to a dramatic form here, not of the scientific practices or beliefs of naturalists). The prophecies of Pythia came to the Colonials from Kobol, which had already witnessed once this cycle of violence. The "angels" of the Cylon god are of uncertain origin. God does not seem to be a force of creation for the Cylons, rather the personification of an ideal, a perfect being, to which they strive. Ellen programmed belief in god into the humanoid cylons--she admits as much--she simply says she didn't come up with the concept of god. Whatever the true nature of the human Lords of Kobol or the Cylon god, I do not believe them to be actual supernatural beings. They are simply higher-evolved life forms. Whatever the case, it is clear that the message Ron Moore is giving us is not that one set of beliefs will supplant the other, but that both sets need to be put aside, or reconciled, so that both species can live in peace. The wages of clinging to these outdated prejudices is the continuation of the cycle of violence--"All of this has happened before, and will happen again." But as Lee correctly stated, it doesn't have to.

Me:
They are simply higher-evolved life forms? There it is folks – Gilveron’s utopianist dogma in full form for all the world to see. You can’t even help it, can you? You clearly read too deeply into RDM’s words. The fact that you can somehow reconcile Starbuck’s living, walking, & talking body with the one she found on Earth just shows how you grasp for any straw and will make anything fit your already and absolutely determined worldview, regardless of the evidence at hand. How sad. But how typically liberal of you. I guess that’s why you lefties can continue to hope for Utopia.

McTex: "I'm actually disappointed, I was hoping for a bit more outrage."

Me: I am not outraged by you because I no longer care what you have to say. You invalidated your arguments (yes, all of them) the moment you quoted from an unverifiable scripture.

McTex, the reason you can't use the Bible in a debate is that it is based on unverifiable claims. God may or may not exist but science can not measure or observe God in any way. Science can only verify those things that can be observed. And by the way, it falls to you to define Utopia, since you are the one who first used it. You made the claim that liberals (as defined in contemporary parlance) believe in Utopia, it is up to you to establish the evidence that they do. It's one of those basic rules of debate. Somehow you totally missed those when you went to school.

Locke, stop while you are ahead. You are embarrassing yourself. You are confusing empirical science with valid science. It really disgusts me at the ignorance of today’s so-called educated people. College grads from a century ago would fall over in laughter and the naïveté you just exhibited.

Science cannot measure or observe gravity in any way – just the effects of gravity – does that mean science shouldn’t talk about gravity? Science cannot observe the cause of the Grand Canyon does that mean geologists shouldn’t theorize on that cause? No scientist was alive to witness the big bang does that mean that science shouldn’t discuss cosmology?

In the same way science has for millennia observed the effects of God. That’s why Jefferson wrote that we humans, as a race, had unequivocally concluded that certain truths have been revealed not only from nature but from nature’s God. You observe entropy on a daily basis. Every time you dust your TV screen you observe entropy at work. That means daily you observe the effects of God.

And BTW, I did define Utopia. And I also established why utopianism is an essential component of the liberal paradigm. Next time it would behoove you to actually read what I write instead of merely perusing it. But like so many self-indulgent know-it-alls, people today don’t take the time to treat those they are debating with the respect they deserve by actually trying to comprehend the points they are making.

So maybe you want to reread what I wrote – unless it was in one of the posts of mine that the censors deleted.

Lastly, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books written by many different HUMAN authors over many centuries. Some of the claims within the Bible are unverifiable. Many of them are historically proven facts. Even the most liberal anti-theist archeologists will acknowledge that the Bible, as a whole, is one of the most accurate collections of writings from antiquity. For you to say that I am forbidden from discussing any part of Scripture is as asinine as saying that the moons of Jupiter cannot possibly be revolving around Jupiter because geocentricity is a known fact.

Ok, I've had enough of trying to engage in rational debate with you, Tex. Your arguments are spurious at best, outright bullshit at worst. And you have the audacity to suggest that I am uneducated.

I'll end this right now. There are two criteria for scientific research, specificity and measurability. You must be able to design an experiment that proves your theory, and that experiment must be independently verifiable by following the exact same methodology as you. So, I challenge you, Tex, as homework, please, design me an experiment to quantify god.

