Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Dilbert's Scott Adams a Libertarian?
Back in 1999, Reason interviewed Dilbert creator Scott Adams. My favorite bit was his response to this question:
Reason: How do you define yourself politically?
Adams: I find that I do not align with any well-established political viewpoint that has a name associated with it. So I've called myself pro-death. I looked for what commonality there is in all of my work and in all of my political views and realized that I support abortion, capital punishment, and a strong military. When I put together the things I'm in favor of, the only thing they had in common was that they all ended up killing someone, whether it was a fetus or a terrorist.
Reader Mike Kelty points out that Adams is addressing the politics question at his Dilbert blog:
People keep asking if I'm a Libertarian. Chat sites and web sites and blogs have devoted considerable time to this ultra-important question. I thought it was time to clear up things.
To see if Adams comes out or not, go here.
|3.3.06 @ 10:53AM|#
I wish people who favor using the power of the state to kill other people would just stop calling themselves libertarians.
|3.3.06 @ 10:57AM|#
I would like conservatives and liberals so much better if they
were as honest as Scott Adams.
Smappy: Why do you want the FCC to regulate cable TV?
Honest Conservative: Because no one should watch what I wouldn't
watch. Also I'm too lazy for parenting.
Somehow, the honest answer manages to be charming in comparison to
what we usually hear.
Stormy Dragon|3.3.06 @ 11:11AM|#
He's basically a populist: against government when it interferes with what he wants to do, pro government when it makes other do what he wants them to do, and driven primarily by emotional whims rather than any set of rationalized principles.
|3.3.06 @ 11:11AM|#
Wait, doesn't everybody form political opinions like this? I only wind up in the libertarian camp because I'm ornery enough to demand rights I don't want to use, like guns, meth, man-sex, and relatively unregulated business ownership.
|3.3.06 @ 11:12AM|#
" I take sides with whatever viewpoint is good for me
personally. [...] Take smoking in public; I favor banning that
because I don�t like to be around it. [...] On the issue of
motorcycle helmets, my first choice would be to make them
mandatory, but only for people that I think deserve to be alive.
[...] Being an Ignorantselfishertarian isn�t as bad as it sounds.
Usually what�s good for me is coincidentally good for most of the
people in the world too. That�s why I call myself good
people."
So he is a selfish populist. Ugh. Don't associate yourself with
libertarianism. 'I don't like X, so the government should ban X' is
exactly the problem with "ignorantselfishertarianism". Because what
happens when alot of other people get together and ban something
that Scott Adams likes, simply because they don't like it?
This "philosophy" is admittedly ignorant, but it's ignorant at the
most important level: Banning shit is all peaches 'n' cream, as
long as they're banning the shit you don't like. "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you". Why is that so fucking hard to
swallow?
So, in other words, Scott Adams is an ignorant asshole who doesn't
really care about anyone but himself. I think he should call it
"assholitarianism" instead.
|3.3.06 @ 11:14AM|#
From what I've read of him, he's not a libertarian so much as just an ornery guy, who will disagree with certain things not on principle, but just because he feels like disagreeing.
|3.3.06 @ 11:23AM|#
"Wait, doesn't everybody form political opinions like this?
I only wind up in the libertarian camp because I'm ornery enough to
demand rights I don't want to use, like guns, meth, man-sex, and
relatively unregulated business ownership."
Gnat:
Not all political philosophies are adopted for immediately
self-serving reasons. Some adopt them because they believe that, in
the long run, it will be better for them, and better for their
community/people/clan/species, etc.
But, again, the severe lack of the "do unto others what you would
have them do unto you" mentality in most political philosophies is
disappointing. Most don't think past the present, to another time
where the tables may be turned, and something that they
value may be taken from them using the same political
philosophy. This ignorance can be seen clearly in Scott Adams'
"assholitarianism'.
|3.3.06 @ 11:28AM|#
Adams has frequently been called out by PZ Myers of the science blog Pharyngula for carrying the water for Intelligent Design.
|3.3.06 @ 11:29AM|#
Evan:
So the distinction here is between being self-serving in the short
term and being self-serving in the long term? Or, put another way,
being stupid or smart about your self-interest?
