Name them for what they are, not what they look like.
This is good advice sometimes, but not all the time. I've designed lots of tables where the creative department says, "Use the gray box there," or "Use the red table there." Since I was writing a lot of reports, was I less wise to choose to name the class, "grayBox" and have all the reports use it rather than name each one of 14 reports by its proper name? As it turned out, no, it wasn't.
So I think the answer here is to use your best judgement. Sometimes it's wise to name elements/classes based on what they look like, and sometimes it's not.
What I don't understand about this issue are the arguments against doing something to resolve the problem.
Because all of the arguments seem to revolve around destroying the two great Satans of the USA and capitalism. Has it not been pointed out that the "polluter" USA gets punished severly by Kyoto while the "polluter" China gets a slap on the wrist? Has it not been pointed out that the Kyoto treaty was rejected nearly unanimously by the US Senate? Has it not been pointed out that the "solution" to the global warming problem specifically targets the "American love affair with the automobile" which is inextricably linked to millions of commuters getting to their jobs and allowing our economy to function?
It seems to me that those who champion "global warming solutions" are also those who happen to hate the United States and hate capitalism. (This pronouncement applies to many, but not all, who champion "global warming solutions.") I suspect that much of the motivation behind "global warming solutions" is the effort to weaken the United States and destroy capitalism (which is defined by many as evil). Until the "destroy capitalism" aspect of "global warming solutions" is removed, I'm going to remain highly skeptical of it.
Your argument is, "But whe HAVE to do SOMETHING!" Really? Are you sure? Is the "solution" going to make life worse for me than the "problem" will? Furthermoe, since the enemies of capitalism are my enemies, why should I trust what they say? Aren't they content to lie to a capitalist pig like me to ensure that a fair world comes about?
You are confusing postive atheism with negative atheism, a very common mistake that theists make (and quite often a tactic that theists use).
Postitive atheism is this: "I believe there is no God."
Negative atheism is this: "I do not believe in God."
The difference is subtle, but crucial. Positive atheism posits belief while negative atheism posits skepticism. I am a negative atheist. I do NOT believe. Your statement which starts with "atheists believe..." applies to positive atheists, but not to me.
After reading this debate between you, Triskele, and your opponent, I am more skeptical of your claims, not less. I'm astounded by your claiming to be a man of science, yet you have to resort so consistently to being elitist, smug, and condescending. It makes your argument look weak. After all, if your evidence was really so awesome and convincing, then you could have detailed it in a civil manner (the way your opponent treated you). For what reason did you behave otherwise?
Au contraire, I often find myself laughing at Libertarians.
Laughter is the first refuge of those with nothing intelligent to say. It's not that you think Libertarians' arguments are funny, but probably more because coming up with a rational defense or critique is hard, and you find mockery to be so much more pleasing than dignifying someone you hate with your intelligence.
And why is that? Because the philosophy that are espoused by that person and character are so odious that they don't deserve to see the light of day?
Well, if the philosophy is so invalid, then why not bring it out into the open where it can be openly discussed and shown for the fraudulent and dangerous philosophy that it is?
Are you pointing out the bias that the parent already admitted to?
No. I was pointing out the flaws in his reasoning and his failure to admit that his positions were highly dependant upon premises that are very much in dispute.
Or do you truly believe capitalism to be so free of evil that the communism of the corporation that appears to currently exist isn't happening?
Capitalism, the exchange of value for value in the absense of force or fraud, is moral.
I don't understand what you mean by "the communism of the corporation." Communism is the abolition of private property. How can a corporation exist when all property is owned by the state?
so, you say that pushing your restaurant down my throat is a "good thing"?????
Since you believe all advertising is inherently evil and I obviously disagree, what made you think that a purely emotional and shrill argument like that would change my mind? You're going to have to use facts and reason if you want me to accept your point of view, not whining and multiple quotation marks.
how about nobody does advertising?... and you get to be known in the old fashion - word of mouth... it's the most reliable source ever and all the involved parts are happy with it... if your restaurant is good it'll survive... maybe it won't develop same as fast, but the ultimate purpose of a business is to be useful and enjoyable to everyone, not to make money "instantly"...
You write things like this because you know very little about business. If my restaurant relied solely on word-of-mouth then it would have died in a matter of months.
Allow me to illustrate. You admit that word of mouth will not bring business as quickly as other forms of advertising. While that slow form of advertising is taking its own sweet time to build up sales, the bills keep rolling in. Rent is $3500 per month. Power is $4000 per month. Payroll is $6000 per month. (Mind you, in all of this, I as the owner do not get paid.) I also have to have food prepped which costs money, liquor ready which is C.O.D., Internet charges, phone bills (which are orders of mangitude higher that the consumer bills that you're used to), insurance payments, cleaning charges, gas bills (again, orders of magnitude higher), and the list goes on and on. ALL of these bills have to be paid whether or not I have sales, and the bills come rolling in on day 1, not day "whenever I have enough sales to pay them."
