If you're so sure that HIV != AIDS, why don't you infect yourself with HIV, don't take any AZT and check if you develop AIDS or not? You see, if you want to be scientific on that, you should do this experiment because you shouldn't be worried.
I've thought about this several times, but I'd need a quid pro quo. If I do this, then you must immediately start taking the standard regimen of AZT and we'll see who dies first. Who do you think it will be: you or I?
Your rebuttal does not address your original claim.
And what is my original claim? It is one of skepticism: I do not believe what the church of HIV==AIDS claims. I am fully capable of discussing this if you so desire. The point behind my rebuttal is to show you that I am not a troll who is merely trying to get people's goat. This is a very serious topic to me. The problem lies in the fact that many people treat HIV==AIDS as Sacrosanct Truth and get very, very mad when people doubt it.
No where in the parent post do you make any factual claims about the relationship of HIV to AIDS; you discuss a related topic (the accuracy of HIV tests) which does not have any relevance to your stated claim of "HIV==AIDS", as HIV is defined as a particular virus, not as the veracity of one test.
The veracity of the HIV test is one of many problems in the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Besides, it is your responsibility, not mine, to defend your claims about this alleged disease and this alleged virus.
Are you saying that we should not read your words at face value, but should rather 'interpret them in context', or some such?
No.
I think we need some vague, occasionally contradictory accounts including some parts of the same story from your contemporaries to argue over...
No. Insetad, why don't you defend the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. We'll start here:
How does HIV cause AIDS, now that the HIV==AIDS proponents have admitted that HIV does NOT kill T-cells?
Perhaps your sig should read '"A positive HIV test == AIDS" hypothesis..." ' if that's what you actually mean.
With all due respect, do you really give a damn what I mean? I get the impression that you'd much rather humiliate me into silence than engage me in a thoughtful discussion on the issue.
Good Works are a NECESSARY but NOT a SUFFICIENT condition for the True Saving Faith that will get you into Heaven.
So you're arguing "faith and works". Too bad not everyone in the Bible agrees with you (namely, Jesus and Paul).
On the other hand, if you have never killed another human being but once told a silly lie about being busy a night you weren't in order to avoid being with someone, then if you do not have saving faith this evil act of dishonesty is still enough to push you away from God because ALL evil is ABHORRANT to him.
It's telling that you have to tell me how God feels. Shouldn't God be able to inform me of this on his own? Why do you get to be the mouthpiece? Is it because God lives in your imagination and not in reality? If not that, then what?
This is why no matter how good you thing you are, you are still a terrible person in God's eyes due to your imperfections.
This is the main reason why I reject Christianity as stupid and bad. It preaches constantly how humans are vile, evil, disgusting, repugnant creatures. While that may bring money into the churches' coffers, all aspects of that negative axiom are harmful to humans.
I find it interesting that people are responding to someone who explicitly states that they're trolling. Don't waste your breath, folks - you have been trolled and the more you argue, the more he laughs.
The HIV test is inaccurate; i.e., it can give false positives.
The side-effects of AZT match the symptoms of AIDS. AZT is very toxic to the human body.
A person could have, therefore, falsely tested positive for HIV, and then died of AZT poisoning.
Tell me: does this sound like a laughing matter to you?
"Lord, when did we see you in need and didn't do anything?" "What you didn't do for everyone, you didn't do for me."
Wrong. He didn't say, "What you didn't do for everyone," he said, "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these...."
The implication is not "Help people in need", it's "Don't deny giving help to people in need".
Your telling us what Jesus "implied" is not required. We have what he said. I work form the understanding that the Bible means what it says and says what it means, and Biblicists hate that. They like to "interpret" it in the "correct context."
Jesus did not say anything about "denying giving help." That is your insertion. I suggest you try a different argument that doesn't rely on rewriting the text. (By the way, your reply falls into the category of, "That's what it says, but that's not what it means.")
The meaning is different, however - the meaning *can* be divine
I don't think so. What is "the divine" lives in the imaginations of humans and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary that is even remotely convincing.
You're presuming that works and faith in this case are separate, when they don't need to be.
I make no such presumption. Jesus states that the final judgement will be based on works and works alone. Faith is not mentioned as a requirement. Certainly James states otherwise, but, last I checked, the religion is called "Christianity," not "Jamesianity." Shouldn't Jesus's words take precedence?
This, of course, solves the problem of whether or not Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. can be saved. Of course they can.
This assumes that Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. need to be saved, and I certainly disagree with that assumption. No one needs salvation. It is a superstitious invention.
I think that the salvation issue here is kind of at a moot point. I mean, if you have have faith you should also have the holy spirit which should produce works in you.
This is the argument put forth in the book of James. Too bad it doesn't jive with Paul's argument (who argued that faith and faith alone would save, and that there is no work that will save). It also conflicts with Jesus at some point, who also argued faith and faith alone. But Jesus wasn't consistent on the issue of salvation at all.
Many people bring up arguments such as these to show some sort of "conflict" in the bible (there are some but nothing too ridiculous).
I can bring up conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Bible all day long. I can ask more questions in a minute than you can answer in your whole lifetime. If you're using the Bible as the basis of your belief, then you're in trouble.
Good grief man, being a scientist myself how can you deny HIV=Aids?
Like this: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
Works is done on the virus in my lab, I know enough about it know the two are linked.
I don't believe you. Prove it! Better yet, answer me this: how many AIDS deaths were actually caused by AZT poisoning?
As for your virus myth page, Mullis is an idiot. Everyone knows that. He won the nobel prize for inventing a thermocycler.
I'm not familiar with any of Mullis's arguments. Since he is the only one that you can find fault with (and I notice you attack him instead of attacking his arguments), then should I assume that you agree with all the others?
C'mon man.
I thought a scientist would be able to generate a more convincing argument than "c'mon man."
No, according to the Bible, works ("living a good life" in your words) don't count, no matter how great and wonderful you think you're being. Faith, and only faith gets the job done.
You're wrong. Well, you're right if you read Paul and pretend that Jesus didn't say anything. Jesus and Paul don't agree on many things. Salvation is probably the biggest one. Consider this scripture:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Mat 25:31-46.
