"Community college generally means a two year college, which can grant AA degrees, but not BA or BS. At least it did when I was going to college."
That's true. Of course, after receiving your AA, you then transfer to a 4 year university to finish your BA/BS 2 years later.
I apologize, I assumed that people who would be discussing this subject would at least gain a basic understanding of it before they chose to share their opinions.
"Also, about your source... I'm not willing to accept anything from MicroSoft as authoritative."
I'm not willing to pretend like I care. I gave a source, you gave nothing. You're free to post sources that disagree, instead of, honestly, cheap objections to facts you don't like because they're "from Microsoft".
Everything I said is true and verifiable, and all of your points are baseless.
"Just out of curiosity, how can you give away your freedom if it's intrinsic to your being instead of being granted by some legal document, like the US constitution?"
If you'd bothered to read the Constitution instead of pretending you did, you'd know the answer to that.
"So by limiting the opinions someone is exposed to then you are also limiting the opinions they can build off of the exposure or in effect censuring how their thought process' could have developed."
Two things.
First, they're not being limited to what they're exposed to, they're being limited from contributing. You need to read the article again (assuming you've already read it...)
But let's tackle that bolded part. Your... logic... would cause any instance of a failure to provide information (not actively prevent, by your logic, but not provide) to be a violation of rights. So not providing them with access to every piece of information ever created would be, based on your statement, a violation of their rights.
Are you sure you don't want to clarify this so it's not so ridiculous?
ut from what I understand it is fairly costly to go to university there
No. It is possible, for instance, to get a 4 year degree from a state university for around $15,000. Spread out over, say, 6 years because you're working, that's 2500 a year. Not what a reasonable person would call costly.
and one of the easiest ways for people not born into money to finance themselves is to join the military for a bit before they go.
Loans and grants are far easier, and available to virtually ANYONE. If you've defaulted on a previous student loan or are convicted of certain offenses, you're out. Otherwise, you're in. And no, credit worthiness is not an issue.
Since your first two assumptions are debunked, I'd have to say that the rest of your post really doesn't have much merit.
"you give away your Freedom to virtually congregate and by extension freedom of thought among peers."
The distinction is important, and not just semantically.
And I can't figure out how you think they're losing "freedom of thought", as far as I'm aware, the military has no way to know what you're thinking (I hope...) so that part of your post really doesn't make any sense.
See that's the problem. You think this is an argument, when it's me having fun at your expense. I couldn't care less what you think about the subject, I'm pretty sure I said that already.
"I am CLEARLY saying that those people ahve a culture tied up there. Of COURSE you can have a nomad culture. Quit diverting from the issue."
I'm not, it's just that you're not very bright so reading is hard for you. Nothing you said refutes me at all, and actually just makes you look desperate and small.
"Enjoy yourself sitting over in that corner, being right."
Fixed that for ya, you left the important part out.
Also, are you as ignorant as your posts make you appear, or is "Enjoy yourself sitting over in that corner." some kind of act to make you seem stupid and anti-social?
"How that affects your opinion of Al Gore as a person is just a red herring though--Gore or no Gore, the issue is still climate change."
No actually, it isn't. The issue IS my opinion about Al Gore. You'll notice that was the point of my post, which had absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
Just so we're clear, I don't care to discuss climate change and how it relates to Al Gore, I only care to discuss his willingness to issue directives while not following them.
So your climate change rant was useless.
Lastly, I think the only real problem is the large amount of people with loud voices who think they know how to run my life better than I do.
The question was not whether the theory of gravity is a theory, but whether you refer to it as such.
So, when discussing "gravity" do you ALWAYS say "theory of gravity"?
You do not (don't claim you do, please, that would be insulting) so why not? The answer you give for your failure to use "theory" when discussing gravity is the same answer that we would give for our decision not to use "theory" in front of evolution.
"One of the greatest is the fact that reputable biology programs will accept, much less graduate, Ph.D. students who express the slightest doubt about evolution. For this reason, it's simply not possible for honest Christians to obtain respectable versions of the credentials you recommend."
I'd like to see some support for this "fact". I have personal knowledge that it's bullshit, and I'd like to see you support your claim or admit you can't.
