The results aren't "inconclusive". [opt pantomine="on"]Oh yes they are![opt pantomime="off"]
God doesn't exist. There is no evidence for the existence of any sort of god But as any critical thinker can tell you, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [1].
and there's much evidence that, throughout human history, we've invented so many different gods as a way to both manipulate others and to "'splain away" that which we didn't understand. So:
Major Premise: we have invented many gods to manipulate others and explain away what we don't understand.
Minor Premise: god X has been used to manupulate others and/or to explain away what we don't understand
Conclusion: we have invented god X
Any critical thinker will be aware that that is an example or the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Who created God? Believers can't answer that. Critical thinkers can answer it easily - "We did." History shows this has always been the case. Any critical thinker will recognise that as a red herring. There is no logical necessity for everything to have been "created". After all, who do you believe created the Earth? Atheists answer that in the same way as [some] religious people answer the question of "who created God": "Nobody". That doesn't invalidate (or validate) either position.
The OP is right, there is a need for people to learn critical thinking -- or maybe the need is for people to learn to recognise when they're turning it off.
[1] There are some more subtle questions of what counts as evidence, and some interesting history of how science has restricted what it counts as evidence with the express purpose of excluding anything the religious may claim as evidence -- making science's lack of evidence for any god a circular argument fallacy -- but that's a bit much to fit into a/. posting so I'll just refer you to Mary Midgley's "Science and Poetry" -- her discussion of the historical and philosophical bachground is excellent, even if she does get a bit sloppy drawing conclusions from it.
There's nothing wrong with dismissing an idea when there's not enough evidence to support it. Remember that one next time somebody brings up Galileo and the Pope;-)
Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
My irony meter pegged with that "of course" -- always a giveaway that somebody is trying to duck out of critical thinking and logic.
Lots of very intelligent people have applied a lot of critical thinking and logic to the question of God, and the results are inconclusive. It's a pity that both sides feel the need to try to bully the other into submission.
The attempt to extend detention has already survived one change of prime minister and a few changes of home secretary. I expect it will survive the next one, too (whatever party gets in -- what they say in opposition doesn't count for squat).
(although it's not actually written in a single document... we have a rather more complex history than allows for that)
Nonsense, that's the kind of stupid excuse you'd think people who gave a fuck about their rights wouldn't swallow.
No, you simply have a retarded attachment to your history that apparently outweighs the need for a Constitution (which you don't have, no matter how many times you crow that an loose assemblage of documents is a "constitution"). And the US constitution has proved such effective protection against the US government detaining people without trial, hasn't it? Remind me, how long have the GITMO detainees been there? How does it compare to 42 days?
The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities. When a speculator guesses that scarcity is at its peak, they start selling. This increases the supply, and drives *down* price, and allowing consumption to increase. I don't see how this acts as a buffer. When they expect the price to rise, they buy, causing the price to rise faster. When they expect the price to fall, they sell, causing the price to fall faster. So the effect is to increase the swings, not to buffer them. Of course, they're not perfect in their timings, but surely they would have to consistently start selling/buying embarrasingly early before the peak/trough to actually have a buffering effect. Whether the good is elastic or inelastic seems to be a red herring. The amplification effect would be less with an elastic good than an inelastic good, but the negative feedback in the loop provided by elasticity doesn't seem to change the fact that the speculators' effect is positive feedback!
I'll take you for $5 that the election happens and there's an transition of power by Inauguration Day 2009. Sneaky -- were you hoping that as a Brit I wouldn't notice that there would be a transition of power whichever party won the election?;-)
Here's a hint about the American system: the president doesn't call elections in the first place, so he can't stop one from happening in the second. He has no legal authority to do so, so no one would listen to him if he tried. There's a reason no one's ever tried that before. Even Lincoln had to run for re-election during the Civil War (and almost lost!); there's simply no way to stop the process. I suggest you check the Patriot Act carefully -- certainly some commentators believe that The Continuity of Government plan in conjunction with The Patriot Act gives Bush precisely that legal power. I am not a lawyer (and even if I were, I bet there would be a lot of disagreement amongst lawyers on this one), and I don't know whether that power, if it existed, was preserved in Patriot 2, so I'm not sure.
the Democratic party (which will BE the government next year
Assuming there's an election, and the USA doesn't find itself in a state of emergency so Dubya doesn't have to call an election.