Here Jesus gathers up everyone in the world ("all the nations") and judges them. What is the criteria for judgement? Faith? Abosolutely not! Jesus doesn't even mention faith! The criteria is works and works alone.
That's it. Nothing else to it. It's in black and white in the Bible. You'd have to actually read it to know that, though.
Nice little dig. Unfortunately for you, I *do* read the Bible and know exactly how flawed it is and can detail and debate those flaws with any Christian on the planet. It is the work of humans, not the perfect work of a divine being.
There's no difficult list of rules, either.
Again, wrong. In order to get into heaven, you must do the following:
You must give food to the hungry.
You must give drink to the thirsty.
You must invite strangers in.
You must give clothes to those who need them.
You must visit those in prison.
If you do those things, you go to heaven. Otherwise, you roast in hell. If you disagree with this, then you are disagreeing with Jesus. Your likely response is to argue, "That's what Jesus said, but that's not what he meant." Or perhaps you'll try, "You're taking things out of context." Maybe, if you're desparate, you'll try the "natural man" argument.
The majority of the New Testament is philosophical explanation of Jesus' words, and guidelines for behavior given by the early apostles, not the direct handing down of a list of rules by God (like the Ten Commandments).
Incorrect again. The majority of the New Testament is the creation of the "Christian" doctrine by
Because the samba team havent taken their finger out of their ass to implement Win2K3 compatibility yet, genius.
This is a "blame the victim" argument. Microsoft could have chosen to make Win2K3 compatibility easy to implement by others. They could have chosen to publish specs. But they won't because it conflicts with their desire make it as difficult as possible for people to use non-Microsoft software.
When they do, you'll have your access.
And what if newer versions of windows are protected by patents so that no amount of volition on the Samba team could grant one access?
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
OK, but then you should make it clear that you also don't believe that humans are not influencing climate change. You only seem to be attacking one side of the controversy, and your language is a little, um, unrestrained (see below). Maybe you are equally skeptical about the non-anthropogenic school of thought elsewhere and I shouldn't judge from this thread. If so, sorry.
I am not obligated to also say "I don't believe the other side" when I tell someone I don't believe their claims.
Who said it does your oppenent's claims "true by default"? Certainly not me.
Good thing I didn't accuse you, then. But you'll see this kind of thinking everywhere. HIV==AIDS apologists claim that if I can't come up with a "better theory" for AIDS (of course, this assumes that we agree on what "AIDS" is and that it needs a theory to explain it), then their dogma is "true by default." Christian Creationists think that if they can poke holes in evolution, then biblical creationism is "true by default."
FWIW, I'm philosophically an agnostic who inclines towards atheism. Why don't I just come out and say I'm an atheist? Because one can't prove there is no god. To my mind, an atheist does have to prove the non-existence of god - because that's what they believe in.
There are two types of athiests: positive (or "strong") atheists who claim "I believe there is no god", and negative (or "weak") atheists who claim, "I do not believe there is a god." Again, see the difference? One posits belief while the other does not. I am a negative athiest. Someone else brought up the issue of "god." It is *they*, not *I* who is obligated to pony up the evidence.
If you'd like a good read on why there's no such thing as an "agnostic", then check out this page.
Again, if somebody says, "I believe there is no god", do you say "I don't believe you" to that? If so, then we agree on something at least.
I have never met anyone who believed in the non-existence of a god. If I did, I would probably ask them for evidence, but I would probably be a lot nicer than I would be toward more common supersitionists (Christians, Vegans, Environmentalists, etc.)
OK, fair enough, but if that's so then you shouldn't use such laden terms as "superstitious" or "acolytes". You may not think we have enough evidence yet to come to a final conclusion on the matter, but a lot of (non-leftist/green/religious or whatever it is you dislike) climatologists don't agree - I know and work with some. Doesn't mean they are right, but they are not superstitious acolytes.
I'm not so sure about that. You know as well as I that "global warming" is a core Leftist belief, and Leftists are using fear of it to punish humans for the evils that they've committed to Gaea. This is the superstition that I hate, and the whole "global warming" fiasco stinks to high hell of it.
From your language, it is hard to avoid the impression that despite your disclaimers, you have indeed made up your mind on the subject.
I have strong opinions on a few things. Perhaps what you perceive as my having made up my mind on "the subject" actually involves a different subject.
I admit I misread your position, but that's yet another good reason to tone down the rhetoric, it adds uneccessary heat to the discussion when it needs more light instead.
I think all stupidity and superstition needs to be called for what it is. Leftism and Environmetnatlism are stupid, superstitious philosophies. Don't you agree that stupid beliefs deserve to be ridiculed? Aren't intelligence and sound reasoning qualities to be lauded?
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
Semantics. Let me rephrase what you said: "I believe that the actions of humans are not affecting "global climate change" in a measurable degree."
No, it is not semantics. In your version, you are putting forth a claim. In my version, I am making no claims. Therein lies the difference. It is subtle and crucial.
Means precisely the same thing as what you actually said, but it highlights the fact that you believe in a position just as much as your opponent does.
Except that I don't make that position at all. It was my opponent who put forth the claim, not I.
(Incidentally, the same goes for atheists vs. religious types.)
We non-believers are not required to prove the nonexistence of God. I never claim, "I believe there is no god." Someone else claims, "There is a god," and the response is, "I don't believe you." My failure to believe does not make my opponent's claims "true by default", no matter how much Christians and "global warming" acolytes would love for that to be so.
Now cut the rhetoric and start talking about evidence, one way or the other.
Precicely! Show me the money! If someone makes the claim that humans' activities are effecting "global climate change" then they have to pony up the evidence. Just because I don't believe their claims does *not* mean that I am making the opposite claim and does *not* obligate me to support a claim that you think I'm making.
Oh, okay. I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.
Re:The danger of "*might*"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
It's not besides the point at all. We know humans exist, we know they love to put out lots of CO2, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know the earth is warming up.
You're actually arguing a different point, but that's okay.