"Yes, and we can measure the varying input FROM THE SUN and most people have come to the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures can not be explained by changes in sunspot activity (or 11 year cycles, or 20 year cycles or what the current theory is). Which is what Black Parrot was referring to."
Yay. Now read it from the top, so you realize why Black Parrot was told off.
The point you have appeared to miss is that OP was saying the Sun should be a defendant, as it contributes to the warming of the earth ( and by contributes, I mean is almost totally responsible for).
It was a joke. As in, wow this is a stupid case, maybe something equally absurd like suing the sun is next because it too contributes to heating the earth. You didn't get it.
"So a single data point (a single year) is suddenly incredibly significant now that it supports YOUR side of the argument?"
What argument? He's not discussing global warming, he's discussing how cold it has been THIS YEAR. His claim is, the sun is partially responsible.
See, what you did was assume someone was attacking your pet theory, and rushed to defend it. If you'd read what you were replying to, you'd realize no one was attacking global climate change, they were observing that the sun has a role in warming the earth.
Reactionary, look it up so you don't behave like one again.
"Destroying someone's culture impacts them personally, in a way that is not right or just."
I'm sorry, culture is a function of the people who create it, so unless you're going to fabricate some great genocide here, the culture isn't destroyed at all, just altered.
Slashdot Mirror
"Community college generally means a two year college, which can grant AA degrees, but not BA or BS. At least it did when I was going to college."
... I'm not willing to accept anything from MicroSoft as authoritative."
That's true. Of course, after receiving your AA, you then transfer to a 4 year university to finish your BA/BS 2 years later.
I apologize, I assumed that people who would be discussing this subject would at least gain a basic understanding of it before they chose to share their opinions.
"Also, about your source
I'm not willing to pretend like I care. I gave a source, you gave nothing. You're free to post sources that disagree, instead of, honestly, cheap objections to facts you don't like because they're "from Microsoft".
Everything I said is true and verifiable, and all of your points are baseless.
"Not > what a reasonable person would call costly In Massachusetts, it costs over $17000 per year to attend UMass / Amherst. "
Irrelevant, if you're going to worry about cost, you're not going to school in Mass.
"Where did you get your numbers from?"
Here
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CutCollegeCosts/CollegeForHalfPrice.aspx
"The average cost for a full year of tuition and fees at a community college is just $2,360, compared with $6,185 at a public, four-year university"
Posted January 11th, 2008. As current as it gets.
"I'm including estimated housing costs"
And you shouldn't as you need housing regardless of your school situation.
It's not expensive to go to college, it's just that too many people think "college=4 year school of my choice" like you do, which is obviously wrong.
"Sadly, the GP is correct."
No, he isn't, and neither of you have forwarded an argument to show otherwise.
"Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been."
I have the RIGHT to bear arms. Nuclear weapons are arms.
Or are you going to claim one of the above isn't true? If you do, you're wrong. If you don't, you're also wrong.
In short, you're wrong.
"As the article notes, that's more prisoners per capita than Russia or China"
I'm not sure referencing two notoriously lawless countries makes the point you think it does.
"If something is truly a right, an inalienable right, then it cannot be given, taken or surrendered"
All right, then why can't I own nuclear weapons?
"Just out of curiosity, how can you give away your freedom if it's intrinsic to your being instead of being granted by some legal document, like the US constitution?"
If you'd bothered to read the Constitution instead of pretending you did, you'd know the answer to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"
No freedom is being given away, no matter how much hyperbole you use.
"So by limiting the opinions someone is exposed to then you are also limiting the opinions they can build off of the exposure or in effect censuring how their thought process' could have developed."
... logic... would cause any instance of a failure to provide information (not actively prevent, by your logic, but not provide) to be a violation of rights. So not providing them with access to every piece of information ever created would be, based on your statement, a violation of their rights.
Two things.
First, they're not being limited to what they're exposed to, they're being limited from contributing. You need to read the article again (assuming you've already read it...)
But let's tackle that bolded part. Your
Are you sure you don't want to clarify this so it's not so ridiculous?
"you give away your Freedom to virtually congregate and by extension freedom of thought among peers."
The distinction is important, and not just semantically.