Actually, that makes quite a bit of sense.
|3.3.06 @ 11:29AM|#
Is it just me, or does the whole "I don't like X, we should ban
X" mentality seem extremely immature, childish, juvenile? Every
time I try to put myself in their shoes, I end up feeling like I
did when I was an early teen. I was just getting to see the world
more clearly, and I noticed a bunch of shit I didn't like. And
since I didn't like them, I couldn't believe that people were
allowed to do them.
My immaturity and lack of intellectual experience prevented me from
seeing the other side of the coin---that not everyone agrees with
me, and maybe some other people might want to ban stuff I
liked.
So, um, it occurs to me that this kind of philosophy is pretty much
just immaturity.
|3.3.06 @ 11:30AM|#
As some of you know, I'm also pro-death, but I'm with speedwell that I don't want the state doin' the killin'.
|3.3.06 @ 11:32AM|#
He calls himself a "Ignorantselfishertarian". He never tries to steal one of our secret decoder rings and claim to be on our team. I gotta respect him for that.
|3.3.06 @ 11:40AM|#
My question is: Why should we care what Scott Adams thinks? So
maybe the guy's take on political philosophy doesn't match your
ideals.... SFW? He's a cartoonist. A incredibly gifted cartoonist,
but still just a cartoonist.
I've yet to discover why we expect our society's artists,
peformers, and athletes to also be our shining beacons of truth and
paragons of virtue.
How about we just let them be entertaining and leave it at
that?
|3.3.06 @ 11:41AM|#
gnat,
Maybe all philosophies are closely tied to the personality traits
of those who embrace them.
|3.3.06 @ 11:44AM|#
Russ,
It's just a discussion about what he said on his blog. Not that it
matters in my life what he calls himself.
But, Russ, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret of mine (don't
tell anyone, ok!?): sometimes, I like to discuss things that
don't have an immediate effect on my life!
Crazy, I know, but, that's just who I am.
;-
|3.3.06 @ 11:51AM|#
Russ R,
I can't believe you said that.
One of the main goals of living is figuring out how to persuade
others. If Scott Adams could be a tool of ours, it would be
dynamite.
|3.3.06 @ 11:53AM|#
He never tries to steal one of our secret decoder
rings
I don't know about that. Mine's missing.
|3.3.06 @ 11:55AM|#
I have to agree with thoreau here: with all the so-called
libertarians you hear about in the MSM that definitely aren't
libertarians, it is nice to hear one suspected of libertarianism,
but isn't a libertarian, basically come out and point to several
examples where he is not in fact a libertarian.
Call his philosphy assholitarianism if you want,
but he is basically a typical Republocrat with a mixture of both
statist and non-statist leanings. In other words he is like most
Americans who have never been forced to debate the intellectually
inconsistent philosophy they hold, even if they don't recognize
they actually have a philosophy.
I personally will call him an ordinary American who is funny as
hell. I'll leave the asshole comments to those who believe everyone
who is not an immaculate conception libertarian is
a baddie. It takes time, and almost always some help, either in the
form of a book or face to face discussions, or something else,
before people come around to becoming a more-or-less libertarian.
(In my case it was reading Free to Choose about
fifteen years ago that made the lightbulb go "ding", with some
follow up research on my part). Clearly most people haven't gotten
there yet.
|3.3.06 @ 12:04PM|#
"sometimes, I like to discuss things that don't have an
immediate effect on my life! "
I never suggested that the issue should not be discussed. Merely
that we seem to be giving far more significance to Adams' opinions
than they should merit. Now, if he want's to give a lecture on
humour or cartooning, I'm all ears.
This is reminiscent of Bono's activism on social causes, Penn
Jilette's opinions on politics, or Pamela Anderson's thoughts about
the ethical treatment of animals.