Now, according to you, I should solely rely on word-of-mouth advertising. Tell me, then, in the time that I have before word-of-mouth builds up, how am I supposed to pay all of those bills? Word-of-mouth can't do it fast enough! I don't have millions of dollars in the bank to support a money-losing business for years.
So I have, according to you, two choices:
1. Advertise and bring in business.
2. Lose all my assets. Declare bankruptcy. Fire all of my employees. Destroy my credit. Disappoint all of my loyal customers.
And I take it that you'll argue that #2 is the superior option because then I won't possibly inconvenience you with "evil" advertising. Quite frankly, since when was this about you and your petty feelings of rage, you self-indulgent little shit? God forbid that I deign advertise and allow this creation of mine to continue to provide for my employees, my customers, and (one day soon) my family for fear that I might inconvenience someone as important as you!
This is not about "making money instantly." This is about making a business work. Most businesses don't just make money "instantly." (In fact, most restaurants that fail will do so within the first year. The fact that we have survived this long and are now breaking even is a success in an of itself.) Businesses take time to build, and, if you don't advertise, then all of the enormous amount of time, money, and stress that you poured into that business will most likely be wasted and you'll be much worse off for having tried. In your preferred world, where no one advertised, then only super-rich people would be able to start businesses because only they would have the capital built up to weather then necessary storm while word-of-mouth advertising built up business. Middle-class folks like me would never be able to do it.
in fact, it's even simpler, the ultimate purpose is hapiness... and the "get rich or die trying" program, executed at maximum speed is not exactly a hapiness generator.
I don't count myself lucky that I have young, inexperienced people telling me how "simple" it all is. You hav
advertising IS THE REAL EVIL... PERIOD. # advertisers calculate ~like this : a lot of people are too lazy to do their own reserch # a lot of people are too dumb to do their own reserch # about the remained ~5%, we don't care
Real evil? Okay. Consider this.
I own a restaurant. I put an ad on the television or the radio that indicates what we do and where we are. People have come into our restaurant and enjoyed the experience as a result.
This is "REAL EVIL" to you? Were those people who came to my restaurant somehow too stupid or lazy to "do their own research" on (God, I don't know) where they wanted to eat dinner? The fact remains that after several months of being open, I would guess (and I can only guess) that less that 10% of the people who would ever eat in our restaurant even know we exist. How can we get that number higher without advertising?
I'd say there is a far cry from the ads we release to something more evil (like diet pills, for instance). Painting all adveritising as "evil" is shallow-minded of you.
So, considering how many times you referred to the free market, I'm guessing that's what you consider to be the "One True Way."
I don't believe in a "One True Way."
Now who's preaching?
I don't like preaching. I like reasoning and debate. Preaching assumes that the person to whom I'm preaching will sit down, shut up, and eat the pablum that I feed them. I would much rather challenge and be challeneged. If my philosophy really is as awesome as I think it is, then surely by reason and civility it will stand up to the objections of those who despise it.
I notice that the only attempt at response you offered was in effort to slander me as a hypocrite. Your ad hominem attacks build walls, not bridges. If you hate my philosophy, then, by all means, instruct me as to why it is unreasonable.
Universities (well, mine, at least) are places of extreme education and knowledge.
No doubt they are. The real question is, extreme education and knowledge of what? Are professors waxing endlessly over James Joyce's _Ulysses_ and what they "think it means"? Or are they stuyding sciences that will yield technological breakthroughs that will, say, cure cancer? I think you will agree with me that not all knowledge is equal in value, and that there is at least some of the education that goes on in Universities that amounts to nothing more than intellectual jack-off sessions.
my professors and most of my peers are more educated on the status of the nation and world than pretty well anybody else I come across
The real question in, educated on the status of the nation and world from which perspective? Naturally, I am asking which premises you take before you talk about "the status of the nation and the world." For instance, do you assume that the abolition of private property is The One True Path to World Peace?
Most professors I know aren't quite so "seperated from reality" as you would like to think. Most own homes and live just like normal people. Most have worked in private industry if that is possible in their field, and if not, have made an extensive and immersive study into their chosen field.
You fail to admit that many professors are tenured, unlike most everyone else in the non-academic sector. Reality is that if you do a bad job, then you will be fired. Non-reality is that if you do a bad job, you will never be fired no matter what. This non-reality is what many college professors enjoy, and I believe that their thoughts and reasoning is fermented in an environment in which the job insecurity brought on by working of the free market doesn't apply.
I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher.
If the professor uses the power that they have over their students to "educate" them in the wonders of communism, then I see them as no different from the Christian who "educates" them in the wonder of Christ. This is preaching, not teaching.
So, liberals are drawn to education, making it not unreasonable for schools to be liberal.
The fact that many liberals define capitalism as evil has something to do with it as well. Why should liberals be expected to sweat it out in the free market when they could relax under the comfortable umbrella of tenure and "educate" young, impressionable minds about the One True Way?
I think government funding of education is a positive thing.
