Slashdot Mirror

Tu Quoque

In summary: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Slippery slope fallacy. I know you were joking, but you were rated as insightful.

1. You are taking my statement out of context.
2. You are using that misquote to build a straw man argument.

1. You are taking my statement out of context.
2. You are using that misquote to build a straw man argument.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

"I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked."

No, I didn't read Woolf's book or listen to her speech. I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. It's sloppily researched propaganda. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1933392797/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?_encoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28W0R1KUAZR0H
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."

No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. It's at about 4.5% in the US currently, trending down in the last four years. I bet if you do a little more research, you could find other, rather significant, ways 1930 Germany != 2000 USA. Unless, of course, you are only looking for similarities.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERunemployment.htm

"Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution."

Laws cannot dismantle the constitution, only constitutional amendments can. Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA.

"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."

That's nice, what does it have to do with anything?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
More or less.

"Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action."

It happens all the time in all types of media. It doesn't matter as long as it's not the government suppressing speech. I can easily visit anarchist, communist, fascist, racist, theocratic, liberal, conservative, and UFO cult religion websites with impunity - where is the organized suppression of thought here? Then again, a lot of media outlets are making a heap of money skewering the Bush regime, maybe it's a conspiracy! :)

"Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about."

I'm not sure what "Movement" you are talking about, but the political tactics used by Germany have been around before Nietzsche and Machiavelli. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't a new development, or something indicating a swing toward fascism.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
(Again)

"I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding."

I did dig around and found that you are even more wrong than I originally thought. I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

I suggest you read Chomsky, he does some halfway decent research and uses citations, even if his conclusions are utterly wrong.

"I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked."

No, I didn't read Woolf's book or listen to her speech. I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. It's sloppily researched propaganda. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1933392797/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?_encoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28W0R1KUAZR0H
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."

No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. It's at about 4.5% in the US currently, trending down in the last four years. I bet if you do a little more research, you could find other, rather significant, ways 1930 Germany != 2000 USA. Unless, of course, you are only looking for similarities.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERunemployment.htm

"Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution."

Laws cannot dismantle the constitution, only constitutional amendments can. Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA.

"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."

That's nice, what does it have to do with anything?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
More or less.

"Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action."

It happens all the time in all types of media. It doesn't matter as long as it's not the government suppressing speech. I can easily visit anarchist, communist, fascist, racist, theocratic, liberal, conservative, and UFO cult religion websites with impunity - where is the organized suppression of thought here? Then again, a lot of media outlets are making a heap of money skewering the Bush regime, maybe it's a conspiracy! :)

"Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about."

I'm not sure what "Movement" you are talking about, but the political tactics used by Germany have been around before Nietzsche and Machiavelli. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't a new development, or something indicating a swing toward fascism.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
(Again)

"I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding."

I did dig around and found that you are even more wrong than I originally thought. I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

I suggest you read Chomsky, he does some halfway decent research and uses citations, even if his conclusions are utterly wrong.

"I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked."

No, I didn't read Woolf's book or listen to her speech. I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. It's sloppily researched propaganda. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1933392797/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?_encoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28W0R1KUAZR0H
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."

No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. It's at about 4.5% in the US currently, trending down in the last four years. I bet if you do a little more research, you could find other, rather significant, ways 1930 Germany != 2000 USA. Unless, of course, you are only looking for similarities.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERunemployment.htm

"Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution."

Laws cannot dismantle the constitution, only constitutional amendments can. Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA.

"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."

That's nice, what does it have to do with anything?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
More or less.

"Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action."

It happens all the time in all types of media. It doesn't matter as long as it's not the government suppressing speech. I can easily visit anarchist, communist, fascist, racist, theocratic, liberal, conservative, and UFO cult religion websites with impunity - where is the organized suppression of thought here? Then again, a lot of media outlets are making a heap of money skewering the Bush regime, maybe it's a conspiracy! :)

"Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about."

