Doesn't anyone remember reading Negroponte's "last word" column in the first few years of _Wired_ magazine?
No, but I remember decisively proving you wrong and, as your response to being wrong, you threw out the claim that I was a liar, then completely failed to support your baseless accusation.
Here you are calling names AGAIN, and I guess you think that because you pander to base instinct and get modded up that you're not a troll.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks
I really don't know where to start when analyzing the opinion of someone who seriously thinks that statement is possible.
Don't get me wrong, I think we'd all like to see real objectivity on TV, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you've turned on a TV anytime in the last... well hell a long time, and expected to see objectivity (especially from ANYTHING related to the military), then you wouldn't be the first person I'd talk to about the subject.
"The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state,"
Our territorial waters (which are US sovereign territory) border Canadian territorial waters (which are sovereign Canadian territory). If you were going to attempt pedantry, you should have tried to be correct.
The same way New York City is
Um, no, not really, which international border is New York city very close to? None? Oh. So, not the same or even really close at all...
should I expect to be stopped on the ferry from Queens?
Should I expect you to be able to discuss this without ridiculous, fallacious comparisons?
You've claimed, twice now, that I've made statements that I did not actually make.
Are you capable of supporting your claims, or should I take your silence on the issue as an admission that you were fabricating said claims?
oh, er, I meant libertarians
BZZZT. You lose again.
I'm not going to justify anything to you
Because you can't and you know it, so you make a lame excuse.
I'm just going to keep tagging you for your part in what you people have done to this country.
What on earth makes you think I've done ANYTHING to this country, boy? How do you even know I'm in "this" country? You know what they say about assumptions, they make you look like a fucking idiot.
any more respect for your intellectual games
I asked you to support your claims that I lied. You haven't. So what part of that, specifically, a game? The asking you for sources part or the asking you to prove a statement you made part? It's not hard, if I said what you claim, quote it. Three posts later you haven't, and the excuses keep coming.
This time it's an intellectual game I'm playing, holding you accountable for claims you made. It says a lot about your character that a request for truthfulness is an "intellectual game" to you.
What evidence do you have that humans are more capable of misery than animals?
No no no, YOU made the assertion that they are "miserable", it's on YOU to support it.
I'd say that humans definitely aren't the only species with a monopoly on these emotions.
I never claimed humans were. I simply questioned whether "animals" (which are not a single bloc, by the way) are capable of "misery". Is misery the entire spectrum of human emotion? Stick to the topic please.
Several pets I've had have definitely expressed happiness
No they haven't, and you can't prove otherwise. I have perfectly reasonable, behavioral explanations for what you've listed as "happiness" and "loneliness+depression". Your perception of what is occurring is irrelevant. Your assertion is no more scientifically valuable than mine, and I can easily make the case that you're anthropomorphizing your animals. I'm not SAYING you are, as I think animals do experience emotion, but you're assuming something that has ZERO evidence to support it.
This has been hashed out by much more accomplished professionals than either of us, and there is still nothing approaching a consensus. What makes you think you know better, because your dog "told" you?
You're the one who tried to pull the straw man by lying about which of debt or deficit I was talking about.
Please post the quote where I did this. I discussed neither debt nor a deficit, and I've already explained my point, you just can't seem to understand what you're reading.
But you Republicans
BZZZT, nice try though.
If you've got an apology to offer
Of course, I'm sorry I assumed you were capable of a civilized adult conversation, all evidence to the contrary.
Otherwise all we want to hear from you is nothing.
Of course, you were wrong, and you failed to refute me twice. I'm sure you'd like nothing better than for me to continue to draw attention to your intellectual failures.
You shouldn't make so much noise about economics just because you're delusional that US indebtedness makes us strong
Please post where I claimed that. You have used a straw man here. I never once, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, claimed that we are strong. Only that the amount of manufacturing that can stand in for Chinese manufacturing exceeds the amount of purchasing that can stand in for US purchasing.
Are you capable of replying to my points without straw men, personal attacks and logical fallacies? Because nothing in your post refuted anything I said, and I'd like to see an attempt from you that actually addresses my points.