My nomination for "most likely to be shut down by government" would have been the US Constitution, but I may be too late so I'll nominate the US Supreme Court.
We're not all smelly hippies who hate money and wear hand knitted nettle underpants. That's true. Some of us are smelly hippies who hate money and don't wear underpants at all.
So when considering computer-generated kiddie porn, let's weigh the potential benefits (ABSOLUTELY NONE) If you read the RA (sorry, I must be new here) you will find that what is actually being targeted is porn that is computer generated from actual images, so there is real harm involved, and presumably it can be hard to prove whether or not a particular computer generated image is derived from a real image or not. The issue is whether this is a proportionate response, particularly considering the original abuse and the original picture of the abuse would already be illegal. I don't think it is, but it is consistent with a mindset unfortunately widespread here in the UK that risks can be and should be completely eliminated.
But what are the purposes of these images, from a social/personal/psychological perspective? Art? Entertainment? As others have pointed out, society accepts the depiction of all sorts of bad things in the name of art and/or entertainment, usually but not always with the person doing the bad things ending up suffering in consequence. Outlawing the depiction of some bad things is effectively a form of denial, pretending that they don't exist because nobody can mention them.
Did you see the bit about which one mattered? Maybe I should try typing more slowly. You insist that the conventional understanding of "market" is wrong, but you have given no evidence whatsoever of that, so we just have your word. Well, big deal. You wan't to use the word "market" in a different way to the rest of the world, that's your right. If you want anybody to take notice, you're going to have to produce reasons instead of just name-calling anybody who doesn't see it your way.
Yes there is. The question is whether it is a social construct or a scientific distinction (there's another issue of whether science itself is a social construct anyway, and yet another issue of imprecise boundaries, but most categories we use have imprecise boundaries). Denial of the concept of race is a creative approach to racism, but it remains a form of denial.
There are many high dollar products crappily made in China and sold at whatever your favorite retail outlet happens to be. Not necessarily as crappily made. I once visited a clothing factory in China, and the factory floor was divided into two. On one side were the low-skill girls using poor quality sewing machines churning out the cheap stuff. When they got to a certain standard they were promoted to the other side of the shop floor, got a pay rise, used better quality (western!) sewing machines and got stricter quality control. There are differences, even in stuff coming out of the same factory.
The theory I am most familiar with is that it's to do with land distribution and early technology. Early technology was largely plant and animal based. That technology spread easily east-west because of broadly similar climate, but didn't spread well north-south because of climate changes. Eurasia provided a massive east-west area, but Africa, India, Polynesia and so on were relaively isolated in the east-west direction. That means that technology advanced faster in the north than in the south. Add in the general human tendancy of the powerful oppressing the weak and hey, presto! White (and Yellow) colonialism. No racial causes, just the luck of the draw in who was in the right place at the right time.
So what your saying is you know the convenional theory's, which I already showed are wrong, and you don't even know those properly.
Sorry but if an undergrad minor is you're best qualification to speak as an authoraty, then digg is over there. Well, I know the difference between "your" and "you're", I know the difference between "theory's" and "theories" and (and this one matters) I know the difference between "showed" and "alleged". If you don't, IRC is over there.
For the record, I use Debian and for an EEE PC I would recommend to consumers to use the Linux version. For the record, I use Windows XP (never managed to get a Linux installation to completely work on my desktop PC -- somebody here was helping me to get Ubuntu working, but I had technical problems and then got distracted by actually using the computer) but I have the Linux version of the eeePC. It's great for the built in apps, but I can't properly install my own (even in the advanced (KDE) desktop, icons that I add don't persist through a reboot).
The fact that it's not designed to run Vista, and probably has a spec that would struggle to run Vista is noteworthy to those who want to run MS on it. XPs days are numbered, so anybody buying one hoping for an MS Windows platform needs to know that they're already near the end of support. They might decide that it's worth it anyway, they might not, but it's relevant information, not naive Vista-bashing.
Slashdot Mirror
Major Premise: we have invented many gods to manipulate others and explain away what we don't understand.