I'm not sure what "Movement" you are talking about, but the political tactics used by Germany have been around before Nietzsche and Machiavelli. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't a new development, or something indicating a swing toward fascism.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
(Again)

"I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding."

I did dig around and found that you are even more wrong than I originally thought. I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

I suggest you read Chomsky, he does some halfway decent research and uses citations, even if his conclusions are utterly wrong.

For a start, why don't you come up with a less biased source then GREENPEACE.ORG.
Ad hominem at it's finest. "This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say."

It's okay for percieved bias to cause suspicion, but then you have to follow up with that by investigating the source's information. Bias does not make their information wrong. You have to show how their information is wrong or how they're misrepresenting the facts. The rest of your post goes on about how there could be a problem but you offer little more than speculation. This doesn't counter their findings which is based on research with real world data.

Weak Analogy

So what you are saying is that the value of patents truly lies in the ability to disarm other patent holders?

What a beautiful example of the fallacy of a circular argument ;)

It reminds me of reading about a famous case of two inventors racing to the patent office on a pro patent website some time ago. The site specifically mentioned that independent invention and races to the patent office was a rather common occurrence. It proposed patenting everything the minute you came up with it, so that it wasn't patented by anyone else first, as the way to avoid such problems. Amazingly, to me at least, the site found nothing wrong with a system "working" that way.

"The answers are too obvious. The community would cope by..."

Totally ignore the main points of the article and address totally bogus strawman fallacy.

was: Re:Can't Cope, Clown'll Eat Me

To pick some particular "this is what will be the new scientific principle" would be wishfull thinking. To say that there is likely to be one is reasoned prediction. (Not guaranteed, but plausible.)

As they say in the investment business: "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with wishful thinking, as long as you don't mistake it for reality.

I don't think you understand the term wishful thinking as well as you think.

1.) cpu speed is a red red herring. Of course both C++ and java will be x times faster/slower on a machine with an x times faster/slower processor (if anything else stays the same).

2.) just look up the phrase "j2me" for java runtimes designed for embedded devices.

Your logic is flawed. In fact it is riddled with several logical fallacies:

1. Black-or-White Fallacy - Either you stop can stop all murderers, or you can't stop any murderers. WRONG - you can stop SOME murderers.
2. Composition Fallacy - Certain murderers are this way, so all murderers are this way. WRONG - some murderers are in the heat of passion searching around their closet for a gun, and might calm down if they don't find one. Others plan for years to carry out international acts of war.
3. Red Herring Fallacy - Bring in something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand to draw attention away from the original issue. What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this??!?

LS

Your bias has blinded you to objectively reviewing Linux benefits. You completely fail to comprehend the flexibility that is inherent in the operating systems (aka distros) made using the Linux kernel. No, it's not the best kernel for everything, but it sure is insanely useful from embedded to high-availability systems. And it's getting better.

Fishing for herring much these days?

I made no mention of who Arabs are or are not off killing. What I was alluding to was the fact that the US has invaded Iraq, one of our allies has invaded Lebanon, and we are currently threatening military action against Iran. In addition to that, some reputable sources seem to think these are but three countries on a laundry list of targets. If you were the government of a country in the Middle East, you would feel threatened. When governments feel threatened, they build weapons in response.

See also Red Herring.

Well...only if I can go ahead and point out that your pointing-out sentence is grammatically valid only through popular use. (You meant to say "..point out that that is not to what the fallacy refers," although popular usage certainly validates your actual sentence in colloquial speech.)

I'm hard pressed to see why you think the article does not contain a BTQ fallacy. The definition of such is to assume the thing under debate. The journalist writing the article assumed in his question that it had already been proven that Hezbollah had decrypted Israeli military radio, and the only remaining question was how it was done, which was not true. But by framing the question the way he did, he was able to suggest that the "I can't tell you" answer he got implied that it was in fact done, but the details could not be told. Seems like a straightforward BTQ fallacy to me. But perhaps you have some more detailed criticism that explains why it is not.

