I'm not sure what you are looking for, but don't wait around for science to prove it to you. Science doesn't prove anything, ever. It only makes things so clear and obvious with overwhelming evidence that only an idiot would go on denying the theories.
Don't be that idiot. The evidence is in. Reasonable doubt ended about a decade ago. Sometimes the bandwagon is wrong, but usually it is right, and this time it's right, so climb on board, you'll be in good company.
Bummer. You posted something stupid. Now you are in the unfortunate position of having to retract it, or defend it, and both of those are probably not things you want to do.
Yeah, I can't tell whether that guy didn't understand your tone, or just wanted to drop in a comment, or what. Anyway, I had the same thought you did: I refrain from calling things like evolution and AGW "undeniable" because that isn't actually the case; I prefer "true" or maybe "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I guess I'd say both. You might want to, but I don't want to live in a society of perfect law enforcement. That doesn't sound nice to me. It's difficult to explain where the balance is for me. But it's fine for us to differ on that and I don't want to argue about it.
Indeed. The lesson is don't go do that small town, especially when you want to buy goods and services. It's even more helpful if the local business owners know why you have been 'driven' away from their stores.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think "preponderance of evidence" is a lower standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt". Presumption of innocence is a different concept which would apply to both standards of evidence. Can a lawyer please say for sure?
I have long thought that a majority (not all, not even most, but more than half) of stop signs should be replaced by yield signs which specifically list the speed to which you should slow down. For instance, we all do rolling stops because, honestly, it's almost always safe to do so. You rarely see people doing it at blind intersections with unclear views (I don't see that, anyway). Almost all intersections have very good visibility and slowing down to 5mph is perfectly safe. Some intersections, 10mph will be good enough; some, 2 or 3mph is good enough. On a small number of intersections require a full absolute STOP to make the intersection safe.
(Please note, I followed the link but could not watch the video. I was hoping for a text summary but there was none. If he said exactly what I said, then I'm silly and apologize.)
Hmmm. Does that fit under no-harm-no-foul? To me it seems like swiping a person would violate the "no harm" part of the phrase.
I guess I don't really think that strict enforcement of absolutely full stops at stop signs (or right turns at red lights) increases the safety of pedestrians. If it does, then it is probably "worth it"; but if it doesn't, then it certainly isn't. I'm not a traffic professional so I can't really say.
I've heard that statement a lot of times in this discussion but I'm only going to reply here. Your point is "in a democracy, complete transparency is required so that the people can be the ultimate commanders of policy". I understand that from an ideological perspective, although I think it's not really true from a realistic point of view.
But the ideology isn't the point, the point is that the United States is a Republic, a certain form of democracy where the people do not run things, and aren't the ultimate commanders of policy. Instead, at an arms length, we select people to lead the government, and those people assume the prerogative to run policy.
So, it's an indirect democracy, and in many ways it means we don't need, and aren't entitled to, complete transparency. Instead, in some proportion to the amount of control we assert in the voting booth, we need and are entitled to some transparency -- hopefully a lot of it, because I like to think we assert a lot of control in the voting booth. But, it's a sliding scale, and it does not, and should not, slide all the way to the extreme of absolute transparency.
So, I don't really know if you truly meant that you expect to know literally where the money for each bullet was spent, but I would definitely say that is too far down the scale. Where we should put the balance is open for debate, and I definitely, like you, lean toward more transparency rather than less.
Well, we can disagree, but I think that the people who should decide the fate of a land are its inhabitants, as individuals, without regard to where their ancestors lived. When I move to a place, I think that it is reasonable for me to participate in the democracy there.
Obviously, it's not always so simple, but I am unsympathetic to people who think that citizenship and voting rights should apply only to those whose great-grandfathers lived in the same district. To me, that is a violation of individual liberty. I developed this feeling as a white man born and raised in Alaska, where some natives think that my vote shouldn't matter because my ancestors came from, uh, well I don't even know where they came from. All I know is I lived in Alaska, that's where I was born, that's my home, and attempts to disenfranchise me felt deeply racist. Happily, Alaska is a part of the United States, which protects my rights to participate in democracy there.
Again, obviously it's not always simple to make demarcations, but I start from the position that humans living in a place share the right to govern that place.
