"Gore, like many people, needs air travel to do his work"
Before you get defensive, that is as good a reason as any. It's certainly good enough for me.
Now, to my questions (real questions, not those silly "I know the answer, but I'm a slashtroll trying to prove my point questions).
1) Does he fly commercial? If not, does he "airpool"?
If the answer is no to those questions, fuck him. Any excuse he gives as to why he isn't doing these things is just that, an excuse.
In this case, a tax analogy is applicable. If, as Al Gore believes, people who make more money should pay more tax, then why shouldn't someone who uses more energy have to do more to offset?
2) Why isn't "I need it for work" a good enough reason for me and my SUV? Or everyone else? We are taking Mr. Gore at his word that he needs it, is he (a professional politician and former aspiring lawyer) somehow more believable when he says he needs something?
I would really like to know the answer to #1 by the way. I suspect he takes a private jet, and it's only his flunkies that are on it, but I don't know that for sure, and would actually like to be wrong.
"The Dorset culture preceded the Inuit culture in Arctic North America. Inuit legends mention the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut ("First Inhabitants"), who were driven away by the Inuit. According to legend, they were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off and retreated from the advancing Inuit."
"The Alaska Permanent Fund is not money from oil companies."
Ok.
"The People of Alaska decided that they will let companies pump their oil out of the ground, for which it charges the oil companies a fee."
So the money comes from the companies. What did you think I was wrong about again, since your statement here agrees with me?
"They aren't "taking money" from the oil companies, the oil companies are taking their oil, getting rich, and giving a bit back to the people whose oil it is."
You say the people are getting money. From whom? As you JUST stated "the oil companies". So I'm right, as you say there.
That was just about the worst attempt at proving me wrong ever. You just said they're taking money from the oil companies, several times in the same post, which apparently was supposed to prove something. Unless you were trying to prove "the people take money from the oil companies", you failed totally.
I mean, you couldn't have agreed with me more if you actually agreed with me.
"How does this mean they are supposed to somehow be grateful to the oil companies?"
They're not straw man, let's stick to arguments I made (even though you failed badly at rebutting those too).
"How does this make them greedy?"
Ah, the meat of it. When you take a payoff from an oil company, knowing that they will change the environment in acquiring the oil to give you your payoff, while also forcing them to establish a trust fund to mitigate said environmental changes, then turn around and try to use the legal system to extort money for something you've already been paid for? THAT makes you greedy.
As it is, they have a 40 billion+ fund for things like this. Give back the money you so greedily took when you didn't care about the consequences, or use the money you've saved for this purpose, but don't expect us (and it WILL be us, the customer who gets the cost passed to them) to pay you off again.
Are denialists still singing that tune? Scientists - i.e., the people who base their explanations on actual evidence - rejected it years ago.
I find it very difficult to believe that any reputable scientist would claim the Sun heat the earth. Would you like to try and source that claim for me, or maybe easier for you, you could just admit that in your rush to post you assumed you understood what you were replying to, but didn't.
How many of these plaintiffs took money from these very same oil companies by way of the Alaska Permanent Fund? Where were the complaints then? Should the people who took money be liable? I think so.
I suggest we use the APF to pay this lawsuit, then watch how fast it gets forgotten.
I just don't think you realize that using the context to determine meaning is a reading skill, and so think you've shown something other tan that I was right about you.
Isn't that funny? You try to hold me up for a typo, but prove I was right about your lack of reading skill in the process.
"Hell guy, most of your posts are even coherent English and you're calling ME out?"
That does sum up your posts nicely, I'm glad you agree with me.
Of course, you avoid admitting that you misread my posts and so were totally wrong with everything you typed, but we'll just assume you meant to admit that too.
At least you admitted you are incoherent, that was somewhat unexpected considering your previous posts. I fully expected you to ignore what was written and post a reply that was both unintelligible and elementary in its construction. Like all your other posts have been.
Nice to see you improved yourself because of my intervention, you're welcome.
Because then you'd get some hand in changing things like "wearing shirts, ties, suits and overpriced uncomfortable stuff " insted of just bitching about it to other geeks on a geek website.
You know, actually do something (management) vs. whine about something you don't like while doing nothing to change it (your current situation).
"Now, wait a minute. You are complaining because I called your comment "childish" after you made the following comment to the original poster"
No actually, I'm not complaining about that at all. I never did, actually. Learn to read.