Answer me this: how much is the earth warming up (I'll point out there that "global warming" evangelists have started calling it "global climate change")? And how much of that warming up is being caused by "greenhouse gases" as opposed to other things? Certainly these things are measurable.
Now that might not be sufficient evidence, but I'm sure it would make us suspect number one in any investigation.
It is not sufficient evidence for me until you can answer those questions I've asked. I think the reason that you put humans at the top of the suspect list is because you think humans are inherently selfish, greedy, and evil.
Meanwhile the aliens can't even be placed at the scene of the crime.
The aliens' sufficiently advanced technology renders them undetectable. Remember (and we're back to my original point here), this is what *might* be true.
Why, because you think I'm wrong and you think a slow agonizing death befits me?
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
As someone who is agnostic leaning towards athiesm, I take issue with your acribing the word "miracle" to only have a religious context: the modern usage of the word has evolved way beyond religion and is commonly used to refer to exceptional and/or improbable events beyond probability (eg, "a miraculous recovery", "Music City Miracle"): perhaps you've even heard of the phrase "miracle of modern science"?
As an objectivist, I will out-atheist you. When you absorbed that quote as your own opinion, you used the word "miracle" to describe the earth in a supernatural way, not in the flippant "a miraculous recovery" way. The basis of environmentalism (and some strains of vegetarianism) is a belief in "mother earth" as god.
Whatever evidence I provide here will no doubt be ridiculed by you in some way, shape or form, but here's just one recent story you could read and then look into further if you really have an open mind:
I will open-mindedly view most anything you ask me to, unless it's really horrible, in which case I'll make you force me to plow through it. I will also mercilessly subject it to the eye of critical reason and relentless fact-searching -- as far as my own biases will allow.
To quote the article summary in full:
To mince your quotation in full:
The Greenland ice-sheet would melt faster in a warmer climate
I'm so glad we have your hyper-intelligent scientists to inform us of earth-shattering insights like these.
and is likely to be eliminated . . . if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 3 C.
". . . and is likely to be eliminated twice as fast if the average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 6 degrees C. . . . and is likely to be eliminated but half as fast if the average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 1.5 degrees C."
Notice all the "ifs" and "abouts" that those statements rely on? Notice how they are all the same sentence but with multipliers applied to the sentences' figures?
This could raise the global average sea-level by 7 metres over a period of 1,000 years or more.
Likewise this could cause my turds to become sentient and form a socialist colony in my toilet bowl. Since we're only talking about what it could do (provided that we assume the existence of "it") and not what it will do, the sky is the limit of our speculative powers.
We show here that concentrations of greenhouse gases will probably have reached levels before the year 2100 that are sufficient to raise the temperature past this warming threshold.
"Probably"? Weak! Do I really have to read the rest of this article? Is the rest of it as stupid as the introduction is?
Frankly though, the fact that you need me to find material that you could quite easily google for shows me that you're the kind of individual that's unwilling to accept anything that isn't staring them directly in the face.
I can quite easily google for any theory that has scientific language painted on it. Does the fact that I am not googling for those prove that I am the kind of individual that's unwilling to accept anything that isn't staring me directly in the face?
Do you realize that your language focusing on my failings rather than the substance of your dogma (you know, the one that you're pissed off at me about because I won't accept it) is the same tactic that Christians and Socialists employ against me when I tell them, "I don't buy it"?
Lastly, it's you that turned this into a debate about the political agendas of the left or the right;
Incorrect. You know as well as I that the subject of "global warming" (see also: _Earth in the Balance_ by Al Gore) is a core Leftist belief. Not all scientists agree with it. Whether or not the Right-wingers are correct does not change the fact that global warming is a core Leftist belief. You brought up this subject,
Re:The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
How the hell you can bring religion into this is amazing.
Sorry, bud. It was you, not I, that brought the religion of "humans are inherently evil" into this picture. This is your quote: "This is a fragile ball we're living on. It's a miracle and we're destroying it." A "miracle"? Isn't a "miracle" something supernatural? Something magically beyond the realm of science? Something from "god"?
We're talking about measurable climate change and the impact it has upon our environment,
Which is caused by inherently evil humans who destroy everything they touch, right?
As to your belief that the our actions aren't effecting our environment to "a measurable degree", well, that's a nice "I'll stick my head in the sand and pretend it's all nature at work" attitude.
Where did I say that I belived that our actions weren't affecting our environment to a measurable degree? Let me print what I wrote: "I do not believe that the actions of humans are effecting "global climate change" in a measurable degree." My position is skepticism, not belief. It is you, not I, that has some (superstitious) belief, and it is you, not I that must defend it.
That man can profoundly effect his environment, through pollution, deforestation, etc isn't deniable but you choose to deny it anyway.
I never denied that humans can affect the environment through pollution or deforestation. Ad hominem strawmen like these are typical of those who have shitty arguments.
That you dismiss all related science as "superstitious", "leftist", etc is incredible.
As I said: outrage is the typical reaction when people don't buy into your superstitious beliefs. If your position is really based in science instead of superstition, then why not give me the reason and evidence? Talking about how "incredible" it is that I won't prostrate myself to your beliefs is not going to work.
I certainly do not dismiss "all related science" as superstitious and Leftist. I call superstition when it see it, and I call the religion of Leftism when I see it. It is a Leftist (and Christian, for that matter) tactic to apply scientific language to their superstitious beliefs and call it "science".
Science is science: don't try to politicise or subvert it to suit your own agenda; stick to the facts please.
It appears to be you, not I, that is trying to politicize science. And what, exactly, do you suppose my alleged "agenda" is? I support evidence and reason, two things that I think science relies on. What is your agenda? Do you think that evidence and reason suck? (My guess is that you do, but you won't say it in that language.)
You seemed to ignore the fact that since you made the claim, the onus of proof is on you, not I. I repeat: You made the claim, so you have to prove it!
The danger of "*might*"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Accepting the theorie that global warming just *might* be human induced is not the same as making it your new religion and personally I have never been attacked by animals because of it:)
Since you accept the theory that global warming *might* be human-induced, then will you accept the theory that global warming *might* be alien-induced?
It *might* also be ghost-induced for that matter, and it *might* be demon-induced.