Minor Premise: god X has been used to manupulate others and/or to explain away what we don't understand
Conclusion: we have invented god X
Any critical thinker will be aware that that is an example or the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Who created God? Believers can't answer that. Critical thinkers can answer it easily - "We did." History shows this has always been the case. Any critical thinker will recognise that as a red herring. There is no logical necessity for everything to have been "created". After all, who do you believe created the Earth? Atheists answer that in the same way as [some] religious people answer the question of "who created God": "Nobody". That doesn't invalidate (or validate) either position.
The OP is right, there is a need for people to learn critical thinking -- or maybe the need is for people to learn to recognise when they're turning it off.
[1] There are some more subtle questions of what counts as evidence, and some interesting history of how science has restricted what it counts as evidence with the express purpose of excluding anything the religious may claim as evidence -- making science's lack of evidence for any god a circular argument fallacy -- but that's a bit much to fit into a
My irony meter pegged with that "of course" -- always a giveaway that somebody is trying to duck out of critical thinking and logic.
Lots of very intelligent people have applied a lot of critical thinking and logic to the question of God, and the results are inconclusive. It's a pity that both sides feel the need to try to bully the other into submission.
The attempt to extend detention has already survived one change of prime minister and a few changes of home secretary. I expect it will survive the next one, too (whatever party gets in -- what they say in opposition doesn't count for squat).
More like the emacs source, I think. An important feature is that it still works.
Nonsense, that's the kind of stupid excuse you'd think people who gave a fuck about their rights wouldn't swallow.
No, you simply have a retarded attachment to your history that apparently outweighs the need for a Constitution (which you don't have, no matter how many times you crow that an loose assemblage of documents is a "constitution"). And the US constitution has proved such effective protection against the US government detaining people without trial, hasn't it? Remind me, how long have the GITMO detainees been there? How does it compare to 42 days?
In the particular case of the Daily Mail, though, I suspect blog posts are more reliable.
Oh dear, that posting causes me emotional distress. Better hand yourself in now, before they come to get you...
I never said there was any evil plan, I merely said that it was an assumption that there wasn't.
Assuming there's an election, and the USA doesn't find itself in a state of emergency so Dubya doesn't have to call an election.
My nomination for "most likely to be shut down by government" would have been the US Constitution, but I may be too late so I'll nominate the US Supreme Court.
I did worry about taking my laptop (with PGP on it) into the USA, because it might be a problem bringing it back out again.
Did you see the bit about which one mattered? Maybe I should try typing more slowly. You insist that the conventional understanding of "market" is wrong, but you have given no evidence whatsoever of that, so we just have your word. Well, big deal. You wan't to use the word "market" in a different way to the rest of the world, that's your right. If you want anybody to take notice, you're going to have to produce reasons instead of just name-calling anybody who doesn't see it your way.
Yes there is. The question is whether it is a social construct or a scientific distinction (there's another issue of whether science itself is a social construct anyway, and yet another issue of imprecise boundaries, but most categories we use have imprecise boundaries). Denial of the concept of race is a creative approach to racism, but it remains a form of denial.
The theory I am most familiar with is that it's to do with land distribution and early technology. Early technology was largely plant and animal based. That technology spread easily east-west because of broadly similar climate, but didn't spread well north-south because of climate changes. Eurasia provided a massive east-west area, but Africa, India, Polynesia and so on were relaively isolated in the east-west direction. That means that technology advanced faster in the north than in the south. Add in the general human tendancy of the powerful oppressing the weak and hey, presto! White (and Yellow) colonialism. No racial causes, just the luck of the draw in who was in the right place at the right time.
Sorry but if an undergrad minor is you're best qualification to speak as an authoraty, then digg is over there. Well, I know the difference between "your" and "you're", I know the difference between "theory's" and "theories" and (and this one matters) I know the difference between "showed" and "alleged". If you don't, IRC is over there.
The fact that it's not designed to run Vista, and probably has a spec that would struggle to run Vista is noteworthy to those who want to run MS on it. XPs days are numbered, so anybody buying one hoping for an MS Windows platform needs to know that they're already near the end of support. They might decide that it's worth it anyway, they might not, but it's relevant information, not naive Vista-bashing.