"That leads to a new insult backed by evidence. You are a hypocrite."
And that leads to more proof you're opinion isn't worth a damn. Learn to read so you know why you're wrong.
"Trying to take the high ground because someone calls you on your temper tantrum just doesn't carry any weight. "
This isn't even coherent, and certainly can't have anything to do with me. There's no "temper tantrum" anywhere to be found in my posts. Learn to read.
"The student was right, and you are self import hypocrite who has poor reading skills."
Well, seeing as we're this far in and you can't even accurately recount my argument, I'd say this is a "pot, kettle, black" situation. Funny that you misread my posts and ell me I have poor reading skills. Hell guy, most of your posts are even coherent English and you're calling ME out? Yeah buddy...
You've been wrong about what my poitn was since you took it upon yourself to reply to me.
Do you get that? Do you understand? You misread my post and have been arguing against points I never made and don't care about. Despite the fact that I've explained this to you, you continue.
You were wrong about what you thought I claimed, and are too ignorant and immature to correct your misunderstandings.
Get yourself some hooked on phonics and get back to me. And maybe take a composition class, your English sucks, which might be why you're jumping to so many ignorant, wrong, ridiculous conclusions.
Well, it's funny you say the when the FACT is, you said something that was FACTUALLY incorrect, then based your reasoning on your incorrect FACT.
The FACT is, the only reason I replied to you was to correct your erroneous assumption of FACT. In fact, I am the only one of us who has actually presented ANY correct facts.
It seems your statement applies far more to you and your factually incorrect post, and your insistence that you being wrong doesn't matter, than it does to me.
And that's twice now that you've behaved like a child instead of thanking me for educating you. Are this much of an asshole to everyone who corrects you when you're obviously wrong, or are you just embarrassed by your failure and lashing out?
"That quote is commonly attributed to Ben Franklin"
And that attribution is wrong. Your acceptance of an incorrect attribution, and worse, your defense of your use of the incorrect attribution proves what I suspected about your opinion to be true.
"and he did publish it, implicitly endorsing it."
He published it. You're making a second claim there that is neither true nor logical, as all kinds of publications publish all sorts of things that they disagree with for a variety of reasons.
"The rest of my argument stands as written."
And can be dismissed. It's telling that when confronted with a factual inaccuracy in your post, rather than taking the opportunity to reexamine your ideas, and make corrections, you instead plow ahead oblivious.
Ben makes no distinction between different 'types' of liberty - he views liberty itself as essential, as important as air. He is simply stating that liberty is more important than safety, period. As in, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
The problem with your assertions here about what "Ben" (and I presume you mean Franklin) meant is that this isn't a quote from "Ben" at all, so your argument is totally fabricated.
"Ben" reprinted it, but openly "denied writing any part of it".
First, the fact that you parse this to mean what you like doesn't make that THE meaning, and more importantly, when you say "you are grossly misapplying the words to twist it into a justification for exactly the opposite of what he said" I have to ask, how could you possibly know that? I see nothing that supports a reading one way or the other, and it would seem including the qualifier "Essential" was done to differentiate between types of liberties. I cannot believe the quote is meant to portray all liberty as essential, and reading it that way doesn't make any sense.
Regardless, in either case, we can agree that traveling would probably be "essential". But your reading is no more authoritative than anyone's, and seems to be wrong.
Also, Ben Franklin didn't say it, and in fact, denied having anything to do with the quote apart from reprinting it.
One last thing
"In fact, my right is to travel how and where I want"
No, actually, it isn't. You can't, for instance, drive your car across my lawn with impunity because of my rights as a property owner. This is just one example demonstrating that you are incorrect on this point.
You are acting as though convenience has anything to do with rights. You can always walk, thereby preserving your RIGHT to travel, and essentially ends your argument.
My point was that tagging the article in that way is a condemnation of Islam, in its entirety, with no nuance.
The problem with that is that it is sarcasm, which is by its very nature nuanced.
"Tagging the article with the sarcastic "religionofpeace" moniker is not a way of criticizing the Islamic world's attitudes towards its radicals - it's an outright condemnation of the entire religion based on a small, radical subgroup."
No actually, in my case it's a reaction to the near universal response "it's a religion of peace" when any discussion of violence relating to islam begins. It's an outright condemnation of disingenuous intelectualls, not of muslims. Unless they also spout "it's a religion of peace" as an autonomic response to any criticism of islam.
