Oh okay. You probably have a point, but I didn't go read all your posts to find out for sure. Anyway, I guess I'm not persuaded. I think the Slashdot libertarians were making typical libertarian statements that once again ignored the main question of a topic. I accept that you disagree.
Now that, there, is a fair and salient point -- but it has nothing to do with the retort that "anything is toxic in excessive quantities". If the libertarians wanted to say what you said, then they should have said that, instead of saying the other thing, which is unrelated.
Yes, we all have the prerogative, more or less, to choose our own poisons. I sure as heck have mine.
WTF does wanting less government interference in our lives have to do with understanding some biochemistry?
Oh, I thought it was obvious, but it's because those same people use the same tired and wrong rhetorical tools to jump toward faulty preconceptions. I should have made that explicit, but it's so obvious I thought pretty much everyone would get it.
I'm not clear. Is the 'conclusion' you are questioning, the premise that libertarians in this thread are in fact parroting the trope? If that is what you are questioning, then posts you have made in other threads are irrelevant. So, that wouldn't make sense, so what conclusion are you questioning?
When I first opened this thread there were about a dozen posts shown, and nine or ten of them were all saying "this is stupid! anything is toxic in extreme quantities, therefore this guy is an idiot!" But of course, I'm sure you'll agree, that doesn't make any sense.
Yeah. He might be, or he might not be. The libertarians are ignoring the second possibility, which can only be answered by addressing whether, as you said, people are "getting sick" from too much sugar. Are they? I don't know. We have at least one doctor saying yes.
I didn't even read the summary, let alone the article, but I'm pretty certain that the title of this post answers the question from the article title.
Quantity/comments
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why is everyone parroting the trope that "everything is toxic in large quantities" without asking whether the modern Western diet is above the threshold of excess? Isn't that what we're talking about here?
I feel like the libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is that the law is written to specifically exclude churches from the anti-discrimination laws.
Does that pretty much settle it for you? It's not illegal for churches to discriminate in ways that would get other organizations in trouble because, well, because it's not illegal for churches to do that.
the investigation was flawed, and couldn't logically produce Reiser as a suspect
That's especially dumb claim because the victim's partner is always a suspect. The fact that his wife died means he is a suspect, in the common definition of the word, and certainly a person of interest in the criminology definition of the word.
Oh, there is lots of little stuff. The most recent pull-out-my-hair problem I had was that a compiled website wouldn't run on one computer but would on another. I finally figured out that it is a 64-bit website, which should be fine, but I got it to work by unchecking a setting called "Enable 32-bit applications". See, I thought that checkbox did what it said, but it actually means "Disable 64-bit applications at the same time", which is not obvious to me, and took me a while. My criticism is that the setting should be a pair of radio buttons "Enable: [ ] 32-bit [ ] 64-bit"
I pretty much just got spoiled by using Eclipse for a couple years, and the move to VS was a pain because of how much I liked Eclipse.
Wait a second. This article doesn't make sense even if it is translated correctly.
It's really easy for those copyright owners to protect themselves from these people who, from the copyright owners' perspective, apparently, are "stealing" from them or somehow hearing the songs unfairly. It's really easy to do that, and we already have a system set up for that. We don't need a new governmental or semi-governmental program to protect the copyright owners in this case, because we already have that system.
The system is called DON'T FUCKING BROADCAST YOUR FUCKING SONGS ON THE MOTHERFUCKING AIR IF YOU DON'T FUCKING WANT PEOPLE TO FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM YOU FUCKING FUCK. Fer fuck's sake, honestly.
Oh, really? You are being so injured by people listening to your broadcasts? Well here's what I suggest you do to fix that: NOTHING. DO NOTHING. DO NOT BROADCAST YOUR SHIT, AND PEOPLE WON'T HEAR YOUR SHIT. Mission accomplished.
Oh, I always really liked Eclipse, but I even liked NetBeans more than VS. Don't read too much into it though, because I'm pretty much a Microsoft hater. I really pay attention to what I hate about Microsoft software, it's a lot of confirmation bias.
I don't care much for.NET, but C# is the most useful language I've ever had the pleasure of writing code in. It sucks, however, that, ignoring Mono, C# is tied to Windows and Visual Studio, both of which are less useful than two liters of spittle.
Microsoft almost always fails at developing and releasing technology, but every now and then they stumble and bumble their way into a quite decent product. C# is the best thing ever to come out of Redmond; Excel isn't terrible; and, um... well if I thought about it for a while I could probably come up with another example.
Yeah, but that's only a criticism of the amount of the tax, whereas the topic covers the implementation of the tax. If we already have a gas tax, then why the hell don't we just raise that tax? It is an approximate stand-in for a miles-traveled tax, and has the added benefit of providing a positive incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, without absolutely requiring people to do so.
I propose an increase to gasoline taxes of one cent per month for the next three years; use the money for roads. I would rather pay my road tax that way than by mileage or by property tax.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, and that isn't a new trend; Republicans have been growing the government faster than Democrats for the better part of a century.
Oh okay. You probably have a point, but I didn't go read all your posts to find out for sure. Anyway, I guess I'm not persuaded. I think the Slashdot libertarians were making typical libertarian statements that once again ignored the main question of a topic. I accept that you disagree.
Now that, there, is a fair and salient point -- but it has nothing to do with the retort that "anything is toxic in excessive quantities". If the libertarians wanted to say what you said, then they should have said that, instead of saying the other thing, which is unrelated.
