Slashdot Mirror

Let's see... OneNewsNow is run by the AFA, which is a major pressure group in the US, which makes it right-wing but not fringe.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/cul...
That's an article from 2016 which condemns Starbucks for ignoring demands to install filtering.

And here'a a Fox article from a similar time which explains how companies which provide unfiltered wifi are helping terrorists and child molesters:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinio...
Starbucks is specifically mentioned, though the focus is more on congratulating companies which do filter.

The Fox news article seems to imply that the internet is rife with child porn, and only filtering can save people from seeing it. Makes me wonder what sort of sites Fox writers look at.

I read about things.

You READ about things? Well, stop the presses then! With literally millions of news sources, could you cite something at least a bit specific?

Voting machines being few and defective in Democratic areas.

States run the elections and voting places, so why would Democrats tamper with voting machines in their own areas?

Voter ID laws combined with closing offices that issue licenses in heavily Democratic areas.

Voter ID laws prevent illegals and dead people from voting, not to mention preventing people from voting multiple times. Again, why would Democratic states close offices earlier if it impacts Democrats from voting?

Illegals and dead people do not vote in significant amounts. This is the sort of fraud that would be easy to find lots of examples of it it were going on, and we haven't seen them.

Funny, but Google pulls up enough examples of voter fraud:

• Hidden Camera: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner: They Bus People Around to Vote
• North Carolina Hillary Supporter Brags on Facebook about Voting Multiple Times
• Double Voting - Even Triple Voting - Found in US Elections
• Democrat Confirms Rampant Voter Fraud
• CBS4 Investigation Finds People Voting Twice
• Detroit Recount Reveals Major Vot Fraud by Dems
• A JMU Student has allegedly registered 19 dead people to vote

Read some real news sometime.

May I suggest the same to you?

Oh, the right are pretty pissed off!
---
http://www.onenewsnow.com/scie... (The AFA's news site, so it's not just some loner's blog)

In an aggressive move before the end of its second term, the Obama administration announced Thursday that is wants to allow scientists to engineer human-animal hybrids.

This latest attempt by President Barack Obama of reportedly seeking to manipulate and destroy human life through unethical experiments comes after his earlier move to overturn limits set by the Bush administration.

One issue is that scientists might inadvertently create animals that have partly human brains, endowing them with some semblance of human consciousness or human thinking abilities,” the pro-life media hub (LifeNews) added.

“In 2009, pro-abortion President Barack Obama issued an executive order allowing funding on life-destroying embryonic stem cell research, including for human-animal hybrid embryos,” the pro-life organization reminded Americans. “This rescinded President George Bush’s policy prohibiting taxpayer-funding of the life-destroying practices.”
---

I can't see the left getting pissed off though. They've not objected to chimera research before.

Here's one: http://onenewsnow.com/science-...
---
OneNewsNow asked why adult stem cell successes are not generally known. According to Prentice, it's partly because the emphasis has been on human embryo research.

“We kept hearing how embryonic stem cells were going to cure, as one person put it, 'all known maladies,'” he says. “Embryonic stem cells haven't helped a single person - and in decades of research they haven't helped that many laboratory mice. Usually they just grow and make tumors."
---
ONN is very right-leaning, but it's not really fringe. It's run by the AFA, a quite large and influential organisation.

You underestimate the power of politically-driven stupidity. In this case of the right-wing flavor, but the left are not much better. Here's an example:

Politically biased news example: http://onenewsnow.com/pro-life...

A child experiences a medical emergency, things go south, he is left brain dead. The hospital urges disconnection of life support, but the parents remain in understandable denial - can't really blame them for that. They are soon aided by a pro-life pressure group, the PJI. The group then uses the standard legal practice of expert-shopping, finding a doctor who will support their case, and turn to Dr. Paul Byrne. He has testified that the child is alive, even though he has never even seen the child in person, and coincidentally happens to be president of the Life Guardian Foundation and an active campaigner against the concept of brain death - which he believes to be something "concocted by transplant physicians and their allies who wanted to enlarge the donor pool by including patients who are really not dead."

That's the great thing about expert testimony in legal cases: If a thousand doctors say you are wrong, and one doctor says you are right, you can go with the one. Works for finding people to testify before Congress too.

Full legal details: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/...

