All the people "familiar" with the "actual" history all seem to have an agenda.
I agree, being familiar with the facts does tend to impart an agenda towards factuality. Sure I have my opinions as well. I do however attempt to distinguish these from the merely factual by the insertion of phrases such as "it seems to me." Personally, I'm more suspicious of the agenda of those who engage in palpably specious reasoning.
I merely pointed out, correctly of course, that it was a win for socialism.
There is no "of course" about it. On the contrary, I think it's fair to say that it was the way we in the west defeated socialism.
The salient point here is that 'socialism' does not mean "looking after the poor," (even if it claims it will). Socialism means holding "ownership of the means of production" (to employ the technical socialist jargon) in the hands the state, supposedly in trust for society as a whole. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread: while "the programmes of nationalisation of industry, such as those embarked upon by the British Labour Party in the early post war period can fairly be described as 'socialist,'" western European Socialist parties "largely abandoned socialism in favour of [the welfare state]."
In the case of Tony Blair's New Labour, the abandonment of socialism was formalised in the repeal Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution. As this clause provides a succinct definition of the essence of socialism, by socialists, it might serve to enlighten:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
I don't understand the point of trying to claim that the "welfare state" somehow didn't originate with socialism. Everyone in this thread seems to be claiming that Bismarck's case was implemented to placate potential followers of socialism.
Exactly! Placate potential followers of socialism. What I don't understand is what you hope to gain by describing a strategy, which you yourself recognise is aimed at minimising the number of socialists, as "a win for socialism?!" It was this strained logic which lead me to describe your original post as 'casuistry' (in the negative sense of that word).
And it's in every socialist government now to varying degree.
I think you mean 'socialist' government.;) In any case 1) it is hardly exclusively the preserve of left-of-centre parties. Consider the welfare consensus in post-war UK (broken only at the end of the 70s). Or consider post war German politics, where, until fairly recently at least, a right-of-centre Christian welfarist party (CDU) faced off against a 'socialist' welfarist party (SPD), with the free marketeers (FPD) taking only a much smaller slice of the vote. 2) This fact is just more grist to my mill... think about it!
Well, last I heard, there were other sorts of socialists than the "revolutionary socialist".
Sure. And those who are not revolutionary are subject, like every other politician seeking to implement an ideological programme, to the sagacity of the People. If a majority of voters prefers the benefits of a welfare state to the benefits of socialism, guess which one survives the ballot box, and which one is defeated. [Hint:Clause IV.]
And while I don't appreciate the socialism ideology, it does appear that the non-revolutionary sort of socialism does seem to be a lot more successful.
Well here, as you would have gathered from my original post, we are in near agreement.
That's a fairly accurate historical characterisation of socialism.
Not really. Who were the "bourgeois/rich" who were being drained in the USSR? Or in the PRC.
Just because North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic does not mean that 'democracy' means a slavish devotion to a head of state cult figure. Just because western European parties who have 'Social*' in their name have largely* abandoned socialism in favour of the anti-socialist move that is th welfare state does not make the welfare state socialist. [*Although programmes of nationalisation of industry, such as those embarked upon by the British Labour Party in the early post war period can fairly be described as 'socialist.']
The fact is that in the minds of misinformed people there remains as much confusion about the identity (==) of welfare and socialism as their does about... oh I don't know... the identity of the world wide web and the internet. Though that analogy breaks down since WWW was never designed explicitly to undermine the net.
What you are saying is that the welfare state was an early win for socialists.
That's funny. And the Sozialistengesetze which accompanied the welfare reforms were also "an early win for socialists?" Your casuistry, I'm afraid, won't wash with people familiar with the actual history. You seem to be re-inscribing the misconception that the modern welfare state is socialist, whereas it is in fact a weapon designed originally to defeat socialism.
Or does anyone believe that Bismarck and other "conservatives" would have spent even a bit of brain power contemplating the "welfare state", if it weren't for the pressure from socialist movements of the time?
Self-defence, as a defence to murder, will only fly in the face of "pressure" from that attacker. This does not make the attacker's death an "early win."
Yes, of course Bismarck was responding to the threat of the growing socialist movement. He did so by a two-fold strategy of passing anti-socialist legislation and a set of pensions designed to undermine the social motivation driving the growth of the movement. As the Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin was later to say "welfare is crumbs off he capitalist's table," or in the case of Bismarck, off the aristocracy's table.