The fact that these people are justifiably lauded in their
respective fields, does not in any way make them authorities in
other, unrelated fields.
|3.3.06 @ 12:07PM|#
I concur with the happy juggler's comments.
Feel like passing, juggler? I'll bring the machetes if you bring
the torches.
|3.3.06 @ 12:11PM|#
This is reminiscent of Bono's activism on social causes,
Penn Jilette's opinions on politics, or Pamela Anderson's thoughts
about the ethical treatment of animals
Just how is it that you know about these opinions? It's because
they are famous and people listen to them because of that
fame. They have the power to open minds that otherwise
would have been closed. Only a masochist who loves liberty but also
loves to be governmentally coerced wouldn't want fabulous free
advertising like that to help the libertarian go mainstream
somehow, someway, sometime.
|3.3.06 @ 12:16PM|#
The fact that these people are justifiably lauded in their
respective fields, does not in any way make them authorities in
other, unrelated fields
Ok, I can't resist. What field exactly is Pamela Anderson
justifiably lauded?
Timothy|3.3.06 @ 12:17PM|#
It takes time, and almost always some help, either in the
form of a book or face to face discussions, or something else,
before people come around to becoming a more-or-less libertarian.
(In my case it was reading Free to Choose about fifteen years ago
that made the lightbulb go "ding", with some follow up research on
my part).
This reminds me that a big part of Christianity is the "conversion
story" as a compelling way to help others relate to how you "gave
up your life to Christ" or whatever. Maybe we could make the same
prinicple work for libertarianism? Without all the God stuff, that
is.
|3.3.06 @ 12:19PM|#
So happyjuggler believes that Scott Adams could be a great tool, while several others think he already is a huge tool?
|3.3.06 @ 12:19PM|#
"In other words he is like most Americans who have never been
forced to debate the intellectually inconsistent philosophy they
hold, even if they don't recognize they actually have a
philosophy."
I agree, and would add that most people don't even see a reason to
have an intellectually consistent philosophy in the first place.
Although the posters here probably shudder at the idea of carrying
around this kind of cognitive dissonance, most people (when you
call them on it) will simply shrug and be annoyed at you.
|3.3.06 @ 12:20PM|#
I haven't read Dilbert for over ten years, but that blog post made me laugh; maybe I should go to Borders and look at some of those old Dilbert books.
|3.3.06 @ 12:22PM|#
I do think libertarians need to consider why people would assume
that Scott Adams is a libertarian, when he clearly isn't.
Is there some flavor of "ignorantselfishertarianism" in the
positions of your average libertarian? SA's positions are backwards
from the (schematic) libertarian... ban what I don't like instead
of "let me do what I like"
Sounds the same to many people's ears. The question is whether it
is really a different position, or just positions that require
different rationalizations.
putrimalu|3.3.06 @ 12:23PM|#
Take smoking in public; I favor banning that because I don't like to be around it.
A strike against the "Scott Adams as libertarian" arguments...
(Although as a nonsmoker I know exactly how he feels.)
According to Penn and Teller - notable skeptics - there isn't any good science proving second hand smoke hurts people. So I?ll stop using that argument. But there isn't any science that says littering hurts you either, and I'm against that because I don't want to look at it. Second hand smoke is like litter in my nose.
I never thought of it that way. The inside of your nose is your own
property, and if you don't want smoke on your property....
|3.3.06 @ 12:24PM|#
Pam Anderson is lauded in the fields of nudity and big breasts, Juggler. These are, mostly, justifiable accolades.
|3.3.06 @ 12:29PM|#
Being a selfish populist wouldn't be as much of a problem if
people fought as hard for the things they like to do as those who
fight to make sure they can't do them.
I always wonder why the banners are so much more motivated than the
bannees?
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 12:30PM|#
I wish people who favor using the power of the state to kill
other people would just stop calling themselves
libertarians.
You don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian, you know.