All this serves to illustrate the broader point: There is a substantial association of pressure groups, desperate parents, religious organisations and Dr Byrne who reject the idea of brain death. They believe that there is always, always hope - even if the hope is of the supernatural variety, the possibility of divine intervention remains if they can just pray hard enough. This research is going to be processed through the spin machine and, when it comes out the other side, it's going to appear on onenewsnow, lifesitenews, and eventually the more mainstream places like Fox as 'scientific proof' that there is no such thing as brain death and it's all a conspiracy made up by hospitals so they can execute unprofitable patients or harvest more organs for transplant.

The pro-life movement is full of bad science, mostly owing to a very strong confirmation bias. Chief of them is a widespread belief that abortion causes breast cancer (A link denied by just about ever mainstream medical association that has anything to do with cancer), followed by a long list of the dangers of abortion. A good part of that is due to reporting bias - every time a woman has any type of serious complication following abortion, it gets plastered all over the pro-life campaigning organisations media sites* - all the better if there is a hint of malpractice involved. In much the same way that media saturation of every child abduction convinces parents that every strange man is a pedophile, this creates the impression that abortion is an incredibly dangerous procedure - when the truth is that, statistically, the mortality rate for abortion (even the late term) is a fraction of that for completed pregnancy and birth.

*Example: http://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-...

Your attempt to simplify the math of pre-existing conditions based on conditional probability ignores a behavior pattern your first citation points out: "A Higher Proportion of People with Employer-Sponsored Insurance Have Health Issues". People who have chronic health issues actively make decisions that lead to them being more likely to have health insurance.

As a simple example, imagine someone who is 25 years old and is laid off from work. If they are healthy, they'll likely just drop coverage and be uninsured until they find their next job. But someone with a pre-existing condition will always purchase a COBRA policy if they can afford it. This factor, what the report calls "job lock", is big enough that you can't just apply logic and assume people with pre-existing conditions who have been denied coverage are the only ones who you have to count on this balance.

The idea that no one is losing coverage due to the ACA changes is pretty optimistic too. Here's the first examples I remembered reading this week. I have two immediate family members going through a similar story. They're losing their employer coverage, and it's fair to blame the ACA because makes it easy for employers to abstain from providing coverage. They used to worry about people quitting if they did that, now that's less of a risk. But it's not clear if they will be able to get coverage through their state exchange in time to replace what they're losing.

My state has over 40 options on the exchange.

And then there's North Carolina, where 61% of the counties have one option. You've described the best case scenario. The worst case one involves your employer cancelling your group plan, due solely to issues introduced by the ACA, and then finding out that your state exchange is a monopoly. The anecdotes that balance yours out are reports with a doubling of premiums from the bad combinations possible here.

Insurance providers are effectively cherry-picking only the markets where they can make good profits (ones near the upper limit of how much profit they can make under the ACA). And since some part of insurance company profit is based on extracting more money from the customers, that means the only policies that are going to be available are ones that are not that good of a deal for the buyer. Employers used to be forced into making that work anyway, because a decent health plan was a necessary component to hiring high quality workers. Now they feel it's optional and can drop it if the price is unreasonable, and insurers can drop offering plans if the price is reasonable. That's the reinforcing pair that's led to the North Carolina mess, and I expect to hear a lot more of those stories in the upcoming months.

I've seen it in cartoon form too: http://www.onenewsnow.com/uploadedImages/Cartoons/101011.jpg

It's still wrong though. I wouldn't even call it a bad argument, as that would mean admitting it's an argument. It's a good textbook of the ad hominium fallacy: "These people are hypocrites, therefore what they say is wrong."

Except the Democratic governor was "appalled", and halted the practice once he found out.

Republicans are never appalled, except by people exercising our rights, and never halt a tyrannical practice, even when found out.

We were told we had to obey all lawful orders. We were instructed that we were duty bound to disobey any order which violated the UCMJ. IOW, we didn't have to obey an order to torture someone, because it was against the Army's policy at the time.

Well, that was before the Bush White House.

The way I always thought of it was simply, "Could an officer make a case against me for refusing to obey this order?" In almost every case of torture or improper treatment, the answer would be no. In almost any other case, the answer would be yes. I'm not aware of any officer who would even attempt to justify an order to torture or kill prisoners to his superior. In fact, it just so happens that in the Marines, the case of Lt Col Chessani shows just the opposite. Some of his Marines ended up killing civilians in Haditha, and he's now on trial for it. Had any of his subordinates admitted to ordering the killing of civilians, he most certainly would have had them court-martialled for doing so.