Yes, we all have the prerogative, more or less, to choose our own poisons. I sure as heck have mine.
WTF does wanting less government interference in our lives have to do with understanding some biochemistry?
Oh, I thought it was obvious, but it's because those same people use the same tired and wrong rhetorical tools to jump toward faulty preconceptions. I should have made that explicit, but it's so obvious I thought pretty much everyone would get it.
I'm not clear. Is the 'conclusion' you are questioning, the premise that libertarians in this thread are in fact parroting the trope? If that is what you are questioning, then posts you have made in other threads are irrelevant. So, that wouldn't make sense, so what conclusion are you questioning?
When I first opened this thread there were about a dozen posts shown, and nine or ten of them were all saying "this is stupid! anything is toxic in extreme quantities, therefore this guy is an idiot!" But of course, I'm sure you'll agree, that doesn't make any sense.
Yeah. He might be, or he might not be. The libertarians are ignoring the second possibility, which can only be answered by addressing whether, as you said, people are "getting sick" from too much sugar. Are they? I don't know. We have at least one doctor saying yes.
I didn't even read the summary, let alone the article, but I'm pretty certain that the title of this post answers the question from the article title.
Why is everyone parroting the trope that "everything is toxic in large quantities" without asking whether the modern Western diet is above the threshold of excess? Isn't that what we're talking about here?
I feel like the libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is that the law is written to specifically exclude churches from the anti-discrimination laws.
Does that pretty much settle it for you? It's not illegal for churches to discriminate in ways that would get other organizations in trouble because, well, because it's not illegal for churches to do that.
"Afford the least" doesn't mean "use the least".
But yeah, I buy those gigantic toilet-paper cubes at Costco.
Why did you conflate "afford the least" with "use the least"? I don't see the connection.
the investigation was flawed, and couldn't logically produce Reiser as a suspect
That's especially dumb claim because the victim's partner is always a suspect. The fact that his wife died means he is a suspect, in the common definition of the word, and certainly a person of interest in the criminology definition of the word.
Don't be silly. Of course the government can authorize illegal activity. In fact it happens all the time, and we even have an entire theory of the constitutional presidency which justifies it. Whether they did in this case, though, I don't know.
That is exactly what I thought of, because I just read The Poisoner's Handbook. Did you read that? It's a good science/history novel.
No, you should pay extra for a candy bar because you can't limit yourself to just zero.
Oh, what? Suddenly you have a small amount of sympathy for "other jackasses"?
Yeah. Fuck those treaties. It's high time we violate them.
Yes. Nova did a documentary about it: "Crash of Flight 447". It's pretty good and covers the science reasonably well.
Oh, there is lots of little stuff. The most recent pull-out-my-hair problem I had was that a compiled website wouldn't run on one computer but would on another. I finally figured out that it is a 64-bit website, which should be fine, but I got it to work by unchecking a setting called "Enable 32-bit applications". See, I thought that checkbox did what it said, but it actually means "Disable 64-bit applications at the same time", which is not obvious to me, and took me a while. My criticism is that the setting should be a pair of radio buttons "Enable: [ ] 32-bit [ ] 64-bit"
I pretty much just got spoiled by using Eclipse for a couple years, and the move to VS was a pain because of how much I liked Eclipse.
Wait a second. This article doesn't make sense even if it is translated correctly.
It's really easy for those copyright owners to protect themselves from these people who, from the copyright owners' perspective, apparently, are "stealing" from them or somehow hearing the songs unfairly. It's really easy to do that, and we already have a system set up for that. We don't need a new governmental or semi-governmental program to protect the copyright owners in this case, because we already have that system.
The system is called DON'T FUCKING BROADCAST YOUR FUCKING SONGS ON THE MOTHERFUCKING AIR IF YOU DON'T FUCKING WANT PEOPLE TO FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM YOU FUCKING FUCK. Fer fuck's sake, honestly.
Oh, really? You are being so injured by people listening to your broadcasts? Well here's what I suggest you do to fix that: NOTHING. DO NOTHING. DO NOT BROADCAST YOUR SHIT, AND PEOPLE WON'T HEAR YOUR SHIT. Mission accomplished.
Oh, I always really liked Eclipse, but I even liked NetBeans more than VS. Don't read too much into it though, because I'm pretty much a Microsoft hater. I really pay attention to what I hate about Microsoft software, it's a lot of confirmation bias.
I don't care much for .NET, but C# is the most useful language I've ever had the pleasure of writing code in. It sucks, however, that, ignoring Mono, C# is tied to Windows and Visual Studio, both of which are less useful than two liters of spittle.
Microsoft almost always fails at developing and releasing technology, but every now and then they stumble and bumble their way into a quite decent product. C# is the best thing ever to come out of Redmond; Excel isn't terrible; and, um... well if I thought about it for a while I could probably come up with another example.
Yeah, but that's only a criticism of the amount of the tax, whereas the topic covers the implementation of the tax. If we already have a gas tax, then why the hell don't we just raise that tax? It is an approximate stand-in for a miles-traveled tax, and has the added benefit of providing a positive incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, without absolutely requiring people to do so.
I propose an increase to gasoline taxes of one cent per month for the next three years; use the money for roads. I would rather pay my road tax that way than by mileage or by property tax.
I bet your view is better, too.
Thank goodness. It's high time someone violated Libya's sovereignty.
Um the Internet WAS a Cold-War effort.