There are circumstances where a legitimate core function of the
state (protecting its citizens from force) entails killing some
people.
|3.3.06 @ 12:30PM|#
He calls himself a "Ignorantselfishertarian". He never tries
to steal one of our secret decoder rings and claim to be on our
team. I gotta respect him for that.
I don't know that I respect him for that so much as I am relieved
that he did not desecrate the word, "libertarian". The last thing
libertarianism needs is to be portrayed incorrectly by people with
no consistent value system, like Scott Adams.
.... SFW? He's a cartoonist. A incredibly gifted cartoonist,
but still just a cartoonist.
Incredibly gifted? Hardly. I wouldn't call his artwork
"incredibly gifted" in any sense of the word, unless you mean
"gifted" like "special", as in "Special Olympics". I could've
probably done artwork as good as his as a wee 4th grader. A
pointy-haired boss? Come on. Give me a break.
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 12:32PM|#
The inside of your nose is your own property, and if you
don't want smoke on your property
you should take reasonable precautions against it, like wearing a
mask or staying away from places where you are likely to get smoke
in your nose.
|3.3.06 @ 12:36PM|#
The last thing libertarianism needs is to be portrayed
incorrectly by people with no consistent value system, like Scott
Adams.
That might be an upgrade from the blue colloidal silver man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Jones
|3.3.06 @ 12:36PM|#
Penn and Teller may be skeptics, but they are hardly informed
skeptics regarding good vs. bad science on the issue...despite the
cool card tricks.
Start here:
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/m10_complete.pdf
Yep this is put out by the government, but it summarizes hundreds
of studies that converge on the same result, and reviews the
critics and advocates.
I like the protection of my nose property argument...
It is the same logic as right to choose...;-}
Windypundit|3.3.06 @ 12:37PM|#
I never thought of it that way. The inside of your nose is
your own property, and if you don't want smoke on your
property...
Yeah. Health risks have nothing to do with it. I don't like being
where people are smoking because I don't like breathing
smoke.
On the other hand, some people like breathing smoke. This is one of
those situations Coase worries about. If a smoker and I are in the
same room, one of us is going to be unhappy about it.
The libertarian solution is easy when the room is private property:
Whichever one of us owns the room gets to decide, subject to
bargaining and contract. In Scott Adams' analogy, you can litter
all you want on your own property (unless it's wetland, but that's
another argument).
It's only on public property that the situation gets fuzzy...
|3.3.06 @ 12:38PM|#
Second hand smoke is like litter in my nose.
So is any scent you don't like. Shall we ban flowers, scented soaps
and perfume?
And people who go more than 48 hours in the winter or 24 hours in
the summer without bathing.
And Aqua-Velva. Man, that's nasty stuff.
|3.3.06 @ 12:42PM|#
I wish people who favor using the power of the state to kill
other people would just stop calling themselves
libertarians.
Well now, I'm a pretty extreme libertarian, and I'd like to abolish
government-run roads, but for now I have to use them.
The problem is, sometimes there are people who just need killing.
And the state has pretty much monopolized the people-killing
industry. Eventually, I would like to see it privatized, but for
immediate needs, sometimes you have to hold your nose and use the
state-run people killers, objectionable as using government
facilities may be.
|3.3.06 @ 12:42PM|#
"There are circumstances where a legitimate core function of the
state (protecting its citizens from force) entails killing some
people."
And then you can define "force" as advocating a ban on anything,
and kill all the liberals. I love the intellectual consistency of
libertarianism.
|3.3.06 @ 12:45PM|#
That first part about roads was supposed to be an analogy. I
didn't mean to say that government-run roads are people-killing
facilities.
Although, come to think of it...
|3.3.06 @ 12:46PM|#
Actually he's a humorist. He's pointing out the ironic nature of his politics for comedic effect. He's also deflecting a question that is really nobody's business. It's called not taking the world so freaking seriously. Some of you guys should give it a try.
b-psycho|3.3.06 @ 12:50PM|#
People just got an idea in their heads that Scott's a
libertarian because his personality fits how people think a
libertarian acts. The curiosity was not political at all.