Naturally. Catholic schools will teach their students that catholicism is the answer. Jewish schools will teach their students that Judaism is the answer. Government schools will teach their students that government is the answer. And what is the answer to all the world's problems in the minds of so many "liberals"? Government.
As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice."
I don't think any "emotional predisposition" or any feeling at all is a matter of choice. Feelings aren't right or wrong, they just are. Feelings happen automatically. We have no choice in how we feel. Choice comes in once we choose how to act upon our feelings.
Though I'm confused by your words, "As a legal necessity." What do you mean? Does the law (in your country) define feelings as choices? If so, then the law is wrong.
Hence, I judge false your statement that "being homosexual is a choice," as a person who is homosexual didn't choose to be turned on my same-gender sexual activity any more than they choose to prefer chocolate to vanilla. And yes, much to the distaste (pun intended) of some prominent and vocal homosexual activists, tastes change.
I'm gay, by the way, insomuch that "gay" is defined completely by my culture and not by science.
Many folks here are commenting (jokingly) about how this device can be used one-handed. I think what people need to accept is that this is actually a serious question: "How can I use this device while masturbating?" Loser jokes aside, many geek masturbate while in front of a keyboard, be it in some sexy chat (lucky) or thumbing through porn (typical).
I think this device could be improved by having a Penis Slot(TM). It would be a dimple (or Trench Option(TM), for the well-endowed nerd) on the device that, with the flick of a switch, would fire up the Force Feedback on "Unrelenting Vibrate " mode. Thus, at the user's command, the user can just move the whole unit onto his excited member and never take his hands off the keys.
Now, with *that* option, perhaps $100 doesn't seem so steep!
Well I'm not the Original Poster but I'd say using 3rd world labor for pennies on the hour to make clothes would be a good example of "ruining peoples lives". Many American and European corporations do just that.
That's called an example. How do you measure "ruining people's lives"? Speak in terms of units.
I'd say strip mining for coal or logging without replacing trees is a good example of ruining the environment.
That's called an example. How do you measure "ruining the environment"? Speak in terms of units.
If you are looking for someone to define a line as to what is "too far" in either circumstance, you'll be disappointed to find that the world is not a black and white place and that each case must be looked at individually to find out.
Are you admitting here that these things can not be measured? Well, if that's so, then that is precisely why I don't believe in them and why I reject Leftist philosophy! I maintain: if it exists, we can measure it. If we can't measure it, then I don't believe it.
How much does God weigh? Oh, you can't measure God?
Have you ever been happy? Don't give examples, HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT?
What does this have to do with philosophy? Everyone has purely subjective feelings. But founding a philosophy on those same subjective feelings that must be THE TRUTH FOR ALL HUMANITY is stupid. And that's my point. How can something be the truth for all humanity if it's subjective?
If you want to see what qualifies as "ruining people's lives" rent the film Roger & Me.
Again, how do you measure it? You gave me a movie that has examples, which I already indiciated would not convince me.
Why am I bothering to debate someone who doesn't believe that AIDS exists?
Well, that was an easy way out! Doesn't it suck when people ask you the nitty-gritty details of your belief structure and you find you can't defend it?
Mind you, I *do* believe that immune deficiency exists and that people die from it. But, examining the many changing claims of the AIDS church has left me with questions, not answers, about the "HIV==AIDS" theory.
Hello! I'm your friendly pseudophilosophy bullshit meter. I rate my parent post at a 9.8 out of a possible 10!
Hi! I'll be happy to rate your rating. I'm a meta-friendly-peudophilosophy-bullshit-meter.
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
I would accept that if:
1. Poster gave some statements in support of this position, and 2. Poster left out the "100%"
Since the poster merely made a statment and tried to "punch it up" by adding the "100%", I judge this to be argument by assertion.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary.
Ad hominem does not necessarily imply that the opponent must be "unjustifibly made fun of", as you claim. (I'd be interested to know what you think a "justified" mocking of one's opponent would be. Surely you're not going to sway many minds with *that* tactic!) By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem) 2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem) 3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument.
Sorry, I couldn't get past his fallacies that you've failed to defend. But I'll go ahead and critique the rest.
His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries,
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
And yet poster failed to provide for us what he considers to be "characteristics of a documentary". Certainly those would be up for debate.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it.
I did! Poster didn't have much of an argument to attack. I dislike considering the arguments of those who can't seem to begin their argument without throwing in a couple of stupid, flawed arguments at the get-go. Doesn't that seem like a waste of time? You, however, are much more interesting.
Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
I agree! Likewise, attacking the proper enumeration of informal fallacies with flawed arguments of your own will not convince me to your point of view.
Oh, I have to rate your rating. I rate it: not impressive.
I love it. It's so frequent. You can't attack my argument, so you go for the "weak point" by attacking my.sig. Did you think that I wouldn't be able to defend my point of view (which is skepticism by the way)?
Yes, genius, tens of millions of Africans are being poisoned by the antiviral drugs they're not taking.