Science proves very little indeed: it proves nothing, ever. Science cannot ever prove anything, it can merely provide such overwhelming evidence of a notion that to believe otherwise is obviously stupid.
Unfortunately, there are many stupid people out there.
If there is ever a real science of creationism then that will be fine to teach in science class.
But what today is called "creation science" is not, in fact, science. It doesn't provide tests or predictions, hallmarks of science.
And that is why it does not belong in the science classroom. If we want to start a separate Creationism curriculum, then I would oppose that, but at least that would be honest.
Doing nothing is exactly the solution to the problem. Today, all around the country, we teach science in science class. That is the status quo, and I am rather happy with it. I want no change; I want people to "do nothing". It is the people who are trying to do something which I find objectionable.
Awesome. I hope it works better than the "iPhone killer" Nexus One. I also hope it works better than the "YouTube killer" Google Video. I also hope it's better than Orkut.
You saying [citation needed] is tantamount to saying [I'm too lazy or dumb to use a search engine]. This is an internet forum; not all statements come with academic-quality citations, and you don't have to believe everything that is posted. If you disbelieve something said, then you can say so; but you don't get to expect others to look up things for you.
Yeah, I used to accuse Republicans of group-think. Certainly it is true that the congressional Pubs have a very honed ability to get all their votes in a line. As a Dem, I'm jealous of their ability to do that, even though it is often scary to me, and would also be scary if the Dems could do it (scary but effective).
But the Pubs are a big tent. There are a lot of ways to be conservative. Yes, there are certain factions of conservatives which control the party power structure, but there are a lot of people who vote conservative for a variety of reasons, often at odds with one another.
The anti-abortion anti-gay social conservatives are very much at odds with the live-and-let-live libertarian conservatives. The free-labor-market conservatives are very much at odds with the hate-all-brown-immigrants conservatives. The low-tax conservatives fight with the huge-military conservatives. The hunter conservatives might want to protect the environment while the pro-development conservatives want to pave the swamps. There are lots of examples, and that's what is meant by "big tent".
The problem as I see it is that for some reason all those other types of conservatives didn't stop voting Republican when the Republican party was taken over by the pro-torture, hate-darkies, Jesus-pushing, sex-negative, reality-ignoring, jingoistic jackasses which have run it during my adult life (since the 1994 midterm 'Republican Revolution'). I desperately wish the real conservatives would start another party.
Close. In addition to more taxes, social manipulation, and foreign meddling, we also have efficient interstate markets, unified standards for a variety of societal things, a greater level of nationalism (national unity), and a host of other benefits.
I want to say that I'm fine with people preferring policies of a smaller federal government. That would be fine. I'm also fine with a larger federal government. I can see arguments for both. What I specifically reject are ideologies which say that only a minimal federal government is acceptable, and anything more than the bare bare bare minimum is heresy and an affront to, uh, the Constitution, or God, or the natural order or something.
It's a tradeoff to centralize power with a federal government. You get some benefits, you have some drawbacks, and there are complicated interactions between many variables. Any ideology which ignores the reality of that complexity is rightly dismissed.
I don't accuse you of that kind of ideology because you pine for an EU-type model. That is something I don't think I'd ever hear from a crazy ideologue, so please don't read this as an accusation against you. An EU-type model would be okay with me, probably.
That was highly informative. My IS_BRAKE_ON example was, of course, intentionally simplistic, but you still expanded my understanding of the issue. Thank you.
Yes. It's disappointing, but the way to sway people is to use anecdotes instead of data, and use appeals to emotion instead of reason.
So don't talk about a million sick children dying of a vaccine-preventable disease, just pick one kid and talk about him. And don't talk about how our purpose is to save lives and increase human prosperity, just say how that kid sure is sad and sick and it's such a shame and wah wah.
Yes, I'm serious, that's the way to do it. Take all of your nerdy intuitions and do exactly the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what you are looking for, but don't wait around for science to prove it to you. Science doesn't prove anything, ever. It only makes things so clear and obvious with overwhelming evidence that only an idiot would go on denying the theories.
Don't be that idiot. The evidence is in. Reasonable doubt ended about a decade ago. Sometimes the bandwagon is wrong, but usually it is right, and this time it's right, so climb on board, you'll be in good company.