A "win" for revolutionary socialists is a population so impoverished relative to the owning classes that they are willing to take up arms to overthrow them. Safer to throw them crumbs.
That's a fairly stereotypical (mis)-characterisation of socialism. But socialism is not about spending the money of the bourgeoisie. 'Socialism' per se is about the social ownership (via government**) of the means of producing wealth, which is to say the elimination of the bourgeoisie as a class of owners. Please note, this is not an endorsement of such an arrangement, which it seems to me has not exactly proved its viability in the real world.*** Then again Dr. Marx himself stressed that only the US or maybe Britain had the wherewithal to pull socialism off and said that if the Russians tried the would fuck it up.
[**Which distinguishes it from 'communism' where by definition, the state has ceased to exist and wealth is somehow held directly in the hands of the community. Smacks of the mystical to me, but anyway.]
[***The softer 'pluralist' form where state produces in competition with --or the Swedish model in co-operation with --private owners has had markedly better economic and social outcomes than any and all attempts at pure state production IMO^H^H^H.]
The merely moderately educated tend to confuse socialism with the welfare state. The historical fact that the modern welfare state was devised by conservatives (most notably by Bismarck) as an anti-socialist tool, sometimes explicitly so, seems to have disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole. To be fair this is in part because western "Socialist" parties have adopted the welfare state as a means to appease their constituency while shirking (sensibly?) the introduction of the revolutionary social change which their name, and sometimes their official party platform, promises.
Let us not forget, however, that in some western countries perhaps the largest --and certainly the most unrecognised --area of welfare spending by governments since WWII have been the various tax breaks (someone else pays) and positive incentives and aimed at encouraging private home ownership. This seems the very opposite of socialistic.
And even if it weren't, the internal organisation of a nation is not a matter of concern to other nations under treaty law.
An analogy would be if one corporation (A) were unable to meet its contractual obligations to another party (B) because of conflict between internal divisions of company A. That's a problem for A (it will be in breach), but it isn't really any of B's damn business.
If the violation of ToS is due to an illegal action like posting things that are illegal both for the location of the site and the poster it should still land into the legal system.
Say what?!
No one is talking about removing ToS violations from the legal system. Rather the idea is that a breach of contract (such as violating a ToS) be dealt with under contract law, where imprisonment is unavailable as a remedy. While the mere breach of contractual terms would no longer be a crime in its own right, any crimes committed in effecting or pursuant to such a breach they would still be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Obviously.
Attacking someone by way of their affiliation rather than the point they make is an ad hominem.
Yes. An ad hominem is attacking the validity of someone's argument based only on some personal attribute of the arguer unrelated to the argument itself. However, if the affiliation is the point under discussion, attacking it cannot be an ad hom.
>>As a conservative I tend to regularly get called interesting things here... "less judgemental" indeed.
>I have to tell you that I personally don't judge you for being a conservative, but if your post is any indication I DO judge you as reactionary
Poster is not saying "you argument (re the self-elevation of groups) is wrong because you are a reactionary" (which would be an ad hom), he is saying "you might think you are getting picked on because you identify as a conservative and while I wouldn't judge you based on that (yeah right!), the contents of your post show you to be a reactionary (which brand of conservatism, in apparent contradiction to the preceding clause, poster is willing to judge). That is not an argument ad hominem. Indeed, it is barely an argument.
Your original point was to dispute that geeks are more tolerant of gays. The only evidence you provided was your own incredulity.
That's all he (or she) needs. Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio.
Whether or not this particular sub-culture is more tolerant of non-normal (in a statistical and explicitly value-free sense) sexual orientation is an empirical question. As the person making that claim the onus or proof rests squarely on your shoulders. All anyone who disagrees with your needs to bring to the table is their scepticism.
Now I know that's a kind of intellectual fad with conservatives right now,
Case in point. Trying to have a discussion and you cant for one moment just hold off on the attacks? Is it really necessary to bust out the ad hominems?