I also notice your assertions are based on nothing. I see no evidence to support them, so post it if you have it, your opinion on the matter really doesn't do anything for me.
So, let's see if you can 1) avoid personal insults (I have) 2) post evidence 3) Avoid logical fallacies like the straw man you kicked around in this post.
Consider it a challenge, posting something totally different than the norm for you.
Check out how the border patrol is detaining people domestically in this new story
I notice you conveniently leave out that the San Juan Islands border Canada (thus being an international border) and are accessible from open, international water. But that destroys any attempt to claim this is "domestic" which is why you left it out.
So the Border Patrol is patrolling the border. I think that's their thing...
Because it is part of my big picture of being happy not eating meat.
This has nothing to do with guilt, the post, the subject or anything. You did not answer the question, you dodged it because you know you can't answer it without making yourself a liar.
It does make the point that vegetarianism/may/ not have a profound effect on the health of the environment
NO IT DOESN'T. It makes the point that the benefits of vegetarianism ARE JUST AS EFFECTIVELY ACHIEVED WITHOUT ANYVEGETARIANISM AT ALL. Your reading comprehension sucks.
When one is stating one's position, it is difficult to not include subjective considerations.
Which has what exactly to do with your posts? Internal consistency is easy, yet you failed.
"Debunked?" One point (out of many) gets a paragraph of "may" amidst other begrudgingly supportive sentences and everything I've said is "debunked."
No boy. That was ONE piece of evidence, why on earth do you think I'd list ALL of the evidence, YOU DIDN'T. Whee did I say that was ALL of the evidence? Why are you so reliant on obvious logical fallacies?
And where, may I ask, do I claim to have a right to make your food choices?
I would say that people should put a little more thought into their food choices than "it tastes good."
Right there. Now that you've been proven a liar (what telling us what we "should" do isn't trying to make our choices for us? Is that going to be your next lie?) we're finished.
If you are incapable of even discussing this subject without overtly lying about what you've said, I can't see any reason to continue.
I'd say it's a lot more complex than because they taste good.
You'd be wrong.
And doctors, and dietitians...
Reread that until you understand it, your reply is nonsensical in context, which shows you didn't understand what you were replying to. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE DISCUSS THEIR DIETS AS A STATUS SYMBOL. That was the point, which coincidentally, YOU brought up.
I'll just add two more influences, the meat and dairy marketing boards.
I'll tell you again, that has fuck all to do with my point, or the original point YOU made that I was refuting.
I would say that people should put a little more thought into their food choices than "it tastes good."
I would say people should mind their own fucking business when it comes to what I do. I'll start to care about your "should" when you start to care about mine.
What sort of "status" are we talking about here? The "status" of thinking critically about your choices?
Of having an open mind to alternatives rather than being content with the same old same old?
Again, you're misusing a fairly common word here, so I have to question your ability to develop a cogent opinion on any subject much less this one.
"as it's quite true that many of the mass-produced food-animals live fairly miserable lives."
That only applies if you believe that animals are capable of experiencing "misery" in the first place.
Using words like "torture" and "miserable" is just another attempt by people with an agenda to color the argument because the facts are insufficient and unconvincing.
and there is a created need to have it more often, out of some kind of mass image/status thing
No. Most normal people eat things because they taste good. In fact, if you were to be honest (HA!) you'd notice the only people discussing their eating choices at all are people with alternative choices, such a vegans vegetarians.
It's fairly clear the "status" claim is much more accurately applied to vegans/veggies than to everyone else, your farcical claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
"A widely adopted vegetarian diet, in and of itself, may not have profound effects on the health of the environment. The support of alternative farming practices (e.g. well husbanded organic farming, permaculture, and rotational grazing) and certain plant commodity avoidance such as rice, have a similarly beneficial impact on environmental health and sustainable agriculture. "
But, as a kind of positivist nihilist, I don't think I'm better.
Your post belies your claim.
As I said, I just find the passive consumption of too much meat to be boring and thoughtless.