You will probably attempt to counter this by stating that "we know that humans exist, while we don't know about the other ones." That's beside the point. They all *might* exist, right?
This is why I reject all "might-based" arguments. I will accept your argument if the evidence is sufficient and the reasoning is sound. Otherwise, it *might* be true that our brains are all controlled by robots from another dimension. Why not believe that, if we're going to accept what *might* be true?
Well-reasoned and insightful! Welcome to my friend list.:)
Blanket statements
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Although I agree with you that we don't know if global warming is suppose to happen right now anyway, the rate of change is what's alarming the scientists.
Which scientists? You act as if all scientists are alarmed by evidence that they all have observed and agree upon, when that could not be farther from the truth.
Records going back hundreds of years give us a pretty good image of the weather pattern we're suppose to receive.
Whose records? Again, you act as if the data that has been collected has been agreed upon as genuine and bias-free, and it doesn't appear to be that way at all.
The amount of extreme weather occurances and unprecedented warming of land inside the arctic circle is why scientists are concerned. The rate of change is simply beyond anything nature alone could do.
Boy, that sure sounds scary! We all know that fear is more powerful than boring old evidence and reasoning in trying to get people to do what you want them to do.
So yes I do agree with you that globam warming and ice ages are normal. Maybe we're suppose to have global warming anyway.
But I thought that this was "simply beyond anything nature alone could do"?
I'll add here that your choice to use the word "simply" is suspicious in itself. If it really was so simple, then why did you feel compelled to label it as such? Its "simplicity" should be self-evident, shouldn't it?
But the rate that this is happening is alarming. And it leaves us little time to prepare ourselves to find ways to adapt to the new climate.
Yes, we should all be alarmed rather than rational and make fear-based choices rather than reason-based choices. Time is running out, right?
"We Have to Do Something!" (TM)
The religion of "Humans are Evil"
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
The attitude of a lot of people here on Slashdot with regards to global warming amazes me.
Which attitude, the one of "I don't buy it"? Outrage is the typical reaction to those who don't buy into your superstitious beliefs.
This is something that could possibly devastate society as we know it, perhaps not for us, but for our children or our children's children, but there's a great many people who either dismiss it as never going to happen or something that can be easily controlled without any major shifts in lifestyle or attitude.
Allow me to be direct: I do not believe that the actions of humans are effecting "global climate change" in a measurable degree. I am skeptical of what you claim. You made the claim, so you have to prove it. I am not required to disprove your claims, and my failure to do so does not make them "true by default."
Someone once said "This is a fragile ball we're living on. It's a miracle and we're destroying it."
"Humans are inherently evil. We destroy everything we touch. We should all feel ashamed of how selfish we are."
Guilt is the most powerful motivator in bringing new converts to your religion. Christians and Leftists (typically, Leftists of the environmentalist and vegetarian sects) both effectively employ this tactic.
That's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than any politician, especially any politician who's made a killing from exploiting fossil fuels, will ever admit to.
And now you employ another tactic that the Christians so frequently use: "Poclaiming the Truth with a captial T." "Fuck evidence and reasoning, for We have The Truth!"
I also notice that you pulled out the old Leftist standbys of "greed" ("make a killing") and "exploitation". Both of these are emotional, not rational, arguments.
I guess I didn't make it clear there that this problem was combated by a specific program of legislation and enforcement with the goal of reducing prostitution, and it was pretty effective.
Except that the effectiveness of the legislation and enforcement is in dispute. There are many other reasons why the demand for prostitutes decreased. I named some of them, and you disputed none of them.
The point isn't that prostitution is the same as drug use or sale. The point is that legislation and criminal law enforcement can have a big effect, even when you might think they would be futile...
Your point is weak. I don't doubt that the War on Some Drugs is having a "big effect", as you claim, except that this big effect is all negative and completely futile. No government has ever successfully prohibited a good or service that people desired. Furthermore, whether or not I think something is futile is besides the point. The immense failure of the War on Some Drugs is self-evident.
By the way, what I did there, it's called making an analogy.
Look at the subject of my original post. Arguing by analogy is necessarily flawed and I reject all analogy-based arguments outright. If your argument really is as strong and awesome as you think it is, then you should be able to convince me without relying on analogies.
No set of circumstances is ever exactly like another...
Which is why I reject all analogies. You will have to find another way to convince me.
The problem with your entire argument is that you're talking about prostitution, not drugs. They are two different subjects.
Perhaps prostitution went down because our notions of fidelity have also dropped. The punishments for adultery have gone by the wayside. Divorce is not seen as a necessarily negative thing. Women are more likely to have sex for recreational purposes rather than because their husband wants them to. All of these things lead to the decrease of the demand for prostitutes and have nothing to do with the draconian law enforcement that you tacitly defend.
Then it should be abandoned. Except that calling it a "failure" is a huge understatement. It has failed in every single one of its goals, killed and maimed innocent people in the process, and destroyed our freedoms (4th amendment, anyone?).
but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good alternative
If it has failed it its goals (which you admit), then it is not achieving anything. Going back to the way it was before would necessarily be better, espcecially given that the War on Some Drugs also brings unintended consequences.
You can't say for sure that things would be better if we legalized drugs.
Things would be better because:
a> Citizens would no longer forfeit property (contra the 4th amendment) simply because the government suspects that it was used as part of a drug sale b> We would have better police protection, as the police would be trying to catch predators rather than people who merely want to use a product that some people don't happen to like c> Productive members our society who are holding jobs and hiring people that happen to use drugs would not be put in jail d> The drugs would become less expensive and the profit (and, consequently, crime) motives for selling them would be removed e> The U.S. military could focus on its real job (protecting the country) rather than enforcing idiotic drug laws f> The U.S. Government could reduce in size
I could go on and on!
Perhaps *bad* is an improvement over *worse*.
Except that you have assumed that things would be worse if drugs were legalized. You have not shown it. Most people claim that things would be worse if drugs were legalized because... well, all of their reasons suck, and I believe yours will, too. Why don't you share them and we can discuss them?
You don't fare much better than the one you accuse. By diving to invective you will make him resistant to anything you say.