There is no ad hominem in mentioning "intellectual fads" of ideological movements. There is no ad hominem in describing someone as "reactionary" in a discussion of their personal political opinions (a discussion you initiated). Whether or not it was justified is another question (it wasn't), but it is directly to the point. 'Reactionary' is, after all, a technical term in political discourse, referring to a political position which aims to return society to some earlier state. A term coined from the Réaction to the French Revolution and the attempts to re-establish the Ancien Regime.
But your original post was truly insightful, whether it is in terms of wisdom, coolness or whatever, it is in the nature of groups to elevate themselves above others. An insight which should not be the monopoly of any particular political orientation and certainly not one that can fairly be described as 'reactionary.'
No, but people did claim 'g' was a single factor. Apparently you failed to comprehend the post you are responding to.
An inability to simplify is a sure road to madness
on
IQ 'a Myth,' Study Says
·
· Score: 3, Funny
how would we measure height anyway
Take an engineering approach... allow me to illustrate.
One day in the academic common room at my university an engineering academic and a mathematics professor were dissing each other. "You engineers, you just don't care that the "mathematics" you apply is an inaccurate bastardisation, it's a wonder your bridges even stand up!" "You mathematicians, you are so impractical, you spend your whole life fiddling with meaningless symbols."
A philosophy professor intervened. "Gentlemen, gentlemen... no need to argue, I'll devise a way to resolve your dispute. Meet me at the oval at three this afternoon."
When the mathematician and the engineer turned up at the oval that afternoon, they discovered that the philosopher had placed, at the other end, a comely and rather buxom young PhD candidate in Zoology. "Gentlemen, what I want you do to is to measure out in your mind's eye half the distance between you and the young lady on the other side of the oval. When I say "now" walk to that point, measure out the half way mark from there and so on..."
After a time the philosopher called out "now!" The engineer proceeded to walk to the spot, while the mathematician stayed frozen to the starting point. Again the philosopher called out "now!" and again the engineer moved forward leaving the mathematician right where he started. After the third turn the mathematician finally lost his patience. "You stupid engineer! Don't you realise that you can never arrive at the final point!"
"Oh I know that," replied the engineer, his face breaking out in a large grin, "but I can get close enough for all practical purposes."
As it happens, we do have the technology to measure height to at least within the closest cm, in almost any frame of reference where determining height as a datum (or 'data-point' if you prefer) of a multi-factorial prediction of basketball performance might want to be undertaken.
[C]laiming that "IQ is a myth" is just as claiming "Height is a myth"
Despite the misleading headline, they are not claiming that IQ is a myth, but exploring what constitutes IQ. They are claiming that 'g' is a myth, or perhaps an artefact of several (as it happens neuro-anatomically distinct) skills.
The performance in basketball is just rooted in A LOT more factors than just height, the same way that "real life" problem solving skills and success is rooted in a lot more factors than just the IQ.
By treating IQ as a single factor among others contributing to real life problem solving skills you are re-inscribing what has the authors assert to have disproved. According to this paper IQ is itself "rooted in a lot more factors" than a single global intelligence. IQ is not a single factor, in the way height, for example, is. That is their point.
there wouldn't be many extradition treaties as they'd be pretty one sided if they relied upon a system of law not present in the vast majority of bound parties. So there has to be more to it than you suggest.
Now that is a failure of logic! The mere fact that the dual criminality (AKA 'double criminality) principle exists in common law countries, does not imply that the same principle is absent in other legal systems.
You cannot infer one-sidedness. Even if you could, that would not allow you to deduce that there "has to be more." The US, in particular, is famous for engaging in one sided dealings with other countries. Eg. Try getting a defamation judgment from another (even CL) country enforced in the US.
The point is that the US in, in my judgement (bearing in mind that I'm an Australian lawyer, not a US one), unlikely in the extreme to extradite one of its citizens, not charged with a crime recognised under US law.
You mean like being wanted for questioning in a murder?
No he means actually charge him with something. The traditional common law position is that, the terms of the extradition treaty notwithstanding, a person can only be extradited if charged with a crime recognised as such in the extraditing country. The US has not, I trust, entered into any treaties whereby it is subject to the perversion of law which has seen Sweden demand the rendition of a UK resident merely for the purposes of interrogation.