"My failure to explicitly condemn them, however, in no way constitutes approval."
Yeah, sorry, no. It sometimes does mean approval, in fact it's called "tacit approval" and it appears to your posts.
And? Why do you think the fact that someone gives a teacher money entitles students to be disrespectful toward them? I can't think of a single situation where being an asshole toward someone is justified because the other person is getting paid.
Part of teaching is coming up with -effective- lesson plans, which you are not doing.
And part of being a good person is not intentionally making other people's lives more difficult. Also, your reply doesn't address the point, which is, if you don't like how your class is taught, why aren't you doing more than just disrupting it?
Ultimately, your argument boils down to "we're paying you so put up with it" to which I would reply, no. No one should have to forgo their dignity to teach.
You are making the same arguments so many other students tried in school, the difference being the rest of us grew up and learned why they were ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
"Gore, like many people, needs air travel to do his work"
Before you get defensive, that is as good a reason as any. It's certainly good enough for me.
Now, to my questions (real questions, not those silly "I know the answer, but I'm a slashtroll trying to prove my point questions).
1) Does he fly commercial? If not, does he "airpool"?
If the answer is no to those questions, fuck him. Any excuse he gives as to why he isn't doing these things is just that, an excuse.
In this case, a tax analogy is applicable. If, as Al Gore believes, people who make more money should pay more tax, then why shouldn't someone who uses more energy have to do more to offset?
2) Why isn't "I need it for work" a good enough reason for me and my SUV? Or everyone else? We are taking Mr. Gore at his word that he needs it, is he (a professional politician and former aspiring lawyer) somehow more believable when he says he needs something?
I would really like to know the answer to #1 by the way. I suspect he takes a private jet, and it's only his flunkies that are on it, but I don't know that for sure, and would actually like to be wrong.
That's probably as close to an admission that you lost this debate as I'll get, so thanks.
Have a nice day.
"We are living and walking around on soil that we took from Native people by force.
Why don't you develop some respect."
Thanks, any chance you could reply to something I said, or a point I made, or just not with a total no sequitur?
Thanks in advance.
"We are living and walking around on soil that we took from Native people by force."
And THEY got it from the previous natives by force. Why don't you learn something about history before you comment on it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture
"The Dorset culture preceded the Inuit culture in Arctic North America. Inuit legends mention the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut ("First Inhabitants"), who were driven away by the Inuit. According to legend, they were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off and retreated from the advancing Inuit."
You're welcome.
"The Alaska Permanent Fund is not money from oil companies."
Ok.
"The People of Alaska decided that they will let companies pump their oil out of the ground, for which it charges the oil companies a fee."
So the money comes from the companies. What did you think I was wrong about again, since your statement here agrees with me?
"They aren't "taking money" from the oil companies, the oil companies are taking their oil, getting rich, and giving a bit back to the people whose oil it is."
You say the people are getting money. From whom? As you JUST stated "the oil companies". So I'm right, as you say there.
That was just about the worst attempt at proving me wrong ever. You just said they're taking money from the oil companies, several times in the same post, which apparently was supposed to prove something. Unless you were trying to prove "the people take money from the oil companies", you failed totally.
I mean, you couldn't have agreed with me more if you actually agreed with me.
"How does this mean they are supposed to somehow be grateful to the oil companies?"
They're not straw man, let's stick to arguments I made (even though you failed badly at rebutting those too).
"How does this make them greedy?"
Ah, the meat of it. When you take a payoff from an oil company, knowing that they will change the environment in acquiring the oil to give you your payoff, while also forcing them to establish a trust fund to mitigate said environmental changes, then turn around and try to use the legal system to extort money for something you've already been paid for? THAT makes you greedy.
"How do you relocates a culture? History?"
Are you saying that culture is tied to a place? So nomads can't have culture and history?
So these people have no culture or history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people
What about these people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers
Or these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniche_(people)
Sorry, that's a thinly veiled excuse, and it doesn't fly at all.
I'd have a lot more sympathy if these people hadn't been taking money from the oil companies for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
As it is, they have a 40 billion+ fund for things like this. Give back the money you so greedily took when you didn't care about the consequences, or use the money you've saved for this purpose, but don't expect us (and it WILL be us, the customer who gets the cost passed to them) to pay you off again.
"would claim the Sun doesn't heat the earth"
I hate fixing my own posts...