Maybe it's the whole "paying for shit" part, that bothers cheap-ass whiners like me who are so full of horseshit?
You could have put it so much better than you did. How about this: I am opposed to paying for vote-buying programs cooked up by politicians who merely take money from people whose votes they don't need and give it to those whose votes they do need.
Do us all a favor and go hop off a tall bridge. People like you are dragging down the world's average IQ...
Do us (meaning, those of us who think we pay too much in Federal taxes) a favor and don't make any kind of threat agaist our opponents. It makes our position look "extreme". ... oh... but if you care to actually respond to my post instead of just making shit up about what you THINK I said and flying off the handle about it, feel free.
Your flying off the handle does not "even the score"! Try using facts and reason next time.
How charming. What product or service do you sell?
I'm not sure which product or service it will be. The possibilities are endless. Consider high-end interior decorators. Do their decorating skills really merit the hundreds of dollars per hour that they demand, or is it more about providing the ability to say to one's high-class friends, "Yes, my apartment was designed by $high_end_designer" ? I think it's the latter, not the former.
Since you have arrogantly presumed all of your customers to be fools, I want to make sure I never do business with you.
I don't assume them to be fools at all: that is your analysis, not mine. I assume them to be interested in things that I am not interested in, and I also notice that it presents a great opportunity to make money. Furthermore, you are more than welcome to not do business with me. Allow me to introduce you to the most powerful words in retail: You are not my customer.
Oh, and do post a link to the blind chocolate studies you mentioned. I happen to think that they are nothing more than a con artist's justification for his living.:)
You're cute and sexy when you're smug and condescending!:)
I'd heard the study on the radio about a year ago, and a quick google revealed this:
The page will try to redirect you to a login page, so be ready to hit "stop" as soon as it loads. It's not the blind taste test (maybe my brain inserted that, who knows, it's been a year), but instead a study by Consumer Reports. Godiva rated 4.3, Russel Stover rated 4.7. Neither of them were the top-rated chocolates.
I was once told by an MBA that in order for my consulting services to be valued more, I should raise my rates. People automatically think that they get what they pay for, therefor a free distro can't be worth as much as an XP or Solaris license.
I agree, and there's more to it than that:
Consider Godiva chocolates. I've read studies that state that blind taste tests cannot rate them higher than Russell-Stover chocolates, a much less expensive chocolate. The reason why Godiva exists is because people want to pay more for chocolate. It's part of a high-class lifestyle. They need to feel high-class, and they need to fit in with their high-class friends. This same phenomenon is true with many other products. Just replace "high-class" with "cool", and you'll see what had fueled the sale of Nike shoes for years.
I'm not interested in using products to make me feel like I'm better or, or in using products to impress my friends. I am, however, interested in selling products to people who feel that way. It seems to me that the seller is in the much more intelligent position than the buyer.:)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're so sure that HIV != AIDS, why don't you infect yourself with HIV, don't take any AZT and check if you develop AIDS or not? You see, if you want to be scientific on that, you should do this experiment because you shouldn't be worried.
I've thought about this several times, but I'd need a quid pro quo. If I do this, then you must immediately start taking the standard regimen of AZT and we'll see who dies first. Who do you think it will be: you or I?
Your rebuttal does not address your original claim.
And what is my original claim? It is one of skepticism: I do not believe what the church of HIV==AIDS claims. I am fully capable of discussing this if you so desire. The point behind my rebuttal is to show you that I am not a troll who is merely trying to get people's goat. This is a very serious topic to me. The problem lies in the fact that many people treat HIV==AIDS as Sacrosanct Truth and get very, very mad when people doubt it.
No where in the parent post do you make any factual claims about the relationship of HIV to AIDS; you discuss a related topic (the accuracy of HIV tests) which does not have any relevance to your stated claim of "HIV==AIDS", as HIV is defined as a particular virus, not as the veracity of one test.
The veracity of the HIV test is one of many problems in the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Besides, it is your responsibility, not mine, to defend your claims about this alleged disease and this alleged virus.
Are you saying that we should not read your words at face value, but should rather 'interpret them in context', or some such?
No.
I think we need some vague, occasionally contradictory accounts including some parts of the same story from your contemporaries to argue over...
No. Insetad, why don't you defend the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. We'll start here:
How does HIV cause AIDS, now that the HIV==AIDS proponents have admitted that HIV does NOT kill T-cells?
Perhaps your sig should read '"A positive HIV test == AIDS" hypothesis..." ' if that's what you actually mean.
With all due respect, do you really give a damn what I mean? I get the impression that you'd much rather humiliate me into silence than engage me in a thoughtful discussion on the issue.
Good Works are a NECESSARY but NOT a SUFFICIENT condition for the True Saving Faith that will get you into Heaven.
So you're arguing "faith and works". Too bad not everyone in the Bible agrees with you (namely, Jesus and Paul).
On the other hand, if you have never killed another human being but once told a silly lie about being busy a night you weren't in order to avoid being with someone, then if you do not have saving faith this evil act of dishonesty is still enough to push you away from God because ALL evil is ABHORRANT to him.
It's telling that you have to tell me how God feels. Shouldn't God be able to inform me of this on his own? Why do you get to be the mouthpiece? Is it because God lives in your imagination and not in reality? If not that, then what?
This is why no matter how good you thing you are, you are still a terrible person in God's eyes due to your imperfections.
This is the main reason why I reject Christianity as stupid and bad. It preaches constantly how humans are vile, evil, disgusting, repugnant creatures. While that may bring money into the churches' coffers, all aspects of that negative axiom are harmful to humans.
I find it interesting that people are responding to someone who explicitly states that they're trolling. Don't waste your breath, folks - you have been trolled and the more you argue, the more he laughs.
The HIV test is inaccurate; i.e., it can give false positives.
The side-effects of AZT match the symptoms of AIDS. AZT is very toxic to the human body.
A person could have, therefore, falsely tested positive for HIV, and then died of AZT poisoning.
Tell me: does this sound like a laughing matter to you?
Let's boil it down:
Uh-oh. Here comes some "interpretation"...
"Lord, when did we see you in need and didn't do anything?"