And here I was just thinking that they taste like that due to six months at sea in an oil soaked shipping container before they get to my country:)
I did some research... well I googled "what's the funny taste in hersheys"... apparently they infect the milk and let it sour to give the product that unique flavour. Now I can't stand off milk (except when it's so off that it becomes yoghurt), so that probably explains why I couldn't stomach Hershey's. It also explains why it tastes so bacterial.
Apparently I'm in a minority in recognising the overtones of throat infection in this delicacy. Most naive subjects (ie. those not raised since childhood to appreciate it's unusual appeal) seem to agree that Hershey's tastes like.... Though this is probably simply their initial revulsion and if they took the time to savour it the similarity to bacterial infection may become more obvious.
[BTW I'm using lmgtfy not because I think you don't know how to use Google, but for a little dramatic suspense!]
The reason I tried it in the first place is because I was told you could identify Proteus by smell prior to formal assay. It is said that they smell "like a cross between rotten fish and Hershey's bars" (the source for my incorrect "rotten fish" remark). Now I know why.
Perhaps not to someone who doesn't know any better, but they sure do if you enjoy chocolate. Maybe closer to a bacterial throat infection than fish, I'll grant you that. Even Cadbury's tastes better, and you'd have to be down on your luck to eat their imitation chocolate.
Trust me, after my two (2) bites of a Hershey's (I was determined to finish it, but in the event I just couldn't summon up the strength), I won't be letting a bar of it come anywhere near my back, nor any other, pocket. Absolutely foul.
I can't understand how anyone could enjoy it, but hey, other people other tastes... some folks absolutely love Durian fruit too... and that tastes even worse than Hershey's!
Most things are worse when the government does it.
Which do you mean? That Google is much more efficient at surveilling us than any government could hope to be? Or that it was unfortunate that Google's DB fell into the hands of the Chinese government and may in the future fall into the hands of a government which governs you?
Thinking of changing my sig to:If Chrome were the last browser on earth... I would browse with wget.
You're really going to believe it's an independent opinion poll is declared as that.
If the poll comes from an organisation as reputable as the Levada Centre I will certainly presume it to be independent and free of coercion. If there is good evidence to suggest otherwise that presumption is, as always, rebuttable. However the onus of proof lie on the accuser. And in any case, is it that surprising that 62% of the population would want the "worst" sites on the web blocked?
Every bit as important as freedom of speech is the presumption of innocence. Absent any evidence to the contrary I will assume so respected a source of information to be deliberately misleading the same day I assume all gamers are potential mass shooters and ought to be pre-emptively locked up. There's a reason that rational people have rules of evidence and onus.
Free speech doesn't guarantee a valid and legitimate independent opinion to be spoken, but a lack of free speech absolutely prevents that concept from existing.
Pussy riot? They're not stopping from expressing their opinion, are they? Or as Johnny Rotten put it "you can shut us up, but you can never shut us up." And absolute free speech, like all absolutes, exists only in a vacuum.
... the public in Russia know that merely even responding to the poll can put their lives at risk.
And yet only 62% of the respondents supported the position that the government adopted. Maybe they're not quite as paranoid as you?
... if you believe that any poll exists in Russia country which is not coerced you are delusional
I assure you, whether or not you are correct about the poll, the monopoly on delusional thinking in this conversation is yours.
And yes, many Chinese believe that the censorship is good for them.
My guess is that not a few Americans would similarly object to child porn being openly displayed for sale in the supermarket. I'm not sure that there is a people where the majority does not believe that at least some level of censorship is good for them (even if they may not recognise it as such).
Russia? The land known for being the absolutely worst for polls? Where polls have greater than 100% turnout?
Excuse me if I'm extremely skeptical that even a single individual voted positively for a blacklist without being under political duress or physical coercion, let alone manipulation.
Umm we're talking a privately conducted opinion poll. I'm extremely sceptical that private pollsters generally employ "undue political duress or physical coercion"... except for Gallup of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh, a sexy chick in uniform! Tell us how that went!
I think she might have been into the "bondage" thing, because she cuffed me.
If you don't mind me asking, what was the advice you followed to get yourself into this ... ahm ... terrible predicament? Please!
All the people "familiar" with the "actual" history all seem to have an agenda.