Bummer. You posted something stupid. Now you are in the unfortunate position of having to retract it, or defend it, and both of those are probably not things you want to do.
Yeah, I can't tell whether that guy didn't understand your tone, or just wanted to drop in a comment, or what. Anyway, I had the same thought you did: I refrain from calling things like evolution and AGW "undeniable" because that isn't actually the case; I prefer "true" or maybe "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I guess I'd say both. You might want to, but I don't want to live in a society of perfect law enforcement. That doesn't sound nice to me. It's difficult to explain where the balance is for me. But it's fine for us to differ on that and I don't want to argue about it.
Indeed. The lesson is don't go do that small town, especially when you want to buy goods and services. It's even more helpful if the local business owners know why you have been 'driven' away from their stores.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think "preponderance of evidence" is a lower standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt". Presumption of innocence is a different concept which would apply to both standards of evidence. Can a lawyer please say for sure?
I have long thought that a majority (not all, not even most, but more than half) of stop signs should be replaced by yield signs which specifically list the speed to which you should slow down. For instance, we all do rolling stops because, honestly, it's almost always safe to do so. You rarely see people doing it at blind intersections with unclear views (I don't see that, anyway). Almost all intersections have very good visibility and slowing down to 5mph is perfectly safe. Some intersections, 10mph will be good enough; some, 2 or 3mph is good enough. On a small number of intersections require a full absolute STOP to make the intersection safe.
(Please note, I followed the link but could not watch the video. I was hoping for a text summary but there was none. If he said exactly what I said, then I'm silly and apologize.)
Hmmm. Does that fit under no-harm-no-foul? To me it seems like swiping a person would violate the "no harm" part of the phrase.
I guess I don't really think that strict enforcement of absolutely full stops at stop signs (or right turns at red lights) increases the safety of pedestrians. If it does, then it is probably "worth it"; but if it doesn't, then it certainly isn't. I'm not a traffic professional so I can't really say.
I've heard that statement a lot of times in this discussion but I'm only going to reply here. Your point is "in a democracy, complete transparency is required so that the people can be the ultimate commanders of policy". I understand that from an ideological perspective, although I think it's not really true from a realistic point of view.
But the ideology isn't the point, the point is that the United States is a Republic, a certain form of democracy where the people do not run things, and aren't the ultimate commanders of policy. Instead, at an arms length, we select people to lead the government, and those people assume the prerogative to run policy.
So, it's an indirect democracy, and in many ways it means we don't need, and aren't entitled to, complete transparency. Instead, in some proportion to the amount of control we assert in the voting booth, we need and are entitled to some transparency -- hopefully a lot of it, because I like to think we assert a lot of control in the voting booth. But, it's a sliding scale, and it does not, and should not, slide all the way to the extreme of absolute transparency.
So, I don't really know if you truly meant that you expect to know literally where the money for each bullet was spent, but I would definitely say that is too far down the scale. Where we should put the balance is open for debate, and I definitely, like you, lean toward more transparency rather than less.
How many whistleblowers with big caches of digital documents(and internet connections) do you fancy there are in North Korea?
I don't know... I've heard they suffer a crippling shortage of whistles.
Well, we can disagree, but I think that the people who should decide the fate of a land are its inhabitants, as individuals, without regard to where their ancestors lived. When I move to a place, I think that it is reasonable for me to participate in the democracy there.
Obviously, it's not always so simple, but I am unsympathetic to people who think that citizenship and voting rights should apply only to those whose great-grandfathers lived in the same district. To me, that is a violation of individual liberty. I developed this feeling as a white man born and raised in Alaska, where some natives think that my vote shouldn't matter because my ancestors came from, uh, well I don't even know where they came from. All I know is I lived in Alaska, that's where I was born, that's my home, and attempts to disenfranchise me felt deeply racist. Happily, Alaska is a part of the United States, which protects my rights to participate in democracy there.
Again, obviously it's not always simple to make demarcations, but I start from the position that humans living in a place share the right to govern that place.
Holy motherfucking shit. Easterberry won this argument about ten posts ago.