Quantum Mechanics is not a fantasy or an unverifiable theory, because unlike god, quantum particles, quarks, muons, etc. are observable phenomena. And through fifty years or more of observation and experimentation, it is clear that matter, on a quantum level, does not behave according to the laws of physics. The fact of the matter is, the closer you get to the universe's basic materials, the more it is clear that it is a chaotic system, not some perfectly planned harmonious creation.

The list of things that can be verified from the Bible is very small. We can verify the existence of Egypt, the existence of the country of Israel,and the existence of some of the rivers, mountains, and other geographic details. That's it. The existence of many people in the Bible can not be verified because they only exist in the Bible and are never referenced in any other books outside a handful of letters that may refer to Saul and David. We do measure gravity all the time. It's called weight. "The force with which a body is attracted toward Earth or celestial body by gravitation." -- Merriam-Webster dictionary.

once again the no edit feature has bitten me, I meant to say you must clearly define your premise, and then design an experiment to demonstrate, not prove, that premise. Those results must be able to be replicated following the same methodology you used.

First, let me apologize for my snarkiness. I try not to let ad hominem and ad ignorantium arguments get to me, usually. It's just that other than that, Tex, you seem so smart.

Let me also clarify one more time what I'm saying: The very fact that belief in god requires faith without empirical proof makes it unscientific. The fact that it is unscientific makes it, by definition, irrational. That does not mean that belief in a higher power is bad. But when you claim, Tex, that quantum mechanics is irrational and belief in god is rational, that's just completely intellectually bankrupt.

Locke: You are right about the Bible. There is only one known place, on a victory stile, that references the defeat of a king, "from the house of David." That is the only outside verifiable evidence for the pre-Babylonian kingdom of David and Solomon. All other references have been proven to be fraudulent. King Sheshankh (or Shishak), of Egypt details his subjugation of Northern Israel, but curiously makes no mention of ever coming to Jerusalem. Further, both archaeological and genetic research suggests that there never was an exodus from Egypt. Rather, it seems to indicate that the rise of the believers in YHWH slowly through attrition gained power in the lands of their Canaanite brothers and sisters. It is also clear that ancient Israelis from the bottom to the top continued to worship Canaanite gods and goddesses up to the time of the Babylonian Exile. It was during this time it is believed that most of what Christians refer to as "the old testament " was written. It wasn't until the return from exile that the sole religion in Israel seems to revolve only around the worship of YHWH.

Also, while there is some good evidence of the Second Temple built by Herod the Great, there is precious little if any evidence of the First Temple, allegedly built by the arguably mythical King Solomon.

In all the debate with McTex, I never got around to posting my opinion about BSG. It isn't my favorite show, that would be probably be Homicide:Life on the Street which was another fairly realistic show. However, BSG was an excellent show that I think will reshape the way science fiction is presented on US TV, or at least I hope so. I also hope that the rumor I read, that Universal has approached Glen Larson (creator of the original series) to create a film closer in tone to the 1978 series. If you don't remember the original, it included everything Moore tried hard to keep out of his version. The Cylons were cybernetic lizardmen, the BSG crew met aliens in a lot of episodes, Baltar was a typical cackling villain, one of the villains was named Iblis (an Islamic name for the devil), and the crew was occasionally aided by beings who may have been angels. Larson is a Mormon and included many Mormon ideas in his series, to the point that it sometimes played as a Mormon religious tract. For example, Kobol is an anagram of Kolob a planet or star thought to be nearest the throne of God and the Quorom of 12 was based on the the Quorom of the 12, one of the governing bodies of the Latter Day Saints. The exodus of the 12 Colonies was essentially the Israelite Exodus in outer space and the original version of Kobol was modeled on Egypt. While I have fond memories of the original series, a new movie based on the tone of the original would seem like a waste in comparison to Moore's vision.

I'd rather see Richard Hatch's continuation of Battlestar Galactica be made rather than this new movie. I don't remember what the name was right off the top of my head, but I saw some of the footage that was made and it looked pretty good.

Locke: I never knew Larson was a mormon, but knowing that makes the original series make more sense.

Gilveron:
Let me also clarify one more time what I'm saying: The very fact that belief in god requires faith without empirical proof makes it unscientific.