I agree, being familiar with the facts does tend to impart an agenda towards factuality. Sure I have my opinions as well. I do however attempt to distinguish these from the merely factual by the insertion of phrases such as "it seems to me." Personally, I'm more suspicious of the agenda of those who engage in palpably specious reasoning.
I merely pointed out, correctly of course, that it was a win for socialism.
There is no "of course" about it. On the contrary, I think it's fair to say that it was the way we in the west defeated socialism.
The salient point here is that 'socialism' does not mean "looking after the poor," (even if it claims it will). Socialism means holding "ownership of the means of production" (to employ the technical socialist jargon) in the hands the state, supposedly in trust for society as a whole. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread: while "the programmes of nationalisation of industry, such as those embarked upon by the British Labour Party in the early post war period can fairly be described as 'socialist,'" western European Socialist parties "largely abandoned socialism in favour of [the welfare state]."
In the case of Tony Blair's New Labour, the abandonment of socialism was formalised in the repeal Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution. As this clause provides a succinct definition of the essence of socialism, by socialists, it might serve to enlighten:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
I don't understand the point of trying to claim that the "welfare state" somehow didn't originate with socialism. Everyone in this thread seems to be claiming that Bismarck's case was implemented to placate potential followers of socialism.
Exactly! Placate potential followers of socialism. What I don't understand is what you hope to gain by describing a strategy, which you yourself recognise is aimed at minimising the number of socialists, as "a win for socialism?!" It was this strained logic which lead me to describe your original post as 'casuistry' (in the negative sense of that word).
And it's in every socialist government now to varying degree.
I think you mean 'socialist' government. ;) In any case 1) it is hardly exclusively the preserve of left-of-centre parties. Consider the welfare consensus in post-war UK (broken only at the end of the 70s). Or consider post war German politics, where, until fairly recently at least, a right-of-centre Christian welfarist party (CDU) faced off against a 'socialist' welfarist party (SPD), with the free marketeers (FPD) taking only a much smaller slice of the vote. 2) This fact is just more grist to my mill ... think about it!
Well, last I heard, there were other sorts of socialists than the "revolutionary socialist".
Sure. And those who are not revolutionary are subject, like every other politician seeking to implement an ideological programme, to the sagacity of the People. If a majority of voters prefers the benefits of a welfare state to the benefits of socialism, guess which one survives the ballot box, and which one is defeated. [Hint:Clause IV.]
And while I don't appreciate the socialism ideology, it does appear that the non-revolutionary sort of socialism does seem to be a lot more successful.
Well here, as you would have gathered from my original post, we are in near agreement.
That's a fairly accurate historical characterisation of socialism.
Not really. Who were the "bourgeois/rich" who were being drained in the USSR? Or in the PRC.
Just because North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic does not mean that 'democracy' means a slavish devotion to a head of state cult figure. Just because western European parties who have 'Social*' in their name have largely* abandoned socialism in favour of the anti-socialist move that is th welfare state does not make the welfare state socialist. [*Although programmes of nationalisation of industry, such as those embarked upon by the British Labour Party in the early post war period can fairly be described as 'socialist.']
The fact is that in the minds of misinformed people there remains as much confusion about the identity (==) of welfare and socialism as their does about ... oh I don't know ... the identity of the world wide web and the internet. Though that analogy breaks down since WWW was never designed explicitly to undermine the net.
What you are saying is that the welfare state was an early win for socialists.
That's funny. And the Sozialistengesetze which accompanied the welfare reforms were also "an early win for socialists?" Your casuistry, I'm afraid, won't wash with people familiar with the actual history. You seem to be re-inscribing the misconception that the modern welfare state is socialist, whereas it is in fact a weapon designed originally to defeat socialism.
Or does anyone believe that Bismarck and other "conservatives" would have spent even a bit of brain power contemplating the "welfare state", if it weren't for the pressure from socialist movements of the time?
Self-defence, as a defence to murder, will only fly in the face of "pressure" from that attacker. This does not make the attacker's death an "early win."
Yes, of course Bismarck was responding to the threat of the growing socialist movement. He did so by a two-fold strategy of passing anti-socialist legislation and a set of pensions designed to undermine the social motivation driving the growth of the movement. As the Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin was later to say "welfare is crumbs off he capitalist's table," or in the case of Bismarck, off the aristocracy's table.