And I find the vacuous repetition of easily and roundly defeated assumptions annoying and ignorant. More than that though, I find the idea that you think you have a right to restrict my food choices based on questionable ethical arguments and debunked environmental claims to be insulting.
It continues to amaze me how the military procurement machine goes on designing and buying immensely complex weapons that have no conceivable use and do not improve the security of this country (the U.S.A.) one whit...and nobody thinks this is strange.
I think that may be because your initial assumptions are flawed from the start.
First, the "no conceivable use" argument is demonstrably false. It is so wrong, in fact, that it makes me question your ability to discuss this subject in an intelligent and informed manner. As another poster said "This retirement leaves the USAF with no dedicated long-range tactical interdictors at all".
Sure, it's a helluva pretty plane...take up a collection and build your own if you like, but I'm so damn sick of my tax money going to these things.
We did, that's what those taxes are. The fact that "nobody thinks this is strange" should indicate to you that the flaw here may be in those that DO think it's strange, not vice versa.
1: to confer a trust on; especially : to deliver something in trust to
Sorry fella, but your attempt at splitting hairs in order to avoid admitting the truth fails. You can't "entrust" someone with someone without trusting them, so when you said
"We don't trust them... we've entrusted them because we have no other choice"
You were wrong.
Nice try though, even though it was obviously wrong. And you do have another choice, the fact that you fail to even recognize it exists if far more worrisome than your failure to understand the words you're using.
See, if you'd gotten a real education at a real university, you'd know you're wrong, and that YES everywhere else it is known as a trade school.
It's a university where you sign up to study something and that's what you do
Which is the definition of a trade school, like it or not.
Sorry guy, a real education would have prepared you for that revelation. As it is, you're not educated enough to even realize you're wrong.
I am not a robot
You keep telling yourself that, over and over, with no change in your opinion and no willingness to accept contrary opinions, as you've done in this thread.
Maybe someday you might actually be able to convince someone it's true.
Personally I think whining about three extra pounds is useless.
Personally I think your posts are intentionally inflammatory because you know you're wrong. I also think you're fairly stupid, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm guessing you've never been to the gym, because three pounds is very light
I'm a former college/semi-pro athlete. If you can't say the same (and you can't, even though you may lie), then please STFU regarding my fitness.
My opinion becomes more relevent when you and other fat, lazy people
First, it's "relevant" so don't claim your opinion is "relevant" unless you can spell the fucking word (and e isn't near a, si it wasn't a typo), and second, I'm a former college/semi-pro athlete and you're not. I'll wager any amount you want that you are both fatter and less physically fit than me, so name the amount, name the place, and we'll measure up.
Or pretend you never saw this post and run away and hide like the ignorant loudmouthed bitch you are.
No, I am pointing out a double standard with government agencies.
That's not a double standard, that's just your own ignorance. The fact that you can't see why they're different doesn't make this a double standard, it makes you a fool with an uninformed opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I remember decisively proving you wrong and, as your response to being wrong, you threw out the claim that I was a liar, then completely failed to support your baseless accusation.
Here you are calling names AGAIN, and I guess you think that because you pander to base instinct and get modded up that you're not a troll.
For the same reason people mod you up.
That was a nice non answer, which really had nothing to do with my request.
Now respond to the poll please.
I know you're kidding, but I'm interested in hearing your serious response to the poll.
I'm predicting you'll dismiss it, as it appears to contradict your world view.
Good thing I didn't, then.
I really don't know where to start when analyzing the opinion of someone who seriously thinks that statement is possible.
Don't get me wrong, I think we'd all like to see real objectivity on TV, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you've turned on a TV anytime in the last... well hell a long time, and expected to see objectivity (especially from ANYTHING related to the military), then you wouldn't be the first person I'd talk to about the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
"The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state,"
Our territorial waters (which are US sovereign territory) border Canadian territorial waters (which are sovereign Canadian territory). If you were going to attempt pedantry, you should have tried to be correct.
Um, no, not really, which international border is New York city very close to? None? Oh. So, not the same or even really close at all...
Should I expect you to be able to discuss this without ridiculous, fallacious comparisons?