Science proves very little indeed: it proves nothing, ever. Science cannot ever prove anything, it can merely provide such overwhelming evidence of a notion that to believe otherwise is obviously stupid.
Unfortunately, there are many stupid people out there.
If there is ever a real science of creationism then that will be fine to teach in science class.
But what today is called "creation science" is not, in fact, science. It doesn't provide tests or predictions, hallmarks of science.
And that is why it does not belong in the science classroom. If we want to start a separate Creationism curriculum, then I would oppose that, but at least that would be honest.
Doing nothing is exactly the solution to the problem. Today, all around the country, we teach science in science class. That is the status quo, and I am rather happy with it. I want no change; I want people to "do nothing". It is the people who are trying to do something which I find objectionable.
You are probably right. Which perfectly supports the accusation that phrase filtering is a stupid way to block websites.
If parents want a safe internet, there is only one good solution that I have ever heard of: a human-generated whitelist.
Awesome. I hope it works better than the "iPhone killer" Nexus One. I also hope it works better than the "YouTube killer" Google Video. I also hope it's better than Orkut.
You saying [citation needed] is tantamount to saying [I'm too lazy or dumb to use a search engine]. This is an internet forum; not all statements come with academic-quality citations, and you don't have to believe everything that is posted. If you disbelieve something said, then you can say so; but you don't get to expect others to look up things for you.
Everybody gets to judge winners and losers. Yay, that's how free societies work. You get to ignore him if you want, though.
Well... Pink Floyd and acid.
Yikes, harsh trip, man. Here have some graham crackers.
Yeah, I used to accuse Republicans of group-think. Certainly it is true that the congressional Pubs have a very honed ability to get all their votes in a line. As a Dem, I'm jealous of their ability to do that, even though it is often scary to me, and would also be scary if the Dems could do it (scary but effective).
But the Pubs are a big tent. There are a lot of ways to be conservative. Yes, there are certain factions of conservatives which control the party power structure, but there are a lot of people who vote conservative for a variety of reasons, often at odds with one another.
The anti-abortion anti-gay social conservatives are very much at odds with the live-and-let-live libertarian conservatives. The free-labor-market conservatives are very much at odds with the hate-all-brown-immigrants conservatives. The low-tax conservatives fight with the huge-military conservatives. The hunter conservatives might want to protect the environment while the pro-development conservatives want to pave the swamps. There are lots of examples, and that's what is meant by "big tent".
The problem as I see it is that for some reason all those other types of conservatives didn't stop voting Republican when the Republican party was taken over by the pro-torture, hate-darkies, Jesus-pushing, sex-negative, reality-ignoring, jingoistic jackasses which have run it during my adult life (since the 1994 midterm 'Republican Revolution'). I desperately wish the real conservatives would start another party.
Close. In addition to more taxes, social manipulation, and foreign meddling, we also have efficient interstate markets, unified standards for a variety of societal things, a greater level of nationalism (national unity), and a host of other benefits.
I want to say that I'm fine with people preferring policies of a smaller federal government. That would be fine. I'm also fine with a larger federal government. I can see arguments for both. What I specifically reject are ideologies which say that only a minimal federal government is acceptable, and anything more than the bare bare bare minimum is heresy and an affront to, uh, the Constitution, or God, or the natural order or something.
It's a tradeoff to centralize power with a federal government. You get some benefits, you have some drawbacks, and there are complicated interactions between many variables. Any ideology which ignores the reality of that complexity is rightly dismissed.
I don't accuse you of that kind of ideology because you pine for an EU-type model. That is something I don't think I'd ever hear from a crazy ideologue, so please don't read this as an accusation against you. An EU-type model would be okay with me, probably.
That was highly informative. My IS_BRAKE_ON example was, of course, intentionally simplistic, but you still expanded my understanding of the issue. Thank you.
Yes. It's disappointing, but the way to sway people is to use anecdotes instead of data, and use appeals to emotion instead of reason.
So don't talk about a million sick children dying of a vaccine-preventable disease, just pick one kid and talk about him. And don't talk about how our purpose is to save lives and increase human prosperity, just say how that kid sure is sad and sick and it's such a shame and wah wah.
Yes, I'm serious, that's the way to do it. Take all of your nerdy intuitions and do exactly the opposite.