Personally, I suspected he was somewhat of a leftist actually.
Considering the point of his comic strip for all these years has
been "the corporate world just may be worse than hell", & he
hasn't expressed anything beyond that that would point towards an
individualist-anarchist streak, when I cared to think about it I
assumed the extent of his politics was supporting anything that he
thought would piss off people like the pointy-haired boss.
putrimalu|3.3.06 @ 12:50PM|#
So is any scent you don't like. Shall we ban flowers, scented soaps and perfume?
I didn't suggest banning anything. In fact, I knocked Adams for his
"I favor banning that because I don't like to be around it"
comment.
I just like the analogy.
|3.3.06 @ 12:52PM|#
you should take reasonable precautions against it, like
wearing a mask or staying away from places where you are likely to
get smoke in your nose.
Or extinguishing things in your vicinity that are on fire.
|3.3.06 @ 12:53PM|#
PS: Smoke is not a "scent," Jennifer. Smoke is, like, an actual, physical think. The odor of smoke is a scent.
putrimalu|3.3.06 @ 12:55PM|#
you should take reasonable precautions against it, like wearing a mask or staying away from places where you are likely to get smoke in your nose.
I think I see where you're going with this. People shouldn't put
themselves in a position where something bad might occur. Makes
sense.
I say take your logic even further, and say that "Children should
stay indoors all the time to keep from being molested." And "Women
shouldn't go to work, because they might be sexually harrassed by
coworkers."
It's time to put the responsibility where it belongs: With the
victims!
|3.3.06 @ 12:57PM|#
From the Dilbert blog
In an interview published 4+ years ago, Berkely Breathed ("Bloom
County", "Opus") was asked about his politics and said this: "If
you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find
the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a
Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging
professional whiners."
|3.3.06 @ 1:01PM|#
7.2.6 Summary Despite the compelling biologic plausibility of an
effect of ETS exposure on risk of lung cancer, detection of an
effect has been difficult because a small excess in risk is
difficult to establish in a single epidemiologic study. The U.S.
EPA (1992), NRC (1986), and Surgeon General (U.S. DHHS, 1986) all
undertook comprehensive reviews of the literature and determined on
the basis of the overall evidence that ETS exposure causes lung
cancer. Since the publication of the most recent authoritative
review of lung cancer and ETS exposure (U.S. EPA, 1992), three
large U.S. population-based studies (Stockwell et al., 1992;
Brownson et al., 1992; Fontham et al., 1991 and 1994), a smaller
hospital-based case-control study (Kabat et al., 1995), and a
cohort study (Cardenas et al., 1997) have been published.
The three population-based studies were designed to and have
successfully addressed many of the weaknesses for which the
previous studies on ETS and lung cancer have been criticized (i.e.,
small sample size, possible selection bias, possible
misclassification biases, inadequate adjustment for potential
confounders). Results from these studies and the cohort study are
consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. EPA (1992), NRC (1986),
and Surgeon General (U.S. DHHS, 1986) reports. Each of the three
population-based studies shows a statistically significant
increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers associated with long
term exposure to ETS as well as increasing risk with increasing ETS
exposure. The smaller hospital-based study lacked the statistical
power to find the effect observed in the other studies.
The results of the cohort study, though not statistically
significant, were similar to the risk estimated by the U.S. EPA.
Taken together, the recent studies provide additional evidence that
ETS exposure is causally associated with lung cancer. The
consistency of the findings in the five recent studies and the
meta-analysis result of the U.S. EPA indicate about a 20 percent
increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
|3.3.06 @ 1:06PM|#
Just a thought . He is a comic strip creator who states that he is PRO-DEATH. Perhaps he is just pulling all your chains and having a good laugh at everyone else's seriousness.
|3.3.06 @ 1:07PM|#
...if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional
whiners.
I really resent that. I've never been paid for whining in
my life!
|3.3.06 @ 1:11PM|#
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of
tax-dodging professional whiners.