I suppose that if you'd read further in the site, you'd realize that African "AIDS" and North American "AIDS" are quite, quite different. You'd also learn that the AIDS cases in Africa were ESTIMATED, not tested. In other words, "well-meaning" scientists have guessed that X million people in Africa have AIDS.
If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say,
Except that I didn't say that. Feel free to beat up strawmen, but it won't convince me to your point of view.
then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries.
That's stupid. If the facts are wrong but it's really "moving" and "passionate," then people will see it. This is how fiction works.
People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong.
That's not the "only" reason as you self-consolingly proclaim. Another reason that the Republicans could be all pissed-off is because people are being swayed by emotional arguments instead of facts. Do you remember how all the liberals were upset over "The Passion of the Christ"? That was another fictional movie, but it was very passionate and moving. It caused a mini-revival of sorts. I think both movies are stupid for the same reason: they rely on cheap sentimentality instead of facts and reason to convince people to their point of view. It's effective, but irritating to folks like me who reject superstition and emotion for the sake of promoting reason and evidence.
Anyone who dresses like Micheal Moore isn't too concerned about money.
I'm sure Moore is pleased to know that people buy into his image.
We think that making money is fine as long as you're not destroying people's lives
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining people's lives"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
and ruining the environment
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining the environment"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
The sooner you realize that you can't answer these questions without falling back on subjective, emotional, and superstitious arguments, you'll see while I reject Leftism wholesale. Your expected response to your admitting your failure will be to call me "unfeeling" or "cruel," which is an ad hominem argument.
Your terse reply indicates that you dislike my argument and probably dislike me as well. You probably don't think that I deserve much thought or attention, and that's led you to write something really stupid.
"Of course [it deserves a Golden Palm]"
Okay, suppose I make a movie which states that brutal black men rape innocent, beautiful white women 500,000 times a year and get away with it. I show one scene of a white woman who has actually been raped by a black man and really tug some heart strings with it. If I can make that scene passionate enough, would this film deserve a Golden Palm despite the fabricated (and quite distasteful) bullshit that I included?
it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie...
I debate Christians as a hobby coming from the position that evidence within scripture excludes it from being the perfect word of a divine being. One of the typical challenges I get from Christians is this: "Read the Bible for yourself and make your own opinion." Here, you make the same challenge. If I don't actually go see the movie, then I am not "thinking for myself."
Since I know the claims he made in the movie, and these claims can be fact-checked independently of seeing the movie, why is this not "thinking for myself"? It it perhaps because you're not interested in fact checking? Perhaps you're not interested in facts at all! Maybe you just like scary images and tear-jerking scenes. Is that it? Or is it something else? Please explain because I'm always curious when Leftists and rabid Christians use the exact same arguments against me.
I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.
Moore is good at what he does: propagandize. A thorough, well-researched, well-written essay on the topic would probably be more informative than a movie, but it would also be a lot more boring. Moore can "reach" a lot more (stupid) people with a movie that has lots of "scary" and "touching" scenes.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
I think he does care about money, as his not-quite-middle-class lifestyle would suggest. In this case, more people being swayed to his cause is worth more to him in the long run than some quick cash. He has his priorities in order.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Answer me this: if I make a movie that has loads and loads of fabricated bullshit, but I make a lot of people cry with it, does it deserve a Golden Palm? Is being "moving" and "passionate" more important than being factual and reasonable? It sounds like you think the answer ot that question is yes, though I imagine that you would qualify it with a statement like, "...yes, but only if the said movie advances the superstitious beliefs that I adhere to!"
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
No, thank you. The movie is based on presuppositions that I reject. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I waste my time seeing this pile o' poo? To see some "moving" scenes? There are plenty of movies that provide that without having to endure stupid, Leftist progaganda.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
J'adore la culture, la langue, et la cuisine francais. Mais je deteste la "leftisme," si c'est francais ou americian. Une culture riche n'excuse pas la stupidite, et la socialisme est stupide.
Exactly. Unions are not required to file class action lawsuits (and I think that one is merited in this case).
Teacher Unions are amongst the weakest unions, seeing how teachers do not have the right to strike.
Is that the only measure of strength that you give to unions? Consider this: the NEA frequently influences decisions made by government for schools. What other union has this kind of power? Do the Teamsters get asked for their opinion on transportation bills?
If you saw how school districts treat substitute teachers, you would realize why unions are needed.
If you would admit the massive corruption and extortion regularly used by unions for decades, you would accept that they have too much power and must be curtailed. Is there any amount of evidence that will convince you that unions are not as good as you think they are?
Slashdot Mirror
Name them for what they are, not what they look like.
This is good advice sometimes, but not all the time. I've designed lots of tables where the creative department says, "Use the gray box there," or "Use the red table there." Since I was writing a lot of reports, was I less wise to choose to name the class, "grayBox" and have all the reports use it rather than name each one of 14 reports by its proper name? As it turned out, no, it wasn't.