Me:
WRONG! This is the great lie that you have been sold. Trust me - I truly feel bad for you and those like you have been brainwashed into thinking this. Do you have any idea how much science takes for granted and how much that it will never be able to prove empirically? You don’t! And the reason you don’t is because you were never taught the meaning of science. You were brainwashed by the atheist/humanist lobby, which controls our curriculum and institutions of education, into believing lies so that you would be more susceptible to their proselytization. It really is sad.

And I never said you were uneducated – it’s obvious that you and Locke are both educated. What I said is that so much of what you were taught was truth is in fact false. This is not a new phenomenon but is as old as education itself – read the writings of Plato if you don’t believe me.

Please don’t take my word for it – use your own brain. Ask yourself what empiricality means. Ask yourself how things that happened in the past can ever be observed now. There are millions of questions that scientists have asked, can ask and will in the future ask that will deal with a phenomena that can never be observed and thus can never be empirically proved.

Science has two branches and both are essential to scientific enquiry and discovery. One branch is empiricality and it requires using the scientific method, as you correctly noted. But the other equally important branch is validity or forensical science and it requires using logic.

Science can and has determined that some ideas may not be empirically provable but that they are VALID – such as the big bang, or gravity or quantum mechanics or yes even GOD. Yes scientists will always argue the merits of their validity (as they probably should) but that does not mean that those ideas are unscientific or beneath the enquiry of science.

And you are wrong – no scientist has ever observed a quantum particle. They are far too small to be observed. Only the assumed effect of those particles has been observed. And it is not clear that matter, on a quantum level, does not behave according to the laws of physics. Not clear at all. Yes I agree with you that it appears that way but there is way too much that we don’t know yet to reach any kind of settled conclusion on the matter. Things may be happening on the quantum level that we, mere imperfect man, have not even conceived yet. Heed Einstein’s warning here. You and all like you assume too much and ya’ll do so at great risk to your reputation.

And I never said that quantum mechanics was irrational – I said quantum leap theory is irrational. Something cannot exist before it exists – that is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Like Einstein said, God doesn’t play dice. What Einstein means is that if quantum leap is true then there is no such thing as science as all rules must be thrown out the window and science is really nothing more than another name for magic.

Trust me amigo, if people all start thinking the way you do in 50 years this world will descend into the dark ages as real honest science will DIE and be replaced by magic or whatever the High Priests of the so-called Empirical Science Church tells you is acceptable to believe in.

Look at the results already – Locke is actually making the argument that the teachings of some ancient Hebrew men – who no one would argue were less than brilliant, can no longer be discussed or debated. This should frighten you. This should frighten all rational scientific-minded people.

President Roslin once said “I believe the Scriptures have real world relevance”. Whether you accept them as the inspired Word of God or just the writings of ancient Hebrew philosophers makes no difference – they have real world relevance. Why would you embrace such a closed-minded approach? Why would your Giants promote that? These are questions that should trouble you unless you have no desire to grow beyond your status quo.

And Locke - I agree with you and hope that is a bad rumor. Larson's Mormon mythos series was fun when I was 7 but pales in comparison to what RDM has created.

The thing I miss from the original series is the Cylon Centurions marching in, saluting the Imperious Leader, and saying things like, "By your command!" I can't imagine anyone saluting Dean Stockwell. Also I miss Imperious Leader's weird alien 'fro.

McTex, I never said you could never discus or debate the Bible. I've read the Bible, I love the Bible. To paraphrase Jefferson, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket if you believe in God or not. My position is that you can never use it in a political or scientific debate because bringing up the Bible in that context constitutes a series of logical fallacies. First, when someone sites the Bible, they are making an appeal to authority, claiming that their opinion is true because an authority, in this case the Bible, agrees with their opinion. Whether or not the authority believes the opinion true is irrelevant because that doesn't make the opinion fact, just widely believed. Second, unlike Albert Einstein, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and other figures mentioned here, the Bible makes unverifiable claims, and it makes contradictory statements. It's not a trustworthy source and was irrelevant to the particular discussion. We weren't discussing the religious symbolism of the series or politics as they relate to Scripture or how they may have been influenced by it but whether or not BSG has a particular ideological perspective ... then seemingly out of the blue you start quoting the Bible. It just didn't seem relevant.

I'm not a hundred percent on this but I am pretty sure one of the rogue cylons in Razor actually said "By your command!"