"Why do you think animals should be treated more ethically?" is what is called a loaded question.

Would you berate someone if you asked them "Would you prefer to be raped anally or orally?" and they answered "I'd prefer not to be raped at all" flothing [sic] or otherwise ?

Because we aren't interested in fighting the Linux Jihad?
(emphasis mine)

you might also be interested in this: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html.

also, in this case, *if* MS had something that worked, let alone faster, maybe, just maybe, i'd use it. i'll take a slow XML implementation over a non-existant one any day. WordML doesn't count. yes i've used it. doesn't even come close. OpenXML might - in, say, 5 years from now - when it's actually out in a non-beta product.
at least people promoting ODF prompted MS to even think about OpenXML - directly or indirectly. so you may not be interesting in fighting. but fret not. there are plenty of others who'll do it for you so that you can enjoy OpenXML after the last 10-15 years or so of the .doc lockdown. MS had all the time in the world to Open XML (pun intended). why now?

Some of your rant seems to be a little misinformed. Beyond what others have already pointed out...

> WoTC tried to duplicate that by soliciting submissions from everyone and creating a new line
> based on their original home grown idea. They had judges, a competition, etc. I'm surprised
> Fox didn't air it. Forgotten Realms was far from dead, and many continued to enjoy playing
> in it. They decided to abandon what was working

FR is far from dead - WotC has by no means abandoned it, and it just makes you look silly to claim otherwise. Take a look at the upcoming products - most are generic, one is FR-specific, and one is Eberron-specific. That's pretty typical.

Just because Eberron has been added doesn't mean FR has been removed. Classic false dilemma fallacy.

Seriously, I don't see how you think that taking blatantly silly stances "Only Apple cares enough to pay attention to detail" does anything but undermine your overall position.

Did they teach you to use loaded questions at University?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

It's not Ad Hominem when the person's employment dictates an ulterior motive; e.g. the information about the person is no longer irrelevant. The person making the argument is important in this case, because there clearly is an agenda for him to push. Ad Hominem only applies to irrelevant information about the person.

"My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)

This is the EXACT SAME THING. Prevention on the part of law enforcers. You can't apply the senseless "slippery slope" logic to everything, you can't say "X can't be done now because it might get worse" to all of X, otherwise you will never ever move, nothing will ever progress. it's a logical fallacy to be concerned that what's currently OK might not be OK in the future. Deal with it in the future, not in some theoretical possible future you're imagining today with all of today's biases in your head.

Umm, actually the police have strict limits as to how far they may go in preventing a crime. The term "Probable cause" applies.

As for fallacies, I would suggest you look up the term "Weak Analogy"
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

Climbing the fence is a crime in progress unless the individual happens to own the property. Making a larger than usual payment on a loan is not a crime. In order for this analogy to work making the payment would have to normally be a crime.

the slippery slope is a logical fallacy

Wow, that post is a textbook example of the strawman fallacy.

I'm not the guy who slammed you, but I thought his meaning was pretty obvious, so:

You stated that "present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 thousand years... from this we can conclude that the present day temperature is the highest in 420 thousand years."

That argument is not supported by the article, or by any other resource available to me. You've set it up as a straw man so you can knock it down.

Your post starts with a falsehood, and then goes on to counsel inaction based on lack of precise understanding of details. This might be analogous to saying "we'd best not jump off this train bridge, because the train may derail in the remaining ten feet it has to go before it hits us". But then I'm known for my bad analogies (I'm not even in the league with this guy, though).

Essentially they are committing the logical fallacy of ambiguity, but the sort of people who need some absolute authority to look up to aren't the type to examine reasoning closely. If it agrees with what they're told it's good (holy), if it disagrees it's bad (blasphemous).