So I think the answer here is to use your best judgement. Sometimes it's wise to name elements/classes based on what they look like, and sometimes it's not.
What I don't understand about this issue are the arguments against doing something to resolve the problem.
Because all of the arguments seem to revolve around destroying the two great Satans of the USA and capitalism. Has it not been pointed out that the "polluter" USA gets punished severly by Kyoto while the "polluter" China gets a slap on the wrist? Has it not been pointed out that the Kyoto treaty was rejected nearly unanimously by the US Senate? Has it not been pointed out that the "solution" to the global warming problem specifically targets the "American love affair with the automobile" which is inextricably linked to millions of commuters getting to their jobs and allowing our economy to function?
It seems to me that those who champion "global warming solutions" are also those who happen to hate the United States and hate capitalism. (This pronouncement applies to many, but not all, who champion "global warming solutions.") I suspect that much of the motivation behind "global warming solutions" is the effort to weaken the United States and destroy capitalism (which is defined by many as evil). Until the "destroy capitalism" aspect of "global warming solutions" is removed, I'm going to remain highly skeptical of it.
Your argument is, "But whe HAVE to do SOMETHING!" Really? Are you sure? Is the "solution" going to make life worse for me than the "problem" will? Furthermoe, since the enemies of capitalism are my enemies, why should I trust what they say? Aren't they content to lie to a capitalist pig like me to ensure that a fair world comes about?
They believe in the religion of no God.
You are confusing postive atheism with negative atheism, a very common mistake that theists make (and quite often a tactic that theists use).
Postitive atheism is this: "I believe there is no God."
Negative atheism is this: "I do not believe in God."
The difference is subtle, but crucial. Positive atheism posits belief while negative atheism posits skepticism. I am a negative atheist. I do NOT believe. Your statement which starts with "atheists believe..." applies to positive atheists, but not to me.
After reading this debate between you, Triskele, and your opponent, I am more skeptical of your claims, not less. I'm astounded by your claiming to be a man of science, yet you have to resort so consistently to being elitist, smug, and condescending. It makes your argument look weak. After all, if your evidence was really so awesome and convincing, then you could have detailed it in a civil manner (the way your opponent treated you). For what reason did you behave otherwise?
Au contraire, I often find myself laughing at Libertarians.
Laughter is the first refuge of those with nothing intelligent to say. It's not that you think Libertarians' arguments are funny, but probably more because coming up with a rational defense or critique is hard, and you find mockery to be so much more pleasing than dignifying someone you hate with your intelligence.
It was a joke and I did not expect anyone to take it seriously.
Apologies. Sometimes its hard to tell, given this medium is text-only and all.
Those are questions best left unanswered.
And why is that? Because the philosophy that are espoused by that person and character are so odious that they don't deserve to see the light of day?
Well, if the philosophy is so invalid, then why not bring it out into the open where it can be openly discussed and shown for the fraudulent and dangerous philosophy that it is?
Are you pointing out the bias that the parent already admitted to?
No. I was pointing out the flaws in his reasoning and his failure to admit that his positions were highly dependant upon premises that are very much in dispute.
Or do you truly believe capitalism to be so free of evil that the communism of the corporation that appears to currently exist isn't happening?
Capitalism, the exchange of value for value in the absense of force or fraud, is moral.
I don't understand what you mean by "the communism of the corporation." Communism is the abolition of private property. How can a corporation exist when all property is owned by the state?
so, you say that pushing your restaurant down my throat is a "good thing"?????
... and you get to be known in the old fashion - word of mouth... it's the most reliable source ever and all the involved parts are happy with it... if your restaurant is good it'll survive ... maybe it won't develop same as fast, but the ultimate purpose of a business is to be useful and enjoyable to everyone, not to make money "instantly" ...
... and the "get rich or die trying" program, executed at maximum speed is not exactly a hapiness generator.
Since you believe all advertising is inherently evil and I obviously disagree, what made you think that a purely emotional and shrill argument like that would change my mind? You're going to have to use facts and reason if you want me to accept your point of view, not whining and multiple quotation marks.
how about nobody does advertising?
You write things like this because you know very little about business. If my restaurant relied solely on word-of-mouth then it would have died in a matter of months.
Allow me to illustrate. You admit that word of mouth will not bring business as quickly as other forms of advertising. While that slow form of advertising is taking its own sweet time to build up sales, the bills keep rolling in. Rent is $3500 per month. Power is $4000 per month. Payroll is $6000 per month. (Mind you, in all of this, I as the owner do not get paid.) I also have to have food prepped which costs money, liquor ready which is C.O.D., Internet charges, phone bills (which are orders of mangitude higher that the consumer bills that you're used to), insurance payments, cleaning charges, gas bills (again, orders of magnitude higher), and the list goes on and on. ALL of these bills have to be paid whether or not I have sales, and the bills come rolling in on day 1, not day "whenever I have enough sales to pay them."
