Which does nothing to prevent a lawsuit from being filed. Se that part where I said I didn't think it was going anywhere? Yeah, immunity covers that part.
"outside of some fairly narrowly-defined exceptions"
Such as breach of trust? Yes as a matter of fact, that's one of the exceptions.
I was suggesting a publicity exercise. You and GP both appear to have missed the point totally.
I asked why a private individual didn't sue this guy (their elected representative) for breach of trust.
I don't see how your post applies at all.
The biggest problem I had with Sandman...
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
Was that there were too many moments where the art and story had conspired to create a "what the hell just happened?" moment. It was sometimes difficult to follow the action, and the (slightly too) abstract art made the problem worse not better.
Doesn't the process of drafting laws require use of public resources (time billed by clerks, cost of materials, etc.)?
Why the hell doesn't someone sue one of these idiots for breach of trust? The fact that it might not get anywhere isn't really the point, I just feel like someone needs to tell these people we won't stand for them wasting time on nonsense like this.
You should know by now no amount of factual evidence can overcome "Modern science can't yet explain...". Anything you post will be met by some rewording of that nonsensical claptrap.
He is right about one thing though, when he says
"We don't convince others of the things we know in our mind by shutting them out completely."
He's correct. I for one don't even bother trying to convince them. With 6 billion people on the earth, missing out on someone who thinks "Modern science can't yet explain..." is a valid argument isn't going to make me lose sleep.
And we understand that "correlation does not equal causation" is a caution given to ignorant students to prevent them from assuming causation in cases where it doesn't belong. It is not a hard anf fast rule, and should not be used to discuss subjects like this as it's too simplistic to be useful (unless you are a freshman science student).
In other words, it's a nice saying to help students remember to be diligent, but HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on real research. Researchers make great efforts to deal with confounding variables because they know what they're doing. This stud did not indicate which confounding variables were controlled for, so your assumption about causality is impossible to support with the given evidence.
We also understand that very often, a correlation does in fact indicate some kind of causal relationship.
So, the fact that you don't know why it's a troll is exactly why it's troll, he has the same deficiency of understanding that you do.
First, thanks for the link, it proves you're too fucking stupid to read, because it doesn't say what you think it does. Holy shit you're stupid.
Second
"a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a discussion of health care."
Like someone who thinks that government provided health care will be "free" as you stated? Or is that a different kind of fucking moron?
And isn't it funny how you STILL refuse to admit you were lying about that, and are trying so hard to insult and flame me into forgetting your lie.
You lied, I caught you, and now you're just looking more pathetic. The best part is your 3rd grade understanding of the subject causes you to link to studies which demonstrate your ignorance even more effectively, as they don't say what you claim and you're too stupid to realize it.
THAT appears to be the problem, you think you deserve a satisfactory defense, when the reality is you're just some fucking guy on a web board and you don't deserve a fucking thing.
Did you not see the post where he said something like "I have no interest in defending..."?
Read that until you get it then you'll know why you're the problem.
"The story is about a common kind of mistake that shows how important it is to understand the scientific method. Someone does a study and finds that there is a statistical correlation between one phenomenon and another. Then there is a claim that one of the phenomena is the cause of the other. Actually, however, they can both be related to something else that is not understood."
It's not a mistake at all, and your example is terrible.
Second, you're making the typical mistake of assuming that because confounding variables are sometimes present that they are ALWAYS present, or not controlled for. Do you know what confounding variables were controlled for in this study before you make the assumptions you have? No you do not.
Third, that ridiculous "correlation does not equal causation" mantra that is so often tossed about is designed like so many other easily remembered but relatively useless memes. It's not a scientific principle, it's a caution, nothing more.
The fact is, most of the time, correlation has some effect on causation. If nothing else, it indicates a relationship worth examining.
"Apparently those who have no strong ties to another person..."
This makes me ask, why denounce his study then do exactly what you denounced it for?
I can't tell you how tired I am of people getting modded insightful for misunderstanding then regurgitating something that most people who discuss this subject should understand at a base level.
There's nothing remotely insightful about restating "correlation does not equal causation".
"Further, excess human female hormones in the environment (which beef growth hormones closely mimic, for one example) are likely to hurt male children (and even male adults) as much as female children. Why are people not paying as much attention to that? "
Maybe it's because some people see the short term changes caused by the feminization of males as a postive thing (Disclaimer: I am not one of these people).
Slashdot Mirror
"IMO, all studies of these nature are complete and utter bullshit"
Guy, you dismiss studies because you don't like them and aren't smart enough to understand them, you opinion isn't worth much.
"if that's the best that American comics can do"
Only problem with that is that they're not American.
I love those stories, but how about some that prove your point instead?
I keed I keed... (a little)
"The answer is because they have immunity"
Which does nothing to prevent a lawsuit from being filed. Se that part where I said I didn't think it was going anywhere? Yeah, immunity covers that part.
"outside of some fairly narrowly-defined exceptions"
Such as breach of trust? Yes as a matter of fact, that's one of the exceptions.
I was suggesting a publicity exercise. You and GP both appear to have missed the point totally.
I asked why a private individual didn't sue this guy (their elected representative) for breach of trust.
I don't see how your post applies at all.
Was that there were too many moments where the art and story had conspired to create a "what the hell just happened?" moment. It was sometimes difficult to follow the action, and the (slightly too) abstract art made the problem worse not better.