And I can't figure out how you think they're losing "freedom of thought", as far as I'm aware, the military has no way to know what you're thinking (I hope...) so that part of your post really doesn't make any sense.
"That was actually fairly witty."
I know.
"I couldn't care less what you think about any subject"
Fixed my own post.
"Most monkeys quite enjoy flinging poo"
Why on earth would you think I want to hear about your family if I don't care about you?
"Well in that case I think"
Just so we're clear, I don't care what you think.
"That's a great way to win an argument"
See that's the problem. You think this is an argument, when it's me having fun at your expense. I couldn't care less what you think about the subject, I'm pretty sure I said that already.
"I know I'm a dick"
So do I, that's why never pay any attention to what you write.
"Don't be a jack-ass."
Ok, then don't be a hypocrite. Too late...
"I am CLEARLY saying that those people ahve a culture tied up there. Of COURSE you can have a nomad culture. Quit diverting from the issue."
I'm not, it's just that you're not very bright so reading is hard for you. Nothing you said refutes me at all, and actually just makes you look desperate and small.
"Enjoy yourself sitting over in that corner, being right."
Fixed that for ya, you left the important part out.
Also, are you as ignorant as your posts make you appear, or is "Enjoy yourself sitting over in that corner." some kind of act to make you seem stupid and anti-social?
Because it's working.
"No need to be a dick"
Good thing I wasn't then.
Take your own advice, your posting history is littered with examples that would apply to that statement.
"How that affects your opinion of Al Gore as a person is just a red herring though--Gore or no Gore, the issue is still climate change."
No actually, it isn't. The issue IS my opinion about Al Gore. You'll notice that was the point of my post, which had absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
Just so we're clear, I don't care to discuss climate change and how it relates to Al Gore, I only care to discuss his willingness to issue directives while not following them.
So your climate change rant was useless.
Lastly, I think the only real problem is the large amount of people with loud voices who think they know how to run my life better than I do.
The question was not whether the theory of gravity is a theory, but whether you refer to it as such.
So, when discussing "gravity" do you ALWAYS say "theory of gravity"?
You do not (don't claim you do, please, that would be insulting) so why not? The answer you give for your failure to use "theory" when discussing gravity is the same answer that we would give for our decision not to use "theory" in front of evolution.
"One of the greatest is the fact that reputable biology programs will accept, much less graduate, Ph.D. students who express the slightest doubt about evolution. For this reason, it's simply not possible for honest Christians to obtain respectable versions of the credentials you recommend."
I'd like to see some support for this "fact". I have personal knowledge that it's bullshit, and I'd like to see you support your claim or admit you can't.
I knew the second I had the audacity to ask tough questions about Gore that his acolytes would mod me down.
Of course, they know what the answers to the questions I asked are, and would hope to see me modded off the plant in order to avoid answering them.
"Of course culture is a function of the people in it."
I'm glad you think I'm right about this, it's nice to see someone come around.
Have a nice day.
"Yes, and we can measure the varying input FROM THE SUN and most people have come to the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures can not be explained by changes in sunspot activity (or 11 year cycles, or 20 year cycles or what the current theory is). Which is what Black Parrot was referring to."
Yay. Now read it from the top, so you realize why Black Parrot was told off.
The point you have appeared to miss is that OP was saying the Sun should be a defendant, as it contributes to the warming of the earth ( and by contributes, I mean is almost totally responsible for).
It was a joke. As in, wow this is a stupid case, maybe something equally absurd like suing the sun is next because it too contributes to heating the earth. You didn't get it.
"So a single data point (a single year) is suddenly incredibly significant now that it supports YOUR side of the argument?"
What argument? He's not discussing global warming, he's discussing how cold it has been THIS YEAR. His claim is, the sun is partially responsible.
See, what you did was assume someone was attacking your pet theory, and rushed to defend it. If you'd read what you were replying to, you'd realize no one was attacking global climate change, they were observing that the sun has a role in warming the earth.
Reactionary, look it up so you don't behave like one again.
"Destroying someone's culture impacts them personally, in a way that is not right or just."
I'm sorry, culture is a function of the people who create it, so unless you're going to fabricate some great genocide here, the culture isn't destroyed at all, just altered.
Hyperbole like yours is for weak ass arguments.