The one thing that both shows share is awesome musical compositions. Bear McCreary is a musical genius and I love his work immensely. But I also loved the music in the original series. I was thrilled by Bear's use of one of the original scores, which he called Nomion's Third, in the episode Someone to Watch Over Me. It was so frakkin brilliant as was the whole episode. I can't wait for the soundtrack.

Locke, no I understood what you meant and I completely disagree. Are you telling me all the times Jefferson and Lincoln cited the Bible when making their political points they were illegitimate?

And what do you mean “unlike Albert Einstein, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and other figures mentioned here, the Bible makes unverifiable claims”. They all made unverifiable claims. That’s my point. Hell almost every claim that Einstein made at the time he made them were unverified. And some of the claims will always be unverifiable because it is just simply not humanly possible to test their theories using the scientific method. Do you really understand what Einstein meant when he described space and gravity? I don’t think you do. If you did you would not be so quick, like Gilveron, to make these outrageous claims regarding empiricality. You really, and this saddens me to say, have no clue what forensical science is or the essential role it plays in determining scientific knowledge.

Also you can argue all you like that the authors of the books of the Bible makes contradictory statements. There are truly brilliant doctors of theology and philosophy who will strongly disagree with you. I have heard these people debate and they will knock your socks off. They use semantic syllogisms and it is way over my pay grade. Although I know I am not going to convince you of what is obviously one of your core beliefs, my only point is that smarter men than I, from a pure logical perspective, contradict you.

Lastly, your attack against me is both invalid and fragrantly erroneous. I never started quoting the Bible. I never once used the Bible to justify ANY argument I made. I simply made a reference to a proverbial statement that is as much a part of our western culture as it is doctrine. And it was merely used to pepper my post with a bit of metaphorical rhetoric. To then attack me the way you did reveals more about your own insecurities than anything else. And just remember I predicted your attack. Call me prescient! lol

When Locke and Hobbes asserted that, in their natural state, men are selfish and act beastly towards one another they can be verified by observation of human behavior at times of crisis when government is destroyed such as civil war or major natural disasters. The part of Hobbes or Locke that can not be verified are their assertions about which form of government is best. That's a subjective opinion. Einstein's theories are accepted as theories because they can be tested. Look up the definition of a theory. To be accepted as a scientific theory an idea has to be potentially falsifiable and it has to be able to explain the phenomenon that is being observed. Both forms of Relativity are potentially falsifiable and explain the phenomenon that astrophysicists have observed in the universe. While you never specifically quoted the Bible, you did express the idea that you based many your perceptions on it. You mentioned Hobbes, Locke, and Scripture as the basis of your view that you are a conservative, or a least that conservatives look to both secular sources and scripture. Look, I voted for Obama (yeah I know big shocker) and Bill Clinton and both men make frequent references to the Bible but never in a debate on ideological stances. The Bible is a fine source for moral precepts but not necessarily ideological ones. Whether or not a reference to the Bible is legitimate depends on context.

The Bible can not be tested or verified in any way because the events in the Bible are only found in the Bible, with the possible exception of the Birth of Jesus Christ, there are no sources outside of the Bible for the events mentioned in the Bible. No other writers from the era mention any of the people or events, there is no physical evidence that people such as King David, King Saul, or King Solomon existed, not even a coin minted while they were king. And I was never attacking you, only the way you present your arguments. You made a lot of ad hominem attacks (calling people douche bags), brought in elements that were irrelevant such as the Bible, and made a lot of sweeping generalizations (ALL LIBERALS BELIEVE IN UTOPIA). I don't hate you as a person or anything, I only think that some of your views don't fit in with what I have observed to be reality, from your perspective they obviously do. I actually liked your initial point about BSG being more realistic than Star Trek, I only question the way you came to the conclusion. It's your approach I find faulty.

Locke:
When Locke and Hobbes asserted that, in their natural state, men are selfish and act beastly towards one another they can be verified by observation of human behavior at times of crisis when government is destroyed such as civil war or major natural disasters.

Me:
The Bible made this assertion millennia before Locke and Hobbes did. lol

Locke:
The part of Hobbes or Locke that can not be verified are their assertions about which form of government is best. That's a subjective opinion. Einstein's theories are accepted as theories because they can be tested. Look up the definition of a theory. To be accepted as a scientific theory an idea has to be potentially falsifiable and it has to be able to explain the phenomenon that is being observed.