A "win" for revolutionary socialists is a population so impoverished relative to the owning classes that they are willing to take up arms to overthrow them. Safer to throw them crumbs.
That's a fairly stereotypical (mis)-characterisation of socialism. But socialism is not about spending the money of the bourgeoisie. 'Socialism' per se is about the social ownership (via government**) of the means of producing wealth, which is to say the elimination of the bourgeoisie as a class of owners. Please note, this is not an endorsement of such an arrangement, which it seems to me has not exactly proved its viability in the real world.*** Then again Dr. Marx himself stressed that only the US or maybe Britain had the wherewithal to pull socialism off and said that if the Russians tried the would fuck it up.
[**Which distinguishes it from 'communism' where by definition, the state has ceased to exist and wealth is somehow held directly in the hands of the community. Smacks of the mystical to me, but anyway.]
[***The softer 'pluralist' form where state produces in competition with --or the Swedish model in co-operation with --private owners has had markedly better economic and social outcomes than any and all attempts at pure state production IMO^H^H^H.]
The merely moderately educated tend to confuse socialism with the welfare state. The historical fact that the modern welfare state was devised by conservatives (most notably by Bismarck) as an anti-socialist tool, sometimes explicitly so, seems to have disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole. To be fair this is in part because western "Socialist" parties have adopted the welfare state as a means to appease their constituency while shirking (sensibly?) the introduction of the revolutionary social change which their name, and sometimes their official party platform, promises.
Let us not forget, however, that in some western countries perhaps the largest --and certainly the most unrecognised --area of welfare spending by governments since WWII have been the various tax breaks (someone else pays) and positive incentives and aimed at encouraging private home ownership. This seems the very opposite of socialistic.
Is that Daphne, or Sonic Blue? Or a darker shade?
But the FEDERAL law specifically is in play.
And even if it weren't, the internal organisation of a nation is not a matter of concern to other nations under treaty law.
An analogy would be if one corporation (A) were unable to meet its contractual obligations to another party (B) because of conflict between internal divisions of company A. That's a problem for A (it will be in breach), but it isn't really any of B's damn business.
If the violation of ToS is due to an illegal action like posting things that are illegal both for the location of the site and the poster it should still land into the legal system.
Say what?!
No one is talking about removing ToS violations from the legal system. Rather the idea is that a breach of contract (such as violating a ToS) be dealt with under contract law, where imprisonment is unavailable as a remedy. While the mere breach of contractual terms would no longer be a crime in its own right, any crimes committed in effecting or pursuant to such a breach they would still be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Obviously.
Attacking someone by way of their affiliation rather than the point they make is an ad hominem.
Yes. An ad hominem is attacking the validity of someone's argument based only on some personal attribute of the arguer unrelated to the argument itself. However, if the affiliation is the point under discussion, attacking it cannot be an ad hom.
>>As a conservative I tend to regularly get called interesting things here... "less judgemental" indeed.
>I have to tell you that I personally don't judge you for being a conservative, but if your post is any indication I DO judge you as reactionary
Poster is not saying "you argument (re the self-elevation of groups) is wrong because you are a reactionary" (which would be an ad hom), he is saying "you might think you are getting picked on because you identify as a conservative and while I wouldn't judge you based on that (yeah right!), the contents of your post show you to be a reactionary (which brand of conservatism, in apparent contradiction to the preceding clause, poster is willing to judge). That is not an argument ad hominem. Indeed, it is barely an argument.
Your original point was to dispute that geeks are more tolerant of gays. The only evidence you provided was your own incredulity.
That's all he (or she) needs. Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio.
Whether or not this particular sub-culture is more tolerant of non-normal (in a statistical and explicitly value-free sense) sexual orientation is an empirical question. As the person making that claim the onus or proof rests squarely on your shoulders. All anyone who disagrees with your needs to bring to the table is their scepticism.
Now I know that's a kind of intellectual fad with conservatives right now,
Case in point. Trying to have a discussion and you cant for one moment just hold off on the attacks? Is it really necessary to bust out the ad hominems?