Doesn't the process of drafting laws require use of public resources (time billed by clerks, cost of materials, etc.)?
Why the hell doesn't someone sue one of these idiots for breach of trust? The fact that it might not get anywhere isn't really the point, I just feel like someone needs to tell these people we won't stand for them wasting time on nonsense like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
You should know by now no amount of factual evidence can overcome "Modern science can't yet explain...". Anything you post will be met by some rewording of that nonsensical claptrap.
He is right about one thing though, when he says
"We don't convince others of the things we know in our mind by shutting them out completely."
He's correct. I for one don't even bother trying to convince them. With 6 billion people on the earth, missing out on someone who thinks "Modern science can't yet explain..." is a valid argument isn't going to make me lose sleep.
Unless it's a hot chick, then all bets are off.
"Just because she believes in astrology and forest spirits doesn't mean that she rejects science and logic"
Funny, I thought that's exactly what it meant.
Oh, it is...
"I would argue that it is a very different effect."
You would lose that argument.
"I am not."
Yes, you are. Why is it that prejudiced people try to pretend they're not prejudiced?
"Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method."
Sorry I'm calling bullshit.
You did'nt define "Spirituality" and there are many definitions of it that are perfectly compatible with scientific method.
Your ignorance and bias are showing.
And we understand that "correlation does not equal causation" is a caution given to ignorant students to prevent them from assuming causation in cases where it doesn't belong. It is not a hard anf fast rule, and should not be used to discuss subjects like this as it's too simplistic to be useful (unless you are a freshman science student).
In other words, it's a nice saying to help students remember to be diligent, but HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on real research. Researchers make great efforts to deal with confounding variables because they know what they're doing. This stud did not indicate which confounding variables were controlled for, so your assumption about causality is impossible to support with the given evidence.
We also understand that very often, a correlation does in fact indicate some kind of causal relationship.
So, the fact that you don't know why it's a troll is exactly why it's troll, he has the same deficiency of understanding that you do.
"They have personalities, wants and needs just like us humans."
Look at that bolded part for why you're wrong.
And honestly, you're a nutjob.
Dogs have similar effects on health.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327 [americanheart.org]
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html [naturalnews.com]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets [webmd.com]
Please stop using studies like these to reinforce your prejudices.
First, thanks for the link, it proves you're too fucking stupid to read, because it doesn't say what you think it does. Holy shit you're stupid.
Second
"a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a discussion of health care."
Like someone who thinks that government provided health care will be "free" as you stated? Or is that a different kind of fucking moron?
And isn't it funny how you STILL refuse to admit you were lying about that, and are trying so hard to insult and flame me into forgetting your lie.
You lied, I caught you, and now you're just looking more pathetic. The best part is your 3rd grade understanding of the subject causes you to link to studies which demonstrate your ignorance even more effectively, as they don't say what you claim and you're too stupid to realize it.
I'd like you to stop lying. We can't always get what we want (unless it's insurance).
By the way, I did, and I did. Easily.
So, I caught you lying again liar.
"then only defending "
THAT appears to be the problem, you think you deserve a satisfactory defense, when the reality is you're just some fucking guy on a web board and you don't deserve a fucking thing.
Did you not see the post where he said something like "I have no interest in defending..."?
Read that until you get it then you'll know why you're the problem.
"The story is about a common kind of mistake that shows how important it is to understand the scientific method. Someone does a study and finds that there is a statistical correlation between one phenomenon and another. Then there is a claim that one of the phenomena is the cause of the other. Actually, however, they can both be related to something else that is not understood."
It's not a mistake at all, and your example is terrible.
First, what you're talking about is called a Confounding Variable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding_variable
Second, you're making the typical mistake of assuming that because confounding variables are sometimes present that they are ALWAYS present, or not controlled for. Do you know what confounding variables were controlled for in this study before you make the assumptions you have? No you do not.
Third, that ridiculous "correlation does not equal causation" mantra that is so often tossed about is designed like so many other easily remembered but relatively useless memes. It's not a scientific principle, it's a caution, nothing more.
The fact is, most of the time, correlation has some effect on causation. If nothing else, it indicates a relationship worth examining.
"Apparently those who have no strong ties to another person..."
This makes me ask, why denounce his study then do exactly what you denounced it for?
I can't tell you how tired I am of people getting modded insightful for misunderstanding then regurgitating something that most people who discuss this subject should understand at a base level.
There's nothing remotely insightful about restating "correlation does not equal causation".
"Apparently having dogs doesn't have the same effect. "
It has been long established that dog ownership improves long term health outcomes.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets
"Further, excess human female hormones in the environment (which beef growth hormones closely mimic, for one example) are likely to hurt male children (and even male adults) as much as female children. Why are people not paying as much attention to that? "
Maybe it's because some people see the short term changes caused by the feminization of males as a postive thing (Disclaimer: I am not one of these people).
""Trust me" says the Anonymous Coward pointing to hypothetical results of an unnamed study that may or may not even exist."
Don't be an ass, researchers don't talk about their results before they publish. That's probably what's happening here.
"I can't get insurance without a job, you idiot."
Liar.
"Let's see your figures guy"
Why am I not surprised that you didn't provide any.
He asked you "Since they aren't able to produce their own plutonium, just what do you suggest they do instead?"
You didn't answer.
And no, "getting plutonium production back online in the US." is not an answer for anything but the long term
So?