Me:
So you are saying the big bang theory is potentially falsifiable and is able to be observed? lol

Locke:
Both forms of Relativity are potentially falsifiable and explain the phenomenon that astrophysicists have observed in the universe. While you never specifically quoted the Bible, you did express the idea that you based many your perceptions on it. You mentioned Hobbes, Locke, and Scripture as the basis of your view that you are a conservative, or a least that conservatives look to both secular sources and scripture.

Me:
Yes Conservatives look to truths revealed both from nature and from nature’s God.

Locke:
Look, I voted for Obama (yeah I know big shocker) and Bill Clinton and both men make frequent references to the Bible but never in a debate on ideological stances. The Bible is a fine source for moral precepts but not necessarily ideological ones. Whether or not a reference to the Bible is legitimate depends on context.

Me:
Never? I highly doubt you want to be so sure. Regardless, Lincoln and Jefferson did and are you really going to now argue that their doing so was illegitimate? Lincoln’s use of Scripture to condemn human bondage was illegitimate? Jefferson based the very legitmacy of our Revolution on the Biblical argument that our rights come directly from God. It is the central foundational belief of our Republic and you are now saying it is illegitimate? WOW!

Locke:
The Bible can not be tested or verified in any way because the events in the Bible are only found in the Bible, with the possible exception of the Birth of Jesus Christ, there are no sources outside of the Bible for the events mentioned in the Bible. No other writers from the era mention any of the people or events, there is no physical evidence that people such as King David, King Saul, or King Solomon existed, not even a coin minted while they were king.

Me:
Even if you were right, which you are way off the track on – the non-Hebrew confirmation of Biblical accounts is so great that I just have to assume you tell yourself this so as to justify your anti-Biblical beliefs, are you saying that you have never watched one of those secular produced biblical archeology shows on the Discovery or History channel? – but like I said – even if you were right it has no baring on what we are talking about – it is irrelevant. The works of Plato cannot be tested either – should we throw them out? The cause of the Grand Canyon cannot be tested – should we throw out all geology? The cause of the birth of our Sun cannot be observed or tested so should we throw out cosmology?

Locke:
And I was never attacking you, only the way you present your arguments. You made a lot of ad hominem attacks (calling people douche bags), brought in elements that were irrelevant such as the Bible, and made a lot of sweeping generalizations (ALL LIBERALS BELIEVE IN UTOPIA). I don't hate you as a person or anything, I only think that some of your views don't fit in with what I have observed to be reality, from your perspective they obviously do. I actually liked your initial point about BSG being more realistic than Star Trek, I only question the way you came to the conclusion. It's your approach I find faulty.

Me:
Actually I only called those who ignorantly criticized BSG douche bags and in my first post to you I did it because you were being so serious and moralistic and it made me laugh to bitch slap you a bit. At least I thought it was funny, lol.

And I stand by that particular generalization and I will explain why by asking you a few questions:

Do you believe that mankind is evolving or devolving?

Do you believe that human civilization is progressing or will progress in this future?

Are you optimistic about the future that mankind will build?

Locke:
You shouldn't have called anyone a douche bag, it only makes you look bad. To be perfectly honest, I probably wouldn't have responded to anything you wrote, if you hadn't used the douche bag remark in those earliest posts of yours.

Me:
You just proved why using douche bag worked. It got you involved and since I enjoy these debates then I am glad it did.

Locke:
1. Devolve/devolution is a political term referring to when a state grants powers to a government at a subnational level, such as when Scotland was granted a parliament in 1997 after nearly 300 years without one. It is not a biological term.

Me:
Actually it is a biological term just one that many biologists reject. Regardless, I can’t imagine that you didn’t understand the context of what I was getting at. Some biologists may reject the word – the debate on that is pretty strong – but genetic drift or genetic entropy or cellular entropy, IMHO, clearly encapsulates devolution.

Locke:
2. Evolution is any change in inherited traits in a population from one generation to the next. Any change. Any change regardless of its benefits is evolution. Lifeforms don't "devolve". The fact that people living in the US now are taller than the people who settled here is evidence that we continue to evolve. The fact that Europeans are taller than Americans also demonstrates this. Biological evolution is an observable fact.

