Slashdot Mirror

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20041123.html

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20070425.html

Bias, you say? Balance, eh? Here, have a comic.

I agree, but this is unlikely to happen as long as we have right-wing blowhards on the radio and in office telling everyone that the problem is that the school system is government-funded. These people hate government, but the fun part is that it is the existence of government that makes their particular fantasizing about dismantling it even possible. After all, would you hire a vegan to cook your steak?

Reporting protests isn't exactly the way to get the rational opposing view across. There were plenty of sensible arguments above and beyond "No blood for oil!" and "He's not my president!" which is about all you get when your only opposition voice is people ranting at protests. The problem is who ends up being given the mic when opposing views are solicited. The sample liberal in frame four is what I was thinking of in this case.

Moonbats, you say?

I think this says it all: Anti-Christian Bigotry?

I think this says it all: Anti-Christian Bigotry?

First: according to the summary, the judge is ruling on whether or not the current board has a conflict of interest. The worst-case scenario is that the judge will order them to step down. Ignoring that....

This is a quote from idrewthis, an unabashedly liberal webcomic, discussing some recent ballot initiatives by a particularly vile pundit. I haven't verifed any of his claims, but if they're even sort of true, they punch an iceberg-sized hole in your Titanic-sized thesis. (Emphasis mine.)

He's best known as an antitax crusader--his most popular piece of legislation was Initiative 695, passed with nearly 70% support in 1999, which slashed the cost of car tabs, required "a vote of the people" on any tax or fee increase of any kind, and I forget what else--it was basically Eyman's antitax wish list in one single bill.

And oh, but that was an ugly spectacle. As far as I'm concerned it was, by itself, irrefutable proof that the ballot initiative process is a stupid idea because people, in the short term, are stupid. A demagogue like Eyman can come along, offer them goodies like tax cuts and the government having to lick their boots before it can raise their taxes, and then persuade them that anyone who says "look, the government is using that money for services you clearly support, so don't vote for this unless you want those services slashed" is guilty of practicing "scare tactics."

Eyman successfully convinced large numbers of people that the government can, in fact, operate for free, and is just taxing them to be mean. He even--and this does not speak well of the intelligence of my fellow Washingtonians--convinced more than half the state that the "rainy day fund" they themselves had voted to establish five years earlier was money the government was "hoarding."

As a lifelong Californian recently moved to Oregon, let me tell you that California voters really are as stupid as their Washington counterparts.

Evolution is a theory, not a law, and holds the same weight as any other theory. So, how many fish have turned into humans? How many apes have turned into humans?
You're kidding, right? This is a troll? Please tell me this is a troll. Because I don't think any scientist (Darwinist, Creationist, any serious -ist) has EVER tried to imply that fish transmorgify into humans, within a human lifespan, as a result of (for example) "random mutation", and you're trying to imply that this is the whole basis of the "theory" of evolution.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Okay, so you've got the definition of "Theory". It applies really nicely to the theory in question. Because, see, when you take the time to learn to learn about the theory, then take some more time to test it*, you'll see that the theory is in fact widely accepted and VERY testable. And it IS BEING USED to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Take a look at this to see how silly this argument really is: http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/gravity.html

*(admittedly this would take years if you insist on doing it for yourself, but please feel free to do so)

I have seen repeated evidence that when I or other Christians pray to God, cancer is cured, relationships are healed, and miracles happen. These phenomena have been observed by millions since the beginning of time and recorded in historical texts.
Do us all a favor: read these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter _hoc then print up a bunch of copies and share them with your friends.
Okay, I know you're not really going to, so here's an example of Regression Fallacy (not a very good one, but I'm at work):
The other day, my wife got a 24-hour flu.
She breastfed our youngest daughter during the time she was sick.
She felt better two days later.
Therefore, breastfeeding is a good cure for the flu.

So, where is your fish with legs??
In the fossil record. The legs didn't really work all that well for a while.

Where is your ape with opposable thumbs?
Um, you? Chimpanzees? Gorillas? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate Incidentally, they all have fingernails, mammary glands in roughly the same configurations as humans, very similar internal organ structure, the list goes on and on. There are good reasons why they say chimpanzees are closely related to humans, and there are good reasons they say cats are not so. Physiology and behavior are good examples. DNA is another. Though cats have a great deal in common physiologically with humans also.

We have millions of fossils, yet none which prove evolution.
We have thousands of pages of scripture (copied millions of times over), plus a super-lucrative worldwide trade in books analyzing said scripture, plus dozens of varieties of ancient mythology to choose from as well, yet none which prove Christianity. So?

It sounds like many have more faith than I to believe in something that has not even been proven to the extent of the Word of God and defend it with such vigor. I simply believe what I have seen in my life, which is evidence of God.
It sounds like many have more faith than I to believe in something that has not even been proven to the extent of the Theory of Evolution and defend it with such vigor. I simply believe what I have seen in my life (to which I then applied principles of [Biochemistry, Biology, Logic, Physics, Physiology, Reason, ...]), which is evidence of Evolution.

However, in the end, we will

Why do people claim that so many people hate the U.S., when the U.S. was the one that had nuclear weapons long before the USSR, but other than the two that were used against Japan to end WW2, there were no other mushroom clouds?

Have I suddenly lost the ability for reading comprehension, or did I just see someone state that we should be saying "Thank you for refraining from committing mass murder?"