"What you didn't do for everyone, you didn't do for me."
Wrong. He didn't say, "What you didn't do for everyone," he said, "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these...."
The implication is not "Help people in need", it's "Don't deny giving help to people in need".
Your telling us what Jesus "implied" is not required. We have what he said. I work form the understanding that the Bible means what it says and says what it means, and Biblicists hate that. They like to "interpret" it in the "correct context."
Jesus did not say anything about "denying giving help." That is your insertion. I suggest you try a different argument that doesn't rely on rewriting the text. (By the way, your reply falls into the category of, "That's what it says, but that's not what it means.")
The meaning is different, however - the meaning *can* be divine
I don't think so. What is "the divine" lives in the imaginations of humans and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary that is even remotely convincing.
You're presuming that works and faith in this case are separate, when they don't need to be.
I make no such presumption. Jesus states that the final judgement will be based on works and works alone. Faith is not mentioned as a requirement. Certainly James states otherwise, but, last I checked, the religion is called "Christianity," not "Jamesianity." Shouldn't Jesus's words take precedence?
This, of course, solves the problem of whether or not Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. can be saved. Of course they can.
This assumes that Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. need to be saved, and I certainly disagree with that assumption. No one needs salvation. It is a superstitious invention.
I think that the salvation issue here is kind of at a moot point. I mean, if you have have faith you should also have the holy spirit which should produce works in you.
This is the argument put forth in the book of James. Too bad it doesn't jive with Paul's argument (who argued that faith and faith alone would save, and that there is no work that will save). It also conflicts with Jesus at some point, who also argued faith and faith alone. But Jesus wasn't consistent on the issue of salvation at all.
Many people bring up arguments such as these to show some sort of "conflict" in the bible (there are some but nothing too ridiculous).
I can bring up conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Bible all day long. I can ask more questions in a minute than you can answer in your whole lifetime. If you're using the Bible as the basis of your belief, then you're in trouble.
Good grief man, being a scientist myself how can you deny HIV=Aids?
Like this: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
Works is done on the virus in my lab, I know enough about it know the two are linked.
I don't believe you. Prove it! Better yet, answer me this: how many AIDS deaths were actually caused by AZT poisoning?
As for your virus myth page, Mullis is an idiot. Everyone knows that. He won the nobel prize for inventing a thermocycler.
I'm not familiar with any of Mullis's arguments. Since he is the only one that you can find fault with (and I notice you attack him instead of attacking his arguments), then should I assume that you agree with all the others?
C'mon man.
I thought a scientist would be able to generate a more convincing argument than "c'mon man."
You're wrong. Well, you're right if you read Paul and pretend that Jesus didn't say anything. Jesus and Paul don't agree on many things. Salvation is probably the biggest one. Consider this scripture:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Mat 25:31-46.
Here Jesus gathers up everyone in the world ("all the nations") and judges them. What is the criteria for judgement? Faith? Abosolutely not! Jesus doesn't even mention faith! The criteria is works and works alone.
That's it. Nothing else to it. It's in black and white in the Bible. You'd have to actually read it to know that, though.
Nice little dig. Unfortunately for you, I *do* read the Bible and know exactly how flawed it is and can detail and debate those flaws with any Christian on the planet. It is the work of humans, not the perfect work of a divine being.
There's no difficult list of rules, either.
Again, wrong. In order to get into heaven, you must do the following:
If you do those things, you go to heaven. Otherwise, you roast in hell. If you disagree with this, then you are disagreeing with Jesus. Your likely response is to argue, "That's what Jesus said, but that's not what he meant." Or perhaps you'll try, "You're taking things out of context." Maybe, if you're desparate, you'll try the "natural man" argument.
The majority of the New Testament is philosophical explanation of Jesus' words, and guidelines for behavior given by the early apostles, not the direct handing down of a list of rules by God (like the Ten Commandments).
Incorrect again. The majority of the New Testament is the creation of the "Christian" doctrine by
Because the samba team havent taken their finger out of their ass to implement Win2K3 compatibility yet, genius.
This is a "blame the victim" argument. Microsoft could have chosen to make Win2K3 compatibility easy to implement by others. They could have chosen to publish specs. But they won't because it conflicts with their desire make it as difficult as possible for people to use non-Microsoft software.
When they do, you'll have your access.
And what if newer versions of windows are protected by patents so that no amount of volition on the Samba team could grant one access?
OK, but then you should make it clear that you also don't believe that humans are not influencing climate change. You only seem to be attacking one side of the controversy, and your language is a little, um, unrestrained (see below). Maybe you are equally skeptical about the non-anthropogenic school of thought elsewhere and I shouldn't judge from this thread. If so, sorry.
I am not obligated to also say "I don't believe the other side" when I tell someone I don't believe their claims.
Who said it does your oppenent's claims "true by default"? Certainly not me.
Good thing I didn't accuse you, then. But you'll see this kind of thinking everywhere. HIV==AIDS apologists claim that if I can't come up with a "better theory" for AIDS (of course, this assumes that we agree on what "AIDS" is and that it needs a theory to explain it), then their dogma is "true by default." Christian Creationists think that if they can poke holes in evolution, then biblical creationism is "true by default."
FWIW, I'm philosophically an agnostic who inclines towards atheism. Why don't I just come out and say I'm an atheist? Because one can't prove there is no god. To my mind, an atheist does have to prove the non-existence of god - because that's what they believe in.
There are two types of athiests: positive (or "strong") atheists who claim "I believe there is no god", and negative (or "weak") atheists who claim, "I do not believe there is a god." Again, see the difference? One posits belief while the other does not. I am a negative athiest. Someone else brought up the issue of "god." It is *they*, not *I* who is obligated to pony up the evidence.
If you'd like a good read on why there's no such thing as an "agnostic", then check out this page.
Again, if somebody says, "I believe there is no god", do you say "I don't believe you" to that? If so, then we agree on something at least.
I have never met anyone who believed in the non-existence of a god. If I did, I would probably ask them for evidence, but I would probably be a lot nicer than I would be toward more common supersitionists (Christians, Vegans, Environmentalists, etc.)