Me:
Actually the fact that we are taller has nothing to do with evolution at all but resulted from better eating habits and a better quality of nutrition. See the Irish and Japanese people for proof. And where did you hear that Europeans are taller than Americans – that’s a new one to me?

Clearly you understood the context of my question so your need to sophistically bull shit your way out of a simple answer is quite annoying. Of course I meant evolving in the sense in which it is commonly used to mean progressing or benefiting the race. The reason I asked so many follow up questions that included the concept of progress should have keyed you in, no?

So instead of providing me with a long winded academic thesis, how about a simple yes or no with a possible brief explanation for why you answered yes or no?

And if you are afraid to go there, though I can’t imagine why, I will happily abide by my own demands and answer these questions after I read yours.

Locke:
3. How do we define progress? Will we make more technological breakthroughs? Sure, technology progresses at an exponential rate. Will our society make social progress? Probably, it already has. Considering that we went from a country founded by slave holders to a country where a half black man has been elected president. Will we continue to make social progress? Yes, unless our society becomes stagnant and collapses under its own weight. If you are asking me, if we will build some sort of Star Trek style Eutopia...No, not really. While all things are possible, not all things are necessarily probable. Eutopias have existed of course, the Shakers are a good example.

Me:
Geez, so I take it your answer is yes with conditions? But if a gun is held to your head and you are forced to answer yes or no then your gut reply is going to be yes, is it not?

(I will get to your belief that Utopias are possible and have already existed later.)

Locke:
4. I tend to only be optimistic about things in my personal life and at most within my own circle of friends and family. "Mankind" is too big to judge.

Me:
Again, what’s with the prevarication? This is not a life or death question. Just give me how you tend to think. Don’t over analyze it – just imagine a gun’s at your head and you have to give a yes or no. What’s your gut response? Or how does your faith respond? All people – even atheists – have faith in something. So how would your faith respond?

Locke:
If you want to believe in the Bible and accept that the things in it happened that's your business. I don't have anything against the Bible, I simply hold it and all religious texts to the same standard I hold any other work that purports to contain truth or facts. I want hard evidence. I personally haven't seen enough hard evidence to accept the Bible as historically accurate. King David for example, the archaeological evidence for his reign is virtually non-existent and amounts to the Tel Dan Stele and a possible inscription by Shoshenq I. If you know of some other evidence, I'd actually like to hear about it (seriously I would, I have a weakness for Biblical archaeology).

Me:
I do not require the kind of segregated proof that you do so I don’t bother to think about it much. I assume the sayings of Caesar Augustus or the writings of Plato are actually the sayings of Caesar Augustus or the writings of Plato. I assume you do too but choose to hold about 40 Hebrew men to a vastly different standard. I always found that quite odd. The amazing thing is that the evidence for the authenticity of a large majority of those 40 or so Hebrew men is far greater in preponderance than it is for most ancient Greek and Roman writers. And before you say ‘but those Hebrew men make claims of divine inspiration that cannot be verified’ I will remind you that Plato writes in detail about his belief in Atlantis. Does that mean that you must now discount everything Plato wrote about Socrates?

So, come on Locke, let’s try this again but this time with a simple yes or no answer. There are no grades. Even if I think I can prove your answers wrong, don’t worry about that – just answer honestly:

1. Do you believe that mankind is (progressively) evolving?

2. Do you believe that human civilization is progressing or will progress in this future?

3. Are you optimistic about the future that mankind will build?

1. I believe human beings are evolving. However, I accept the definition of evolution, as simply a process through which lifeforms adapt to the environment. It is the change in inheritable traits and has no goals and it is neither progressive nor regressive. It simply is.

2. Yes, I believe that society is progressing because past action is a predictor of future action, society progressed in the past, it will progress in the future. We once held black slaves in the US, we now have a black President. In most US states women could not vote. They now have that right. Progress is simply movement forward. Even the Bible describes the Israelites as progressing from a state of tribalism to state of monarchy.

3.I am neither pessimistic nor optimistic about the future. I believe human beings can solve many problems of existence (we have in the past) but we can not solve fundamental problems of poverty or war. I see those as inherent to the human condition -- coming from our natural selfishness.

I apologize for the long answers but those are my honest opinions. If you have anything else to say to me feel free to email at chavez_frank@yahoo.com -- I find the posting system irritating.