Are you capable of supporting your claims, or should I take your silence on the issue as an admission that you were fabricating said claims?
BZZZT. You lose again.
Because you can't and you know it, so you make a lame excuse.
What on earth makes you think I've done ANYTHING to this country, boy? How do you even know I'm in "this" country? You know what they say about assumptions, they make you look like a fucking idiot.
I asked you to support your claims that I lied. You haven't. So what part of that, specifically, a game? The asking you for sources part or the asking you to prove a statement you made part? It's not hard, if I said what you claim, quote it. Three posts later you haven't, and the excuses keep coming.
This time it's an intellectual game I'm playing, holding you accountable for claims you made. It says a lot about your character that a request for truthfulness is an "intellectual game" to you.
No no no, YOU made the assertion that they are "miserable", it's on YOU to support it.
I never claimed humans were. I simply questioned whether "animals" (which are not a single bloc, by the way) are capable of "misery". Is misery the entire spectrum of human emotion? Stick to the topic please.
No they haven't, and you can't prove otherwise. I have perfectly reasonable, behavioral explanations for what you've listed as "happiness" and "loneliness+depression". Your perception of what is occurring is irrelevant. Your assertion is no more scientifically valuable than mine, and I can easily make the case that you're anthropomorphizing your animals. I'm not SAYING you are, as I think animals do experience emotion, but you're assuming something that has ZERO evidence to support it.
This has been hashed out by much more accomplished professionals than either of us, and there is still nothing approaching a consensus. What makes you think you know better, because your dog "told" you?
Please post the quote where I did this. I discussed neither debt nor a deficit, and I've already explained my point, you just can't seem to understand what you're reading.
BZZZT, nice try though.
Of course, I'm sorry I assumed you were capable of a civilized adult conversation, all evidence to the contrary.
Of course, you were wrong, and you failed to refute me twice. I'm sure you'd like nothing better than for me to continue to draw attention to your intellectual failures.
Please post where I claimed that. You have used a straw man here. I never once, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, claimed that we are strong. Only that the amount of manufacturing that can stand in for Chinese manufacturing exceeds the amount of purchasing that can stand in for US purchasing.
Are you capable of replying to my points without straw men, personal attacks and logical fallacies? Because nothing in your post refuted anything I said, and I'd like to see an attempt from you that actually addresses my points.
I also notice your assertions are based on nothing. I see no evidence to support them, so post it if you have it, your opinion on the matter really doesn't do anything for me.
So, let's see if you can 1) avoid personal insults (I have) 2) post evidence 3) Avoid logical fallacies like the straw man you kicked around in this post.
Consider it a challenge, posting something totally different than the norm for you.
I notice you conveniently leave out that the San Juan Islands border Canada (thus being an international border) and are accessible from open, international water. But that destroys any attempt to claim this is "domestic" which is why you left it out.
So the Border Patrol is patrolling the border. I think that's their thing...
Read it, and saw nothing remotely like what you claim.
There are tons of other countries that can manufacture our goods. The same cannot be said of US purchasing power.
Don't be upset though, your mistake is common amongst those with only a cursory knowledge of the subject like you have.
This has nothing to do with guilt, the post, the subject or anything. You did not answer the question, you dodged it because you know you can't answer it without making yourself a liar.
NO IT DOESN'T. It makes the point that the benefits of vegetarianism ARE JUST AS EFFECTIVELY ACHIEVED WITHOUT ANYVEGETARIANISM AT ALL. Your reading comprehension sucks.
Which has what exactly to do with your posts? Internal consistency is easy, yet you failed.
No boy. That was ONE piece of evidence, why on earth do you think I'd list ALL of the evidence, YOU DIDN'T. Whee did I say that was ALL of the evidence? Why are you so reliant on obvious logical fallacies?
I would say that people should put a little more thought into their food choices than "it tastes good."
Right there. Now that you've been proven a liar (what telling us what we "should" do isn't trying to make our choices for us? Is that going to be your next lie?) we're finished.
If you are incapable of even discussing this subject without overtly lying about what you've said, I can't see any reason to continue.