OK, fair enough, but if that's so then you shouldn't use such laden terms as "superstitious" or "acolytes". You may not think we have enough evidence yet to come to a final conclusion on the matter, but a lot of (non-leftist/green/religious or whatever it is you dislike) climatologists don't agree - I know and work with some. Doesn't mean they are right, but they are not superstitious acolytes.
I'm not so sure about that. You know as well as I that "global warming" is a core Leftist belief, and Leftists are using fear of it to punish humans for the evils that they've committed to Gaea. This is the superstition that I hate, and the whole "global warming" fiasco stinks to high hell of it.
From your language, it is hard to avoid the impression that despite your disclaimers, you have indeed made up your mind on the subject.
I have strong opinions on a few things. Perhaps what you perceive as my having made up my mind on "the subject" actually involves a different subject.
I admit I misread your position, but that's yet another good reason to tone down the rhetoric, it adds uneccessary heat to the discussion when it needs more light instead.
I think all stupidity and superstition needs to be called for what it is. Leftism and Environmetnatlism are stupid, superstitious philosophies. Don't you agree that stupid beliefs deserve to be ridiculed? Aren't intelligence and sound reasoning qualities to be lauded?
Semantics. Let me rephrase what you said: "I believe that the actions of humans are not affecting "global climate change" in a measurable degree."
No, it is not semantics. In your version, you are putting forth a claim. In my version, I am making no claims. Therein lies the difference. It is subtle and crucial.
Means precisely the same thing as what you actually said, but it highlights the fact that you believe in a position just as much as your opponent does.
Except that I don't make that position at all. It was my opponent who put forth the claim, not I.
(Incidentally, the same goes for atheists vs. religious types.)
We non-believers are not required to prove the nonexistence of God. I never claim, "I believe there is no god." Someone else claims, "There is a god," and the response is, "I don't believe you." My failure to believe does not make my opponent's claims "true by default", no matter how much Christians and "global warming" acolytes would love for that to be so.
Now cut the rhetoric and start talking about evidence, one way or the other.
Precicely! Show me the money! If someone makes the claim that humans' activities are effecting "global climate change" then they have to pony up the evidence. Just because I don't believe their claims does *not* mean that I am making the opposite claim and does *not* obligate me to support a claim that you think I'm making.
Oh, okay. I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.
It's not besides the point at all. We know humans exist, we know they love to put out lots of CO2, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know the earth is warming up.
You're actually arguing a different point, but that's okay.
Answer me this: how much is the earth warming up (I'll point out there that "global warming" evangelists have started calling it "global climate change")? And how much of that warming up is being caused by "greenhouse gases" as opposed to other things? Certainly these things are measurable.
Now that might not be sufficient evidence, but I'm sure it would make us suspect number one in any investigation.
It is not sufficient evidence for me until you can answer those questions I've asked. I think the reason that you put humans at the top of the suspect list is because you think humans are inherently selfish, greedy, and evil.
Meanwhile the aliens can't even be placed at the scene of the crime.
The aliens' sufficiently advanced technology renders them undetectable. Remember (and we're back to my original point here), this is what *might* be true.
Greate sig. Make sure to keep it.
Why, because you think I'm wrong and you think a slow agonizing death befits me?
As someone who is agnostic leaning towards athiesm, I take issue with your acribing the word "miracle" to only have a religious context: the modern usage of the word has evolved way beyond religion and is commonly used to refer to exceptional and/or improbable events beyond probability (eg, "a miraculous recovery", "Music City Miracle"): perhaps you've even heard of the phrase "miracle of modern science"?
As an objectivist, I will out-atheist you. When you absorbed that quote as your own opinion, you used the word "miracle" to describe the earth in a supernatural way, not in the flippant "a miraculous recovery" way. The basis of environmentalism (and some strains of vegetarianism) is a belief in "mother earth" as god.
Whatever evidence I provide here will no doubt be ridiculed by you in some way, shape or form, but here's just one recent story you could read and then look into further if you really have an open mind:
I will open-mindedly view most anything you ask me to, unless it's really horrible, in which case I'll make you force me to plow through it. I will also mercilessly subject it to the eye of critical reason and relentless fact-searching -- as far as my own biases will allow.
To quote the article summary in full:
To mince your quotation in full:
The Greenland ice-sheet would melt faster in a warmer climate
I'm so glad we have your hyper-intelligent scientists to inform us of earth-shattering insights like these.
and is likely to be eliminated . . . if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 3 C.
". . . and is likely to be eliminated twice as fast if the average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 6 degrees C. . . . and is likely to be eliminated but half as fast if the average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 1.5 degrees C."
Notice all the "ifs" and "abouts" that those statements rely on? Notice how they are all the same sentence but with multipliers applied to the sentences' figures?
This could raise the global average sea-level by 7 metres over a period of 1,000 years or more.
Likewise this could cause my turds to become sentient and form a socialist colony in my toilet bowl. Since we're only talking about what it could do (provided that we assume the existence of "it") and not what it will do, the sky is the limit of our speculative powers.
We show here that concentrations of greenhouse gases will probably have reached levels before the year 2100 that are sufficient to raise the temperature past this warming threshold.
"Probably"? Weak! Do I really have to read the rest of this article? Is the rest of it as stupid as the introduction is?
Frankly though, the fact that you need me to find material that you could quite easily google for shows me that you're the kind of individual that's unwilling to accept anything that isn't staring them directly in the face.
I can quite easily google for any theory that has scientific language painted on it. Does the fact that I am not googling for those prove that I am the kind of individual that's unwilling to accept anything that isn't staring me directly in the face?
Do you realize that your language focusing on my failings rather than the substance of your dogma (you know, the one that you're pissed off at me about because I won't accept it) is the same tactic that Christians and Socialists employ against me when I tell them, "I don't buy it"?
Lastly, it's you that turned this into a debate about the political agendas of the left or the right;
Incorrect. You know as well as I that the subject of "global warming" (see also: _Earth in the Balance_ by Al Gore) is a core Leftist belief. Not all scientists agree with it. Whether or not the Right-wingers are correct does not change the fact that global warming is a core Leftist belief. You brought up this subject,
How the hell you can bring religion into this is amazing.