Now, according to you, I should solely rely on word-of-mouth advertising. Tell me, then, in the time that I have before word-of-mouth builds up, how am I supposed to pay all of those bills? Word-of-mouth can't do it fast enough! I don't have millions of dollars in the bank to support a money-losing business for years.
So I have, according to you, two choices:
1. Advertise and bring in business.
2. Lose all my assets. Declare bankruptcy. Fire all of my employees. Destroy my credit. Disappoint all of my loyal customers.
And I take it that you'll argue that #2 is the superior option because then I won't possibly inconvenience you with "evil" advertising. Quite frankly, since when was this about you and your petty feelings of rage, you self-indulgent little shit? God forbid that I deign advertise and allow this creation of mine to continue to provide for my employees, my customers, and (one day soon) my family for fear that I might inconvenience someone as important as you!
This is not about "making money instantly." This is about making a business work. Most businesses don't just make money "instantly." (In fact, most restaurants that fail will do so within the first year. The fact that we have survived this long and are now breaking even is a success in an of itself.) Businesses take time to build, and, if you don't advertise, then all of the enormous amount of time, money, and stress that you poured into that business will most likely be wasted and you'll be much worse off for having tried. In your preferred world, where no one advertised, then only super-rich people would be able to start businesses because only they would have the capital built up to weather then necessary storm while word-of-mouth advertising built up business. Middle-class folks like me would never be able to do it.
in fact, it's even simpler, the ultimate purpose is hapiness
I don't count myself lucky that I have young, inexperienced people telling me how "simple" it all is. You hav
advertising IS THE REAL EVIL ... PERIOD.
# advertisers calculate ~like this : a lot of people are too lazy to do their own reserch
# a lot of people are too dumb to do their own reserch
# about the remained ~5%, we don't care
Real evil? Okay. Consider this.
I own a restaurant. I put an ad on the television or the radio that indicates what we do and where we are. People have come into our restaurant and enjoyed the experience as a result.
This is "REAL EVIL" to you? Were those people who came to my restaurant somehow too stupid or lazy to "do their own research" on (God, I don't know) where they wanted to eat dinner? The fact remains that after several months of being open, I would guess (and I can only guess) that less that 10% of the people who would ever eat in our restaurant even know we exist. How can we get that number higher without advertising?
I'd say there is a far cry from the ads we release to something more evil (like diet pills, for instance). Painting all adveritising as "evil" is shallow-minded of you.
So, considering how many times you referred to the free market, I'm guessing that's what you consider to be the "One True Way."
I don't believe in a "One True Way."
Now who's preaching?
I don't like preaching. I like reasoning and debate. Preaching assumes that the person to whom I'm preaching will sit down, shut up, and eat the pablum that I feed them. I would much rather challenge and be challeneged. If my philosophy really is as awesome as I think it is, then surely by reason and civility it will stand up to the objections of those who despise it.
I notice that the only attempt at response you offered was in effort to slander me as a hypocrite. Your ad hominem attacks build walls, not bridges. If you hate my philosophy, then, by all means, instruct me as to why it is unreasonable.
Universities (well, mine, at least) are places of extreme education and knowledge.
No doubt they are. The real question is, extreme education and knowledge of what? Are professors waxing endlessly over James Joyce's _Ulysses_ and what they "think it means"? Or are they stuyding sciences that will yield technological breakthroughs that will, say, cure cancer? I think you will agree with me that not all knowledge is equal in value, and that there is at least some of the education that goes on in Universities that amounts to nothing more than intellectual jack-off sessions.
my professors and most of my peers are more educated on the status of the nation and world than pretty well anybody else I come across
The real question in, educated on the status of the nation and world from which perspective? Naturally, I am asking which premises you take before you talk about "the status of the nation and the world." For instance, do you assume that the abolition of private property is The One True Path to World Peace?
Most professors I know aren't quite so "seperated from reality" as you would like to think. Most own homes and live just like normal people. Most have worked in private industry if that is possible in their field, and if not, have
made an extensive and immersive study into their chosen field.
You fail to admit that many professors are tenured, unlike most everyone else in the non-academic sector. Reality is that if you do a bad job, then you will be fired. Non-reality is that if you do a bad job, you will never be fired no matter what. This non-reality is what many college professors enjoy, and I believe that their thoughts and reasoning is fermented in an environment in which the job insecurity brought on by working of the free market doesn't apply.
I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher.
If the professor uses the power that they have over their students to "educate" them in the wonders of communism, then I see them as no different from the Christian who "educates" them in the wonder of Christ. This is preaching, not teaching.
So, liberals are drawn to education, making it not unreasonable for schools to be liberal.
The fact that many liberals define capitalism as evil has something to do with it as well. Why should liberals be expected to sweat it out in the free market when they could relax under the comfortable umbrella of tenure and "educate" young, impressionable minds about the One True Way?
I think government funding of education is a positive thing.
Naturally. Catholic schools will teach their students that catholicism is the answer. Jewish schools will teach their students that Judaism is the answer. Government schools will teach their students that government is the answer. And what is the answer to all the world's problems in the minds of so many "liberals"? Government.