There is no ad hominem in mentioning "intellectual fads" of ideological movements. There is no ad hominem in describing someone as "reactionary" in a discussion of their personal political opinions (a discussion you initiated). Whether or not it was justified is another question (it wasn't), but it is directly to the point. 'Reactionary' is, after all, a technical term in political discourse, referring to a political position which aims to return society to some earlier state. A term coined from the Réaction to the French Revolution and the attempts to re-establish the Ancien Regime.
But your original post was truly insightful, whether it is in terms of wisdom, coolness or whatever, it is in the nature of groups to elevate themselves above others. An insight which should not be the monopoly of any particular political orientation and certainly not one that can fairly be described as 'reactionary.'
no one ever said IQ was a single factor.
No, but people did claim 'g' was a single factor. Apparently you failed to comprehend the post you are responding to.
how would we measure height anyway
Take an engineering approach ... allow me to illustrate.
One day in the academic common room at my university an engineering academic and a mathematics professor were dissing each other. "You engineers, you just don't care that the "mathematics" you apply is an inaccurate bastardisation, it's a wonder your bridges even stand up!" "You mathematicians, you are so impractical, you spend your whole life fiddling with meaningless symbols."
A philosophy professor intervened. "Gentlemen, gentlemen ... no need to argue, I'll devise a way to resolve your dispute. Meet me at the oval at three this afternoon."
When the mathematician and the engineer turned up at the oval that afternoon, they discovered that the philosopher had placed, at the other end, a comely and rather buxom young PhD candidate in Zoology. "Gentlemen, what I want you do to is to measure out in your mind's eye half the distance between you and the young lady on the other side of the oval. When I say "now" walk to that point, measure out the half way mark from there and so on ..."
After a time the philosopher called out "now!" The engineer proceeded to walk to the spot, while the mathematician stayed frozen to the starting point. Again the philosopher called out "now!" and again the engineer moved forward leaving the mathematician right where he started. After the third turn the mathematician finally lost his patience. "You stupid engineer! Don't you realise that you can never arrive at the final point!"
"Oh I know that," replied the engineer, his face breaking out in a large grin, "but I can get close enough for all practical purposes."
As it happens, we do have the technology to measure height to at least within the closest cm, in almost any frame of reference where determining height as a datum (or 'data-point' if you prefer) of a multi-factorial prediction of basketball performance might want to be undertaken.
[C]laiming that "IQ is a myth" is just as claiming "Height is a myth"
Despite the misleading headline, they are not claiming that IQ is a myth, but exploring what constitutes IQ. They are claiming that 'g' is a myth, or perhaps an artefact of several (as it happens neuro-anatomically distinct) skills.
The performance in basketball is just rooted in A LOT more factors than just height, the same way that "real life" problem solving skills and success is rooted in a lot more factors than just the IQ.
By treating IQ as a single factor among others contributing to real life problem solving skills you are re-inscribing what has the authors assert to have disproved. According to this paper IQ is itself "rooted in a lot more factors" than a single global intelligence. IQ is not a single factor, in the way height, for example, is. That is their point.
Drill deeper.
Remember the Deepwater Horizon where they delved too greedily and dug too deep! No wait ... that was Khazad-dûm.
That'd be relevant if McAfee were extradited. He was deported to his home country, which I believe is the US.
It's relevant because we are discussing whether the US will extradite McAfee to Belize. Note the subject heading of this thread.
I suspect his point was that if your logic held
Its not my logic dude, it's the Law.
there wouldn't be many extradition treaties as they'd be pretty one sided if they relied upon a system of law not present in the vast majority of bound parties. So there has to be more to it than you suggest.
Now that is a failure of logic! The mere fact that the dual criminality (AKA 'double criminality) principle exists in common law countries, does not imply that the same principle is absent in other legal systems. You cannot infer one-sidedness. Even if you could, that would not allow you to deduce that there " has to be more." The US, in particular, is famous for engaging in one sided dealings with other countries. Eg. Try getting a defamation judgment from another (even CL) country enforced in the US.
The point is that the US in, in my judgement (bearing in mind that I'm an Australian lawyer, not a US one), unlikely in the extreme to extradite one of its citizens, not charged with a crime recognised under US law.
If there was any relevant point to that post at all, I missed it.
You mean like being wanted for questioning in a murder?