Or blue druids and whatnot. For now, I stick with being a
libertarian and hope the Libertarians go to Hell.
|3.3.06 @ 1:12PM|#
MainstreamMan (and Berkley Breathed),
I, for one, am not a professional whiner. It's more of a hobby with
me.
|3.3.06 @ 1:55PM|#
Hey, I posted a comment and it's not postin'. (Am I on the
posting crime watch list now or something?)
*kicks pebble*
|3.3.06 @ 2:03PM|#
smacky, didn't you sign up for the "Trusted Poster" program? It's simple. Send Reason a brain sample, and they'll clear you for unlimited posting.
|3.3.06 @ 2:03PM|#
In other words he is like most Americans who have never been
forced to debate the intellectually inconsistent philosophy they
hold, even if they don't recognize they actually have a
philosophy.
Ayn, is that you?
Actually, if you don't recognize you have a philoshophy then you
probably don't -- just a collection of random ideas some wrong and
others more wrong.
|3.3.06 @ 2:04PM|#
Is libertarianism a philosophy or a personality trait?
Discuss.
In which case I posit that libertarianism could be genetic and
therefore easilty identifiable with laboratory testing. Those that
do not carry the "libertarian gene" can then be liquidated.
OTOH, those with it would more likely be the ones liquidated by the
state.
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 2:05PM|#
I say take your logic even further, and say that "Children
should stay indoors all the time to keep from being molested." And
"Women shouldn't go to work, because they might be sexually
harrassed by coworkers."
Geez, putrimalu, its like you didn't even see the words "reasonable
precautions" in my post. Not going outside and not working go
considerably beyond "reasonable precautions."
The fact that the first things that pop into your mind when you
think about these issues are sexual molestation and harassment is a
little concerning, but hey, as a libertarian, I am comfortable
saying that's your problem.
|3.3.06 @ 2:12PM|#
smacky, didn't you sign up for the "Trusted Poster" program?
It's simple. Send Reason a brain sample, and they'll clear you for
unlimited posting.
SRSLY. First, I didn't get any credit for the police abuse thread;
now this. Which Reason deity have I pissed off, and how do I regain
my good graces so that my as-of-yet unposted post will appear?
|3.3.06 @ 2:14PM|#
Is libertarianism a philosophy or a personality trait?
Discuss.
Go fuck yourself!
...
.
..
.
Its a personality trait.
putrimalu|3.3.06 @ 2:21PM|#
Geez, putrimalu, its like you didn't even see the words "reasonable precautions" in my post.
Wearing a mask around all the time is a "reasonable precaution"?
Maybe if you're Michael Jackson.
The fact that the first things that pop into your mind when you think about these issues are sexual molestation and harassment is a little concerning,
Those aren't the first things that came to my mind. I was just
afraid you wouldn't grasp more subtle examples (again due to your
mask idea) so I used more extreme examples.
|3.3.06 @ 2:33PM|#
PS: Smoke is not a "scent," Jennifer. Smoke is, like, an
actual, physical think. The odor of smoke is a scent.
If you are smelling anything--perfume or a kid's dirty diaper, for
example--that means that microscopic quantities of said substance
are physically entering your nose. So any scent can be said to be a
physical thing as well.
A fun thought to keep in mind next time you smell dog poop on a hot
summer day.
Captain Holly|3.3.06 @ 3:03PM|#
The results of the cohort study, though not statistically
significant, were similar to the risk estimated by the U.S. EPA.
Taken together, the recent studies provide additional evidence that
ETS exposure is causally associated with lung cancer. The
consistency of the findings in the five recent studies and the
meta-analysis result of the U.S. EPA indicate about a 20 percent
increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Therein lies the rub. A 20 percent increased risk is
nothing in the world of cancer risk; that's hardly above
background. To be really signficant a chemical has to double or
triple the lifetime risk of cancer, and even then that might not be
that big of a deal over a 75-year lifetime.