As annoying as Dan Simpson may be at times, I think he makes a very valid point that in a civilized society, there are certain requirements basic enough that meeting them is not praiseworthy. Or as he put it:

"Boy, Bob is a wonderful human being! Today he was really mad about something, but he didn't beat anyone to death with a hammer!"

Someone is always going to react like this. http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/reaction.html

Your ancestors were wussies!


I'm so sick of hearing "You're a coward for moving to Canada". Get a new mantra.

But, hey, I could just be talking out my ass.

Don't worry, Bush has that problem too

This was covered pretty well I think by one of Simpson's political cartoons: http://idrewthis.org/2004/bothsides.html. Its sadly accurate.

BBC is doing it's readers a disservice by calling the second article "an alternative view". It's not an alternative, because it has almost no relevant informative content that would help answer the question in the title of this discussion.

Mr. Olshansky just gives a long history of people believing that immortality can be achieved using som quackery (since they lived in quacky times), then just claims as a fact that there is no reason to believe we can dramatically extend our lifespan. He doesn't give any evidence to that, doesn't provide any arguments or counter-arguments, his strongest "argument" is that gerontologists will not succeed, because a certain Ko Hung, a famous Chinese alchemist living in the 3rd century, didn't. And then, again without arguments he finishes his diatribe by saying the same boring lie that we should not work on extending life, but improve physical and mental health instead.

BBC should be doing analysis, not just striving for the false balance. Read this excellent article by Chris Mooney: Blinded By Science: How Balanced Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality. Even though an uninformed person may think that it's Aubrey de Grey (with his scary beard) is on the fringe, in fact the point applies to his opponent.

And if you don't have time to read another FA, this picture makes the point almost as well.

Balance doesn't mean that if one person speaks the truth for 10 minutes, you have to have another person to lie for 10 minutes.

Reminds me of this.

His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11.

You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession. At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.

Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.

No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.

(Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)

Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.

And frankly, the Military can "get behind the president" in times of war, whether he's Kerry or Bush, just like they told the civilians to do during the run-up. Their behaviour under Clinton was inexcusable (such as public threats on his life).

His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.

Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.

high on taxation

Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.

And he said what is plan is - more international support. And he'll get it too, all he has to do is give the UN some measure of control of their troops Iraq (after all, after this mess do you really expect French troops to take American orders?) and open up the reconstruction contracts to supporting countries.

I notice you dodge actually listing what Bush's income is. Bush is also very rich, and also claim s to be the common man. How many cowboys own sports teams and oil companies in their carreers (which they run into the ground and fail to see any reprocussions from)?

Kerry's not stupid. Hey has made a major point that he will finish the job in Iraq. If being "strong on defense" means invading a few more coutnries while still holed up on Afghanistan and Iraq, I dare say that the US needs someone a little less "Strong on defense" or it'll just spread itself too thin.

His tax policy has stimulated the economy, which is rebounding nicely from the Clinton recession and 9/11.

You display your bias by calling it the Clinton recession. At any rate, that tax cut resulted in breaking all the records for debt spending. Bush has plunged the USA deeper in debt than was thought imaginable.

Two hotbeds of anti-American sentiment moving towards democracy.

No, two new hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Period. Afghanstan is now ruled by drug-pushing warlords and former Taliban rulers, and Iraq has converted a neutral populace (with an anti-American dictator) into a vehemently anti-American populace (with an American-backed dictator). He's done the same thing with Terrorism that he did with taxes - he postponed them in such a way that it will be a hundred times worse for your children.

(Bear in mind that we lose ~50,000 people a year to traffic accidents, and ~35,000 people a year to the flu.)

Funny, I don't hear you using this justification when discussing the psychotic and aimless reaction to Terrorism. I mean, was it _only_ 3000 people who died in 9/11? Death is death, and whether it was 10 000 or 100 000 Iraqis who're dead for some bad judgement, it still sucks.

And frankly, the Military can "get behind the president" in times of war, whether he's Kerry or Bush, just like they told the civilians to do during the run-up. Their behaviour under Clinton was inexcusable (such as public threats on his life).

His behaviour in Vietnam was far more excusable than his opponents - he went, he fought, and he found out how horribly it sucked so he did whatever he could to get home (the three-purple-heart-loophole). Then, once home, he informed the people of how badly it sucked. Some people couldn't handle the truth, so they go apeshit on him.

Kerry has shown far more interest in protecting American jobs than Bush (who does not seem to have shown any) so I don't see where you're getting that H1B note. Kerry has actually campaigned on that platform.

high on taxation

Frankly, the US cannot afford the current levels of taxes and spending. Its like running a million dollars of credit because you don't want to make your car payments.

And he said what is plan is - more international support. And he'll get it too, all he has to do is give the UN some measure of control of their troops Iraq (after all, after this mess do you really expect French troops to take American orders?) and open up the reconstruction contracts to supporting countries.

I notice you dodge actually listing what Bush's income is. Bush is also very rich, and also claim s to be the common man. How many cowboys own sports teams and oil companies in their carreers (which they run into the ground and fail to see any reprocussions from)?

Kerry's not stupid. Hey has made a major point that he will finish the job in Iraq. If being "strong on defense" means invading a few more coutnries while still holed up on Afghanistan and Iraq, I dare say that the US needs someone a little less "Strong on defense" or it'll just spread itself too thin.

Attacking Bush is against the interests of America's enemies.

They better damn well be doing searches on everyone. Especially moraless pot smoking democratic teenagers.

What's wrong with pot? Not everybody can afford cocaine!

Corrected first link.

.sig > 10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004

I have two links for you.

A

B

I will be watching replies to this if you care to discuss.