No he means actually charge him with something. The traditional common law position is that, the terms of the extradition treaty notwithstanding, a person can only be extradited if charged with a crime recognised as such in the extraditing country. The US has not, I trust, entered into any treaties whereby it is subject to the perversion of law which has seen Sweden demand the rendition of a UK resident merely for the purposes of interrogation.
And here I was just thinking that they taste like that due to six months at sea in an oil soaked shipping container before they get to my country :)
I did some research ... well I googled "what's the funny taste in hersheys" ... apparently they infect the milk and let it sour to give the product that unique flavour. Now I can't stand off milk (except when it's so off that it becomes yoghurt), so that probably explains why I couldn't stomach Hershey's. It also explains why it tastes so bacterial.
Apparently I'm in a minority in recognising the overtones of throat infection in this delicacy. Most naive subjects (ie. those not raised since childhood to appreciate it's unusual appeal) seem to agree that Hershey's tastes like .... Though this is probably simply their initial revulsion and if they took the time to savour it the similarity to bacterial infection may become more obvious.
[BTW I'm using lmgtfy not because I think you don't know how to use Google, but for a little dramatic suspense!]
The reason I tried it in the first place is because I was told you could identify Proteus by smell prior to formal assay. It is said that they smell "like a cross between rotten fish and Hershey's bars" (the source for my incorrect "rotten fish" remark). Now I know why.
no, they do not taste like fish
Perhaps not to someone who doesn't know any better, but they sure do if you enjoy chocolate. Maybe closer to a bacterial throat infection than fish, I'll grant you that. Even Cadbury's tastes better, and you'd have to be down on your luck to eat their imitation chocolate.
Trust me, after my two (2) bites of a Hershey's (I was determined to finish it, but in the event I just couldn't summon up the strength), I won't be letting a bar of it come anywhere near my back, nor any other, pocket. Absolutely foul.
I can't understand how anyone could enjoy it, but hey, other people other tastes ... some folks absolutely love Durian fruit too ... and that tastes even worse than Hershey's!
Yeah I agree, how can anyone say Hershey's tastes like wax?! I mean the dead fish flavour is so overwhelming how can you taste anything else?
Most things are worse when the government does it.
Which do you mean? That Google is much more efficient at surveilling us than any government could hope to be? Or that it was unfortunate that Google's DB fell into the hands of the Chinese government and may in the future fall into the hands of a government which governs you?
Thinking of changing my sig to:If Chrome were the last browser on earth ... I would browse with wget.
You're really going to believe it's an independent opinion poll is declared as that.
If the poll comes from an organisation as reputable as the Levada Centre I will certainly presume it to be independent and free of coercion. If there is good evidence to suggest otherwise that presumption is, as always, rebuttable. However the onus of proof lie on the accuser. And in any case, is it that surprising that 62% of the population would want the "worst" sites on the web blocked?
Every bit as important as freedom of speech is the presumption of innocence. Absent any evidence to the contrary I will assume so respected a source of information to be deliberately misleading the same day I assume all gamers are potential mass shooters and ought to be pre-emptively locked up. There's a reason that rational people have rules of evidence and onus.
Free speech doesn't guarantee a valid and legitimate independent opinion to be spoken, but a lack of free speech absolutely prevents that concept from existing.
Pussy riot? They're not stopping from expressing their opinion, are they? Or as Johnny Rotten put it "you can shut us up, but you can never shut us up." And absolute free speech, like all absolutes, exists only in a vacuum.
And yet only 62% of the respondents supported the position that the government adopted. Maybe they're not quite as paranoid as you?
I assure you, whether or not you are correct about the poll, the monopoly on delusional thinking in this conversation is yours.
And yes, many Chinese believe that the censorship is good for them.
My guess is that not a few Americans would similarly object to child porn being openly displayed for sale in the supermarket. I'm not sure that there is a people where the majority does not believe that at least some level of censorship is good for them (even if they may not recognise it as such).
Russia? The land known for being the absolutely worst for polls? Where polls have greater than 100% turnout?
Excuse me if I'm extremely skeptical that even a single individual voted positively for a blacklist without being under political duress or physical coercion, let alone manipulation.
Umm we're talking a privately conducted opinion poll. I'm extremely sceptical that private pollsters generally employ "undue political duress or physical coercion" ... except for Gallup of course.