You'd be wrong.
Reread that until you understand it, your reply is nonsensical in context, which shows you didn't understand what you were replying to. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE DISCUSS THEIR DIETS AS A STATUS SYMBOL. That was the point, which coincidentally, YOU brought up.
I'll tell you again, that has fuck all to do with my point, or the original point YOU made that I was refuting.
I would say people should mind their own fucking business when it comes to what I do. I'll start to care about your "should" when you start to care about mine.Of having an open mind to alternatives rather than being content with the same old same old?
Again, you're misusing a fairly common word here, so I have to question your ability to develop a cogent opinion on any subject much less this one.
"as it's quite true that many of the mass-produced food-animals live fairly miserable lives."
That only applies if you believe that animals are capable of experiencing "misery" in the first place.
Using words like "torture" and "miserable" is just another attempt by people with an agenda to color the argument because the facts are insufficient and unconvincing.
No. Most normal people eat things because they taste good. In fact, if you were to be honest (HA!) you'd notice the only people discussing their eating choices at all are people with alternative choices, such a vegans vegetarians.
It's fairly clear the "status" claim is much more accurately applied to vegans/veggies than to everyone else, your farcical claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
Then why did your last post discuss guilt?
I see an assertion with no evidence, which is not a surprise from you.
Not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism#Criticism
"A widely adopted vegetarian diet, in and of itself, may not have profound effects on the health of the environment. The support of alternative farming practices (e.g. well husbanded organic farming, permaculture, and rotational grazing) and certain plant commodity avoidance such as rice, have a similarly beneficial impact on environmental health and sustainable agriculture. "
Your post belies your claim.
And I find the vacuous repetition of easily and roundly defeated assumptions annoying and ignorant. More than that though, I find the idea that you think you have a right to restrict my food choices based on questionable ethical arguments and debunked environmental claims to be insulting.
I don't, but then I'm not stupid.
I think that may be because your initial assumptions are flawed from the start.
First, the "no conceivable use" argument is demonstrably false. It is so wrong, in fact, that it makes me question your ability to discuss this subject in an intelligent and informed manner. As another poster said "This retirement leaves the USAF with no dedicated long-range tactical interdictors at all".
We did, that's what those taxes are. The fact that "nobody thinks this is strange" should indicate to you that the flaw here may be in those that DO think it's strange, not vice versa.
Sorry fella, but your attempt at splitting hairs in order to avoid admitting the truth fails. You can't "entrust" someone with someone without trusting them, so when you said
"We don't trust them
You were wrong.
Nice try though, even though it was obviously wrong. And you do have another choice, the fact that you fail to even recognize it exists if far more worrisome than your failure to understand the words you're using.
Please stop posting or learn how to write a sentence.
I'd have read your post but nothing worth a damn could be written by someone who thinks writing like you did is a good idea.
See, if you'd gotten a real education at a real university, you'd know you're wrong, and that YES everywhere else it is known as a trade school.
Which is the definition of a trade school, like it or not.
Sorry guy, a real education would have prepared you for that revelation. As it is, you're not educated enough to even realize you're wrong.
You keep telling yourself that, over and over, with no change in your opinion and no willingness to accept contrary opinions, as you've done in this thread.
Maybe someday you might actually be able to convince someone it's true.
Personally I think your posts are intentionally inflammatory because you know you're wrong. I also think you're fairly stupid, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm a former college/semi-pro athlete. If you can't say the same (and you can't, even though you may lie), then please STFU regarding my fitness.
First, it's "relevant" so don't claim your opinion is "relevant" unless you can spell the fucking word (and e isn't near a, si it wasn't a typo), and second, I'm a former college/semi-pro athlete and you're not. I'll wager any amount you want that you are both fatter and less physically fit than me, so name the amount, name the place, and we'll measure up.
Or pretend you never saw this post and run away and hide like the ignorant loudmouthed bitch you are.
That's not a double standard, that's just your own ignorance. The fact that you can't see why they're different doesn't make this a double standard, it makes you a fool with an uninformed opinion.