I find it very difficult to believe that any reputable scientist would claim the Sun heat the earth. Would you like to try and source that claim for me, or maybe easier for you, you could just admit that in your rush to post you assumed you understood what you were replying to, but didn't.
I'll gladly accept either choice.
How many of these plaintiffs took money from these very same oil companies by way of the Alaska Permanent Fund? Where were the complaints then? Should the people who took money be liable? I think so.
I suggest we use the APF to pay this lawsuit, then watch how fast it gets forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
"The Fund grew from an initial investment of $734,000 in 1977 to the current sum of approximately forty billion dollars as of July 13, 2007. "
I find it more than a little distasteful that these greedy s.o.b's think they can collect on both ends.
No, I saw the typo.
I just don't think you realize that using the context to determine meaning is a reading skill, and so think you've shown something other tan that I was right about you.
Isn't that funny? You try to hold me up for a typo, but prove I was right about your lack of reading skill in the process.
God I love watching people like you fail at life.
"Hell guy, most of your posts are even coherent English and you're calling ME out?"
That does sum up your posts nicely, I'm glad you agree with me.
Of course, you avoid admitting that you misread my posts and so were totally wrong with everything you typed, but we'll just assume you meant to admit that too.
At least you admitted you are incoherent, that was somewhat unexpected considering your previous posts. I fully expected you to ignore what was written and post a reply that was both unintelligible and elementary in its construction. Like all your other posts have been.
Nice to see you improved yourself because of my intervention, you're welcome.
First, let me say, be very cautious about fashion advice on Slashdot.
Second, your post is 100% spot on, if this was 1965. These days, not so much.
"Why would I even want to be in the Boardroom"
Because then you'd get some hand in changing things like "wearing shirts, ties, suits and overpriced uncomfortable stuff " insted of just bitching about it to other geeks on a geek website.
You know, actually do something (management) vs. whine about something you don't like while doing nothing to change it (your current situation).
"Who says regimental is bad when your boss is dying of heat in his oven-suit? "
Who says it has to be an oven-suit when it can be a nice summer suit instead.
Florida summers + suits here, with none of the problems you're so up in arms about. You're just buying crappy suits.
"Oh, by the way, I've been on the fast track since I got done with grad school."
Lol @ you bragging about this like it matters...
"And dudes who show up wearing a suit for an interview with me get extra special grilling to make sure they aren't faking it."
Then you're already displaying your incompetence and failing to do your job properly.
"Now, wait a minute. You are complaining because I called your comment "childish" after you made the following comment to the original poster"
No actually, I'm not complaining about that at all. I never did, actually. Learn to read.
"That leads to a new insult backed by evidence. You are a hypocrite."
And that leads to more proof you're opinion isn't worth a damn. Learn to read so you know why you're wrong.
"Trying to take the high ground because someone calls you on your temper tantrum just doesn't carry any weight. "
This isn't even coherent, and certainly can't have anything to do with me. There's no "temper tantrum" anywhere to be found in my posts. Learn to read.
"The student was right, and you are self import hypocrite who has poor reading skills."
Well, seeing as we're this far in and you can't even accurately recount my argument, I'd say this is a "pot, kettle, black" situation. Funny that you misread my posts and ell me I have poor reading skills. Hell guy, most of your posts are even coherent English and you're calling ME out? Yeah buddy...
You've been wrong about what my poitn was since you took it upon yourself to reply to me.
Do you get that? Do you understand? You misread my post and have been arguing against points I never made and don't care about. Despite the fact that I've explained this to you, you continue.
You were wrong about what you thought I claimed, and are too ignorant and immature to correct your misunderstandings.
Get yourself some hooked on phonics and get back to me. And maybe take a composition class, your English sucks, which might be why you're jumping to so many ignorant, wrong, ridiculous conclusions.
"sorry I can not agree"
Not really sorry that I don't care.
"As adults we can at the very least be civil"
AS HUMANS, we can at the very least be civil. The "Adults" part is wrong.
"if teachers are not gaining the respect of their students it's largely down to the teacher."
Because reading is obviously difficult for you, IT'S NOT ABOUT RESPECT, IT'S ABOUT COMMON HUMAN DECENCY."
I don't have to respect you to not be a dick to you. I can just not be a dick to you.
"it's clear facts don't bother you a bit. "
Well, it's funny you say the when the FACT is, you said something that was FACTUALLY incorrect, then based your reasoning on your incorrect FACT.