The objection that many libertarian-minded scientific folk like me
have is that politicians are using anti-smoking prejudice to pass
all sorts of laws that significantly infringe on private property
rights. The above studies and data are used to whip up the
necessary hysteria to allow such laws to pass.
I'm not saying that ETS isn't a carcinogen. But it's no
more dangerous than burning-leaf smoke or fireplace-fire smoke or
Doobie-in-a-crowded-concert-hall smoke. The key to all of
them is the amount of exposure over time. And just occasionally
whiffing cigarette smoke from someone 25 feet away isn't a
significant health hazard, and does not justify any
government action.
Captain Holly|3.3.06 @ 3:08PM|#
A fun thought to keep in mind next time you smell dog poop
on a hot summer day.
[chemistry nerd]
It's really not that big of a deal. The only things you're smelling
are the volatile organic amines and mercaptans. Thankfully, the
viruses, bacteria, and parasites in it do not evaporate, so unless
you touch or eat it you won't get exposed.
[/chemistry nerd]
|3.3.06 @ 3:18PM|#
It's really not that big of a deal.
Oh, I know it's not a big deal; I'm just pointing out that there IS
a physical component to scent, so when you are smelling dogshit
that means the inside of your nose is having actual, physical
contact with something that came out of said dog's ass.
I have almost no sense of smell, and I still disagree with those
who claim that this is a reason to feel sorry for me.
|3.3.06 @ 3:29PM|#
I posted 7.2.6 without comment because I was curious as to what
others might say. I'll probably comment later.
For anyone who is curious, it's from the PDF science posted a URL
for.
I was tempted to add "disclaimer: I'm a pack and a half a day
smoker (down from two). My kids are only slightly smaller than
average, but it's not due to second-hand smoke."
|3.3.06 @ 3:49PM|#
Dammit! I am determined to have my post posted. Even if I have
to paste it in in parts. (holy alliteration, Batman!). Here's part
one:
If you actually want to laugh (no, these comics are *not* about how
much work sucks!), then here's a good cartoonist for ya:
http://www.bitterfilms.com/election11.html
http://www.bitterfilms.com/bean11.html
|3.3.06 @ 3:50PM|#
And here's the rest of my post:
http://www.bitterfilms.com/galactic11.html
If you still insist on reading cartoons about how much work sucks,
at least try reading something mildly funnier than Dilbert -- i.e.,
My New Filing Technique is Unstoppable:
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/filing.001.html
|3.3.06 @ 4:01PM|#
smacky,
I think that the server automatically block posts with too many
outside links to prevent the thousand links to porn spam posts.
|3.3.06 @ 4:11PM|#
David,
So what if I did sneak a few porn links into my post? It's Friday.
Relaaaax.
|3.3.06 @ 4:19PM|#
Captian Holly,
I am suprised you didn't bother posting the paragraph above that as
well.
Each of the three population-based studies shows a
statistically significant increased risk of lung
cancer in nonsmokers associated with long term
exposure to ETS as well as increasing risk with
increasing ETS exposure.
Put simply, the more you breath for more time the more risk up to a
'statistically signifigant' 20%.
Sorry, I am not a smoker, I don't like smoke but this
'statistically signifigant' risk just doesn't do it for me.
According to the American Lung Association, 3000 people die from
ETS lung cancer every year. That is approximately 1 for every
97,000 people. I have a higher risk of walking down a road and
being killed by a car hitting me (4700 ann. according to the
IIHS).
I say if you want to ban smoking to protect me, then you should ban
cars to protect me while I'm walking too. That or I can avoid bars
that are known for smoking and walk off of the road.
|3.3.06 @ 4:30PM|#
Smacky,
I wouldn't mind at all (although I suppose that would depend on
what you're into), but then, it's not my server. I read in a thread
a few days ago that posts with a lot of links get examined(lost) by
the server.
digamma|3.3.06 @ 4:40PM|#
Don't forget Scott Adams got a whole book written about how he's a corporate tool.
|3.3.06 @ 4:44PM|#
There are volatile compounds in feces that are used by food
scientists. Now THAT is icky.