Except you gave us no reason to believe that you provided a representative sample of his work, and given a sample size of one, it's possible you're making a hasty generalization. If his hypothesis was rooted in the misconception that the earth was commonly believed to be flat in the past, then perhaps your observation would be relevant. But if you draw your conclusions from a sample size of one, what hope for your logic?

Except you gave us no reason to believe that you provided a representative sample of his work, and given a sample size of one, it's possible you're making a hasty generalization. If his hypothesis was rooted in the misconception that the earth was commonly believed to be flat in the past, then perhaps your observation would be relevant. But if you draw your conclusions from a sample size of one, what hope for your logic?

Very clever.

Animals can't give consent. Other humans can. Rather than coming back with a bad analogy, how about an honest answer to the question?

You can't believe it because you (1) are making up an argument for the aim to refute it, commonly called a strawman, and (2) treat a collection of people as an individual. (Is there a fallacy name for this too?)

ad (1)
Mitnick did not say "it's easier to hack" (I assume TFA/you mean "crack" here) which would mean that it's easier to get unauthorized access.

In fact TFA quoted Mitnick as saying that finding vulnerabilities in OSS code is easier, since it's easier to analyze for holes. This is true for both black-hats and white-hats, so it gets evened out somewhat. On the other hand, finding holes in closed source is harder for black-hats, but fixing them is impossible for white-hats, so overall this might put black-hats at an advantage.

And you leave out that OSS is not just "GPL the source and put it on a server". Mature OSS projects generally are modularized well, because parallel development is greatly hampered otherwise. Closed projects tend to be much dirtier in this respect.
Incidentially, this separation also helps secure coding.

ad (2)
It should not be a surprise that among > 1,000,000 /. users, you find both people who say "duh" in the one, and others who say "Stop Fudding" in the other story.

Actually, what happens is this:
Some people say "duh", because, well, duh, but you leave out the supporting argument that while Mitnick's assertion is obviously true, TFA left out the fact that it is easier to fix also.
Other people say "FUD", because they forget that Allchin is somewhat right: putting Windows in the open now, necessarily with insufficient preparation and code cleanup, would make it more insecure. But that does not mean that it couldn't be more secure had it been constructed in the open from the beginning.

And I can't believe there are idiots who modded you +5 Insightful.

His argument is not an example of a straw man fallacy. It's an example of an ad hominem attack. Since you were wrong about the particular fallacy, your other point must also be wrong :) (That's an ad hominem attack for those of you not paying attention)

Erm, you're good at logical fallacies, so good you -committed- one when trying to show the existence of an entirely different one.

A varient of the Straw Man Referred to as the Extreme Man on this site.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

Either:
a. You support Bush in whatever he wants to do ...or...
b. You are supporting the terrorists!

At Bush's inauguration, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution says NOTHING about suspending ANY rights or portions of the Constitution just because the President says to.

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and--with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle--the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

Thanks for playing. Don't forget your gift basket on the way out.

"That cluster of cells is not going to do anything on its own."

Now that is an out and out lie. That "cluster of cells" will divide, divide again, divide again, etc. One such "cluster of cells" is dividing right now and leaving dead skin cells on his keyboard as he types this.

"It wouldn't even exist but for highly sophisticated processes and technology."

What, like aquiring the nutrients necessary for continued life? Like breathing? Eating? Don't you realize that you are kept alive through similar such "sophisticated processes"?

"Once the technology allows, those millions of skin cells will have every bit the prospects of becoming an embryo as the refridgerated IVF leftovers.

The difference of course being that those skin cells would not be capable of becoming an adult human being without technological intervention. A human being in the blastocyst (or zygote or embryo or fetus) stage of development will become an adult human being if all conditions are ideal and so long as she is allowed to obtain the nutrients necessary for continued life (food, water, oxygen).

"Since neither can possibly become an embryo without science doing its work, they will have exactly the same potential and moral value.