The FACT is, the only reason I replied to you was to correct your erroneous assumption of FACT. In fact, I am the only one of us who has actually presented ANY correct facts.
It seems your statement applies far more to you and your factually incorrect post, and your insistence that you being wrong doesn't matter, than it does to me.
And that's twice now that you've behaved like a child instead of thanking me for educating you. Are this much of an asshole to everyone who corrects you when you're obviously wrong, or are you just embarrassed by your failure and lashing out?
"That quote is commonly attributed to Ben Franklin"
And that attribution is wrong. Your acceptance of an incorrect attribution, and worse, your defense of your use of the incorrect attribution proves what I suspected about your opinion to be true.
"and he did publish it, implicitly endorsing it."
He published it. You're making a second claim there that is neither true nor logical, as all kinds of publications publish all sorts of things that they disagree with for a variety of reasons.
"The rest of my argument stands as written."
And can be dismissed. It's telling that when confronted with a factual inaccuracy in your post, rather than taking the opportunity to reexamine your ideas, and make corrections, you instead plow ahead oblivious.
The problem with your assertions here about what "Ben" (and I presume you mean Franklin) meant is that this isn't a quote from "Ben" at all, so your argument is totally fabricated.
"Ben" reprinted it, but openly "denied writing any part of it".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_who_would_give_up_Essential_Liberty
It's hard to give much consideration to your opinion when you obviously accept and repeat things you hear without checking them for accuracy.
First, the fact that you parse this to mean what you like doesn't make that THE meaning, and more importantly, when you say "you are grossly misapplying the words to twist it into a justification for exactly the opposite of what he said" I have to ask, how could you possibly know that? I see nothing that supports a reading one way or the other, and it would seem including the qualifier "Essential" was done to differentiate between types of liberties. I cannot believe the quote is meant to portray all liberty as essential, and reading it that way doesn't make any sense.
Regardless, in either case, we can agree that traveling would probably be "essential". But your reading is no more authoritative than anyone's, and seems to be wrong.
Also, Ben Franklin didn't say it, and in fact, denied having anything to do with the quote apart from reprinting it.
One last thing
"In fact, my right is to travel how and where I want"
No, actually, it isn't. You can't, for instance, drive your car across my lawn with impunity because of my rights as a property owner. This is just one example demonstrating that you are incorrect on this point.
You are acting as though convenience has anything to do with rights. You can always walk, thereby preserving your RIGHT to travel, and essentially ends your argument.
The problem with that is that it is sarcasm, which is by its very nature nuanced.
"Tagging the article with the sarcastic "religionofpeace" moniker is not a way of criticizing the Islamic world's attitudes towards its radicals - it's an outright condemnation of the entire religion based on a small, radical subgroup."
No actually, in my case it's a reaction to the near universal response "it's a religion of peace" when any discussion of violence relating to islam begins. It's an outright condemnation of disingenuous intelectualls, not of muslims. Unless they also spout "it's a religion of peace" as an autonomic response to any criticism of islam.
"My failure to explicitly condemn them, however, in no way constitutes approval."
Yeah, sorry, no. It sometimes does mean approval, in fact it's called "tacit approval" and it appears to your posts.
I was sure I saw a very similar compliant yesterday, and I was right.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=465572&cid=22544926
See you tomorrow I guess...
"I am saying that making a post to slashdot from the back of a classroom while someone is talking in the front is not a personal insult"
And you're wrong. Please figure out what is wrong with your thought process that causes you to think that you can tell me when you have insulted me.
"and to take it as such is childish"
Oh, I get it, you don't have an argument, you just want to call names.
Bye.
I'm sorry, you're saying that talking over someone when they've respectfully asked you not to is... childish?
Thank you for validating everything I said.
And? Why do you think the fact that someone gives a teacher money entitles students to be disrespectful toward them? I can't think of a single situation where being an asshole toward someone is justified because the other person is getting paid.
And part of being a good person is not intentionally making other people's lives more difficult. Also, your reply doesn't address the point, which is, if you don't like how your class is taught, why aren't you doing more than just disrupting it?
Ultimately, your argument boils down to "we're paying you so put up with it" to which I would reply, no. No one should have to forgo their dignity to teach.
You are making the same arguments so many other students tried in school, the difference being the rest of us grew up and learned why they were ridiculous.