The smoking bans are all backwards. It should be illegal to smoke
in public, and legal to smoke in your own home, car, or a private
place of business.
The fundamental problem with Libertarianism is that it's vulnerable
in the real world. A loose society of Libertarians is quickly
overrun by the police state next door. The US is as Liberal
(classic) as it is, only because we were formed in a land of
enormous natural resources (e.g. Pamela) far away from organized
competition.
Were the Native Americans more Libertarian than the USA?
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 4:45PM|#
Wearing a mask around all the time is a "reasonable
precaution"?
Well, if you think trying to keep any and all unwanted
scents/odors/particulates off your nasal property is a reasonable
goal, I would say this is a reasonable precaution.
|3.3.06 @ 7:26PM|#
If you don't want to die from second hand smoke it would be a mistake to ban cars. Having cars around increases your chances of dying from something else first. :o
|3.3.06 @ 7:35PM|#
I agree, and would add that most people don't even see a
reason to have an intellectually consistent philosophy in the first
place. Although the posters here probably shudder at the idea of
carrying around this kind of cognitive dissonance, most people
(when you call them on it) will simply shrug and be annoyed at
you.
If I may express an unpopular opinion, I've never placed much value
on a perfectly consistent philosophy. I don't believe it's
possible, first of all, and second the people who are always
playing the point hardest always seem to be the ones who can't
tolerate any sort of pragmatic deviation. I've always found an open
mind to be much, much more important than a set philosophy.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.4.06 @ 12:50AM|#
There is only one comic strip. The rest are filler or catbox liners.
Joe Bob|3.4.06 @ 2:06AM|#
"Ok, I can't resist. What field exactly is Pamela Anderson
justifiably lauded?"
She has two enormous talents, if you know what I mean, and I think
you do.
|3.4.06 @ 5:42AM|#
I wish people who favor using the power of the state to kill
other people would just stop calling themselves
libertarians.
I wish all those other Christians would shut up too, because they
aren't real Christians. Nosiree.
|3.4.06 @ 5:44AM|#
I would like conservatives and liberals so much better if
they were as honest as Scott Adams.
Nah. You'd be even more livid than now, because the assholes would
go around openly admitting how stupid they really are.
I think he should call it "assholitarianism"
instead.
I'll drink to that.
|3.4.06 @ 5:46AM|#
Ruthless,
As some of you know, I'm also pro-death, but I'm with speedwell
that I don't want the state doin' the killin'.
Hmmm. A curious idea indeed.
So what, that means commando training is part of every good
education.
Well, at least it might be fun. Until you graduated and entered the
real world....
|3.4.06 @ 5:49AM|#
Were the Native Americans more Libertarian than the
USA?
What? Without our natural resources? The American Indians did NOT
have Pamela.
No way could they have been more libertarian that us. One cannot
conceive of being "liberated" without first having something to
inspire such a vision.
|3.4.06 @ 1:37PM|#
Scott Adams may not be a libertarian, but knows how the free market works better than most people. He recently produced what might be the best (and possibly only) comic on the issue of energy economics, available here.
|3.4.06 @ 2:02PM|#
Some folks are taking the obviously-not-too-serious ramblings of
an entertainer way too serously...as if its some sort of gospel to
be worshipped, dismissed or attacked.
Lighten up. As for the philosophical inconsistencies, when the
rubber meets the road every person who claims to follow a system of
political thought, at some level, has to contort themselves to deal
with internal consistencies and outright hypocrisy.
Cases in point: "Free speech" liberals who embrace politically
correct restrictions on free speech. "Freedom of religion"
conservatives who embrace restrictions on other religions
(check out Missouri). "Free market" conservatives who embrace
protectionist subsidies and tarrifs.
Compared to them, Adams views are relatively tame.
|3.6.06 @ 1:54AM|#
Felix: he may be an asshole (true, as far as I can tell) but he has a better understanding of how corporate america actually works than most people nominally running it. (and then he distorts that for laughs, of course...)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245