As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice."
I don't think any "emotional predisposition" or any feeling at all is a matter of choice. Feelings aren't right or wrong, they just are. Feelings happen automatically. We have no choice in how we feel. Choice comes in once we choose how to act upon our feelings.
Though I'm confused by your words, "As a legal necessity." What do you mean? Does the law (in your country) define feelings as choices? If so, then the law is wrong.
Hence, I judge false your statement that "being homosexual is a choice," as a person who is homosexual didn't choose to be turned on my same-gender sexual activity any more than they choose to prefer chocolate to vanilla. And yes, much to the distaste (pun intended) of some prominent and vocal homosexual activists, tastes change.
I'm gay, by the way, insomuch that "gay" is defined completely by my culture and not by science.
Many folks here are commenting (jokingly) about how this device can be used one-handed. I think what people need to accept is that this is actually a serious question: "How can I use this device while masturbating?" Loser jokes aside, many geek masturbate while in front of a keyboard, be it in some sexy chat (lucky) or thumbing through porn (typical).
I think this device could be improved by having a Penis Slot(TM). It would be a dimple (or Trench Option(TM), for the well-endowed nerd) on the device that, with the flick of a switch, would fire up the Force Feedback on "Unrelenting Vibrate " mode. Thus, at the user's command, the user can just move the whole unit onto his excited member and never take his hands off the keys.
Now, with *that* option, perhaps $100 doesn't seem so steep!
Well I'm not the Original Poster but I'd say using 3rd world labor for pennies on the hour to make clothes would be a good example of "ruining peoples lives". Many American and European corporations do just that.
That's called an example. How do you measure "ruining people's lives"? Speak in terms of units.
I'd say strip mining for coal or logging without replacing trees is a good example of ruining the environment.
That's called an example. How do you measure "ruining the environment"? Speak in terms of units.
If you are looking for someone to define a line as to what is "too far" in either circumstance, you'll be disappointed to find that the world is not a black and white place and that each case must be looked at individually to find out.
Are you admitting here that these things can not be measured? Well, if that's so, then that is precisely why I don't believe in them and why I reject Leftist philosophy! I maintain: if it exists, we can measure it. If we can't measure it, then I don't believe it.
How much does God weigh? Oh, you can't measure God?
Have you ever been happy? Don't give examples, HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT?
What does this have to do with philosophy? Everyone has purely subjective feelings. But founding a philosophy on those same subjective feelings that must be THE TRUTH FOR ALL HUMANITY is stupid. And that's my point. How can something be the truth for all humanity if it's subjective?
If you want to see what qualifies as "ruining people's lives" rent the film Roger & Me.
Again, how do you measure it? You gave me a movie that has examples, which I already indiciated would not convince me.
Why am I bothering to debate someone who doesn't believe that AIDS exists?
Well, that was an easy way out! Doesn't it suck when people ask you the nitty-gritty details of your belief structure and you find you can't defend it?
Mind you, I *do* believe that immune deficiency exists and that people die from it. But, examining the many changing claims of the AIDS church has left me with questions, not answers, about the "HIV==AIDS" theory.
Hello! I'm your friendly pseudophilosophy bullshit meter. I rate my parent post at a 9.8 out of a possible 10!
Hi! I'll be happy to rate your rating. I'm a meta-friendly-peudophilosophy-bullshit-meter.
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
I would accept that if:
1. Poster gave some statements in support of this position, and
2. Poster left out the "100%"
Since the poster merely made a statment and tried to "punch it up" by adding the "100%", I judge this to be argument by assertion.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary.
Ad hominem does not necessarily imply that the opponent must be "unjustifibly made fun of", as you claim. (I'd be interested to know what you think a "justified" mocking of one's opponent would be. Surely you're not going to sway many minds with *that* tactic!) By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument.
Sorry, I couldn't get past his fallacies that you've failed to defend. But I'll go ahead and critique the rest.
His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries,
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
And yet poster failed to provide for us what he considers to be "characteristics of a documentary". Certainly those would be up for debate.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it.
I did! Poster didn't have much of an argument to attack. I dislike considering the arguments of those who can't seem to begin their argument without throwing in a couple of stupid, flawed arguments at the get-go. Doesn't that seem like a waste of time? You, however, are much more interesting.
Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
I agree! Likewise, attacking the proper enumeration of informal fallacies with flawed arguments of your own will not convince me to your point of view.
Oh, I have to rate your rating. I rate it: not impressive.
I've seen you say this before, but I don't think you've mentioned what presuppositions Moore makes that you're rejecting.
1. America is evil
2. Capitalism is evil
3. Greed exists
4. Americans are stupid
5. Islam is a benevolent and peaceful religion
I reject all five.
Now that I have mentioned them, do you care to have a meaningful discussion with me, or are you just going to take cheap shots?
I love it. It's so frequent. You can't attack my argument, so you go for the "weak point" by attacking my .sig. Did you think that I wouldn't be able to defend my point of view (which is skepticism by the way)?