Science doesn't have to do Jack S$#t for an embryo to become a human adult. The embryo will use standard biological processes to aquire the nutrients necessary for continued life. No technology required whatsoever. Once a somatic cell of an adult donor has had its nucleus transferred into an ovum that has had its nucleus removed and the cloning process has begun, then yes, the two would have the same potential and moral value. That same potential and moral value that all human beings have. The skin cells, however, have no value in and of themselves.

"Will children derived from other cells have less value to you?

Beat that straw man!! Beat that straw man!! Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between a stage of development (which implies moving from stage to stage) and a sample of a clump of cells then you have major problems. A blastocyst is not an entity. It is a stage that an entity passes through. A clump of skin cells on the other hand is a small portion of an entity in a particular stage of development. This is like the difference of using an individual stem cell from an embryo vs. using the entire embryo. If you take a small sample of cells from an entity without harming the entity then you are well within the bounds of ethical science.

If you destroy the entire entity (whether in the blastocyst, embryo, fetus, or adult stage of development) for the sake of science then you have crossed the line into unethical science. Can you do wonderful things and advance science rapidly? Absolutely. Should you? No. Just because we could learn rapidly if we experiment directly upon adult human beings (say death row prisoners or someone who is contemplating suicide), doesn't mean we should.

"And then every time you shave it will be a moral dilemma.

Back to that old straw man eh?

I'm not that AC, but I thought I should point something out:

Anyway you're just a fucking AC, so you're not in a very good position to speak about being taken seriously.

You may attack him in place of his argument but his argument still stands as unchallenged.

BTW, he and I may be posting pseudo-anonymously but you're pseudo-anonymous "IntergalacticWalrus," so if it were true that we're not to be taken seriously merely because of pseudo-anonymity then you're not in a very good position to speak about being taken seriously either. That's a double edged sword you're swinging there -- don't cut yourself.

But arguing a point by merely appealing to an authority is still a fallacy.

Also wrapped up in your argument is an ad hominem attack on said "hack".

Schmidt's status as a hack does not affect the truth or falsity of his arguments about whom should be considered responsible for security flaws in software.

Now reread the last sentence, replacing "Schmidt" with "Schneier" and "hack" with "security expert".

But arguing a point by merely appealing to an authority is still a fallacy.

Also wrapped up in your argument is an ad hominem attack on said "hack".

Schmidt's status as a hack does not affect the truth or falsity of his arguments about whom should be considered responsible for security flaws in software.

Now reread the last sentence, replacing "Schmidt" with "Schneier" and "hack" with "security expert".

I confess to chuckling when I saw the mod. No, I did not ask anyone to mod you down.

Perhaps you may wish to take the time to consider the possibility that the modder did not think you "tore me a new one", and quite possibly found your post to be offensive and trollish.

You seem reasonably intelligent, so take some time to consider that you're not perfect and you're not always right, and other people might have views worth considering

I know this is not typical Slashdot behavior, but do give it a try.

Some practice in critical thinking might also be in order - maybe you'll learn some techniques to trounce me next time **and** get modded up instead of down. I would start with the fallacy files and then maybe check out "The Craft of Research". Not that I'm claiming I'm a great debater, myself. On the other hand, I'm not consistently getting modded down at this point.

BTW, I will concede that there's an argument that the funding situation is actually turning out better without Federal funding. I just don't believe that private funding is best in all situations.

Until next time, Mr. Geeste...

Don't let him get you mad. He's a typical liberal.... But OMFG! GEORGE SHRUBA BUSH wont get close enough for me to throw a rock at him!!!111!!! The USA is teh EVIL just like ChinA!!! OMG OMG!

He may or may not have brought anything worth listening to the debate, but your rediculous straw man and resort to stereotypes doesn't bring anything either.

To the people who will flame me: Are things perfect in the US? No. I am fully aware that they are not. But we aren't even in the same order of magnitude as China.

This should have been the main point of your post, not the stereotypes and exaggeration. By all means disagree, but don't drag us all down to the same childish Fox News "Look a dirty 'liberal'!" level.

So here's the question: How exactly is evolution disprovible?