Yes, genius, tens of millions of Africans are being poisoned by the antiviral drugs they're not taking.
I suppose that if you'd read further in the site, you'd realize that African "AIDS" and North American "AIDS" are quite, quite different. You'd also learn that the AIDS cases in Africa were ESTIMATED, not tested. In other words, "well-meaning" scientists have guessed that X million people in Africa have AIDS.
If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say,
Except that I didn't say that. Feel free to beat up strawmen, but it won't convince me to your point of view.
then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries.
That's stupid. If the facts are wrong but it's really "moving" and "passionate," then people will see it. This is how fiction works.
People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong.
That's not the "only" reason as you self-consolingly proclaim. Another reason that the Republicans could be all pissed-off is because people are being swayed by emotional arguments instead of facts. Do you remember how all the liberals were upset over "The Passion of the Christ"? That was another fictional movie, but it was very passionate and moving. It caused a mini-revival of sorts. I think both movies are stupid for the same reason: they rely on cheap sentimentality instead of facts and reason to convince people to their point of view. It's effective, but irritating to folks like me who reject superstition and emotion for the sake of promoting reason and evidence.
Anyone who dresses like Micheal Moore isn't too concerned about money.
I'm sure Moore is pleased to know that people buy into his image.
We think that making money is fine as long as you're not destroying people's lives
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining people's lives"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
and ruining the environment
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining the environment"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
The sooner you realize that you can't answer these questions without falling back on subjective, emotional, and superstitious arguments, you'll see while I reject Leftism wholesale. Your expected response to your admitting your failure will be to call me "unfeeling" or "cruel," which is an ad hominem argument.
F911 is 100% documentary.
Argument by assertion.
If you deny that, you don't know what a documentary is,
Ad hominem.
It's a movie - so your answer is, "of course."
Your terse reply indicates that you dislike my argument and probably dislike me as well. You probably don't think that I deserve much thought or attention, and that's led you to write something really stupid.
"Of course [it deserves a Golden Palm]"
Okay, suppose I make a movie which states that brutal black men rape innocent, beautiful white women 500,000 times a year and get away with it. I show one scene of a white woman who has actually been raped by a black man and really tug some heart strings with it. If I can make that scene passionate enough, would this film deserve a Golden Palm despite the fabricated (and quite distasteful) bullshit that I included?
it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie...
I debate Christians as a hobby coming from the position that evidence within scripture excludes it from being the perfect word of a divine being. One of the typical challenges I get from Christians is this: "Read the Bible for yourself and make your own opinion." Here, you make the same challenge. If I don't actually go see the movie, then I am not "thinking for myself."
Since I know the claims he made in the movie, and these claims can be fact-checked independently of seeing the movie, why is this not "thinking for myself"? It it perhaps because you're not interested in fact checking? Perhaps you're not interested in facts at all! Maybe you just like scary images and tear-jerking scenes. Is that it? Or is it something else? Please explain because I'm always curious when Leftists and rabid Christians use the exact same arguments against me.
I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.
Moore is good at what he does: propagandize. A thorough, well-researched, well-written essay on the topic would probably be more informative than a movie, but it would also be a lot more boring. Moore can "reach" a lot more (stupid) people with a movie that has lots of "scary" and "touching" scenes.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
I think he does care about money, as his not-quite-middle-class lifestyle would suggest. In this case, more people being swayed to his cause is worth more to him in the long run than some quick cash. He has his priorities in order.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Answer me this: if I make a movie that has loads and loads of fabricated bullshit, but I make a lot of people cry with it, does it deserve a Golden Palm? Is being "moving" and "passionate" more important than being factual and reasonable? It sounds like you think the answer ot that question is yes, though I imagine that you would qualify it with a statement like, "...yes, but only if the said movie advances the superstitious beliefs that I adhere to!"
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
No, thank you. The movie is based on presuppositions that I reject. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I waste my time seeing this pile o' poo? To see some "moving" scenes? There are plenty of movies that provide that without having to endure stupid, Leftist progaganda.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
J'adore la culture, la langue, et la cuisine francais. Mais je deteste la "leftisme," si c'est francais ou americian. Une culture riche n'excuse pas la stupidite, et la socialisme est stupide.
Let me give an example of how unions are usefull.
Great... but then you admit:
The union did not have to get involve,
Exactly. Unions are not required to file class action lawsuits (and I think that one is merited in this case).
Teacher Unions are amongst the weakest unions, seeing how teachers do not have the right to strike.
Is that the only measure of strength that you give to unions? Consider this: the NEA frequently influences decisions made by government for schools. What other union has this kind of power? Do the Teamsters get asked for their opinion on transportation bills?
If you saw how school districts treat substitute teachers, you would realize why unions are needed.
If you would admit the massive corruption and extortion regularly used by unions for decades, you would accept that they have too much power and must be curtailed. Is there any amount of evidence that will convince you that unions are not as good as you think they are?