Easy. The next piece of data that shows a different process for the morphological changes exhibited in the fossil record.

If we can say "well these guys were wrong about how it works, but it's still viable," what could we learn that that would toss all of evolution out?

We could if there were a better scientific explanation for the data. Despite the problems with Lamarck and Darwin's attempts to refine evolutionary theory, the idea that species change over time is still a foundation concept.

Without that, how is evolution any more falsifiable than ID?

How does ID explain the fossil record?

As near as I can tell, the only thing ID says is that "things in nature are too complex for random chance". Okay, so where is the positive statement of fact? How does that explain the data we have any better than evolution?

I have yet to get a positive theory of ID. It is more likely an example of a False Dillema fallacy.

The pages I have to code are artsy as all hell. Everyone on my team is a graphic designer. Perhaps you see no need becuase your experience is limited.

I wouldn't say so, I've been building websites since the 90s.

When you say that the pages you code are "artsy as all hell", does that mean that they are art for art's sake? I code for businesses; there's a purpose to the pages I create above and beyond just looking pretty. And like I said, I just don't see a need for table layouts - all the information I have to present can quite naturally be laid out well with CSS. If your pages aren't all about presenting information, then I can see how your experience might differ from mine.

Perhaps if there were a clear document explaining how commonly-used table-based designs would be rendered in CSS, then I would sympathize with this point.

But CSS is a fundamentally different approach. It's about modifying the document flow to create a layout, not trying to fit stuff into a grid. There's no easy translation from one to the other because they have completely different foundations. It's like trying to translate from English to Cantonese one letter at a time instead of taking the context of a sentence into account. What is suitable for one website using a particular layout is not necessarily suitable for another, similar-looking website.

since three CSS experts found a common example of translating a common table-based design into CSS "kludgey" and "nonintutive", then you really don't have much to stand on here.

Hang on a sec. They called this CSS approach kludgey and unintuitive. They didn't call table layouts non-kludgey and intuitive, at least not in the quote you provided. The description you provided does sound like a kludge and does sound unituitive. As I said above, I think that CSS is kludgey and unintuitive. But no more so than table layouts.

I feel like you are proving my point by resorting to the argument that I must be stupid if I don't properly accept your favorite technology.

WTF are you talking about? I made no such claim! You included the attitude of a few bigots as a reason to avoid CSS, and I pointed out that there are bigots to every approach and that you are cutting your nose off to spite your face if you use that as a reason to avoid a technology instead of judging it on its merits. If you don't accept CSS, that's fair enough, but to not accept it because people you don't like use it, then that's bad. Read what you wrote again:

CSS advocates are often times really snotty, mean, and religious about CSS... [...] ...this is why I think we need to re-evaluate our use of CSS.

You think that's a reasonable attitude?

Will you please accept that my situation might be different from yours and CSS might be more trouble than it's worth in regards to solving my problems?

You are responding to a comment where I did just that. That's what I was trying to get at when I was talking about "arty" websites as opposite to websites that present information.

Will you please concede that my choosing to not use "perfect" CSS in all instances (remember, I still use it, and frequently!) might have nothing to do with my stupidity or my lack of discipline?

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Will you please concede that you have stopped beating your wife?

Finally, Lot is called "Just" and "Righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8, but the bible tells us on several occasions that There are no just or righteous people
This one's easy: context. While there are certainly many things in the Bible which should cause readers to ask questions, this example doesn't require a lot of thought, and calling it a contradiction is a bit of a stretch. A simple example might be if you call your spouse perfect even though you know nobody's perfect.

Good thing nobody bases their lives or morality around this book! Just think how confused they'd be!
Although the Lot example wasn't a good one, and since there are other examples that don't seem to make sense, I'd like to point out that dismissing the entire Bible just because of a few anomalies doesn't make sense. They should however cause you to think, which is a good thing; what's the point of exploring material that claims to profess truth if you don't analyze it?