Sorry, bud. It was you, not I, that brought the religion of "humans are inherently evil" into this picture. This is your quote: "This is a fragile ball we're living on. It's a miracle and we're destroying it." A "miracle"? Isn't a "miracle" something supernatural? Something magically beyond the realm of science? Something from "god"?
We're talking about measurable climate change and the impact it has upon our environment,
Which is caused by inherently evil humans who destroy everything they touch, right?
As to your belief that the our actions aren't effecting our environment to "a measurable degree", well, that's a nice "I'll stick my head in the sand and pretend it's all nature at work" attitude.
Where did I say that I belived that our actions weren't affecting our environment to a measurable degree? Let me print what I wrote: "I do not believe that the actions of humans are effecting "global climate change" in a measurable degree." My position is skepticism, not belief. It is you, not I, that has some (superstitious) belief, and it is you, not I that must defend it.
That man can profoundly effect his environment, through pollution, deforestation, etc isn't deniable but you choose to deny it anyway.
I never denied that humans can affect the environment through pollution or deforestation. Ad hominem strawmen like these are typical of those who have shitty arguments.
That you dismiss all related science as "superstitious", "leftist", etc is incredible.
As I said: outrage is the typical reaction when people don't buy into your superstitious beliefs. If your position is really based in science instead of superstition, then why not give me the reason and evidence? Talking about how "incredible" it is that I won't prostrate myself to your beliefs is not going to work.
I certainly do not dismiss "all related science" as superstitious and Leftist. I call superstition when it see it, and I call the religion of Leftism when I see it. It is a Leftist (and Christian, for that matter) tactic to apply scientific language to their superstitious beliefs and call it "science".
Science is science: don't try to politicise or subvert it to suit your own agenda; stick to the facts please.
It appears to be you, not I, that is trying to politicize science. And what, exactly, do you suppose my alleged "agenda" is? I support evidence and reason, two things that I think science relies on. What is your agenda? Do you think that evidence and reason suck? (My guess is that you do, but you won't say it in that language.)
You seemed to ignore the fact that since you made the claim, the onus of proof is on you, not I. I repeat: You made the claim, so you have to prove it!
Accepting the theorie that global warming just *might* be human induced is not the same as making it your new religion and personally I have never been attacked by animals because of it :)
Since you accept the theory that global warming *might* be human-induced, then will you accept the theory that global warming *might* be alien-induced?
It *might* also be ghost-induced for that matter, and it *might* be demon-induced.
You will probably attempt to counter this by stating that "we know that humans exist, while we don't know about the other ones." That's beside the point. They all *might* exist, right?
This is why I reject all "might-based" arguments. I will accept your argument if the evidence is sufficient and the reasoning is sound. Otherwise, it *might* be true that our brains are all controlled by robots from another dimension. Why not believe that, if we're going to accept what *might* be true?
Well-reasoned and insightful! Welcome to my friend list. :)
Although I agree with you that we don't know if global warming is suppose to happen right now anyway, the rate of change is what's alarming the scientists.
Which scientists? You act as if all scientists are alarmed by evidence that they all have observed and agree upon, when that could not be farther from the truth.
Records going back hundreds of years give us a pretty good image of the weather pattern we're suppose to receive.
Whose records? Again, you act as if the data that has been collected has been agreed upon as genuine and bias-free, and it doesn't appear to be that way at all.
The amount of extreme weather occurances and unprecedented warming of land inside the arctic circle is why scientists are concerned. The rate of change is simply beyond anything nature alone could do.
Boy, that sure sounds scary! We all know that fear is more powerful than boring old evidence and reasoning in trying to get people to do what you want them to do.
So yes I do agree with you that globam warming and ice ages are normal. Maybe we're suppose to have global warming anyway.
But I thought that this was "simply beyond anything nature alone could do"?
I'll add here that your choice to use the word "simply" is suspicious in itself. If it really was so simple, then why did you feel compelled to label it as such? Its "simplicity" should be self-evident, shouldn't it?
But the rate that this is happening is alarming. And it leaves us little time to prepare ourselves to find ways to adapt to the new climate.
Yes, we should all be alarmed rather than rational and make fear-based choices rather than reason-based choices. Time is running out, right?
"We Have to Do Something!" (TM)
The attitude of a lot of people here on Slashdot with regards to global warming amazes me.
Which attitude, the one of "I don't buy it"? Outrage is the typical reaction to those who don't buy into your superstitious beliefs.
This is something that could possibly devastate society as we know it, perhaps not for us, but for our children or our children's children, but there's a great many people who either dismiss it as never going to happen or something that can be easily controlled without any major shifts in lifestyle or attitude.
Allow me to be direct: I do not believe that the actions of humans are effecting "global climate change" in a measurable degree. I am skeptical of what you claim. You made the claim, so you have to prove it. I am not required to disprove your claims, and my failure to do so does not make them "true by default."
Someone once said "This is a fragile ball we're living on. It's a miracle and we're destroying it."
"Humans are inherently evil. We destroy everything we touch. We should all feel ashamed of how selfish we are."
Guilt is the most powerful motivator in bringing new converts to your religion. Christians and Leftists (typically, Leftists of the environmentalist and vegetarian sects) both effectively employ this tactic.
That's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than any politician, especially any politician who's made a killing from exploiting fossil fuels, will ever admit to.
And now you employ another tactic that the Christians so frequently use: "Poclaiming the Truth with a captial T." "Fuck evidence and reasoning, for We have The Truth!"
I also notice that you pulled out the old Leftist standbys of "greed" ("make a killing") and "exploitation". Both of these are emotional, not rational, arguments.
I guess I didn't make it clear there that this problem was combated by a specific program of legislation and enforcement with the goal of reducing prostitution, and it was pretty effective.
Except that the effectiveness of the legislation and enforcement is in dispute. There are many other reasons why the demand for prostitutes decreased. I named some of them, and you disputed none of them.
The point isn't that prostitution is the same as drug use or sale. The point is that legislation and criminal law enforcement can have a big effect, even when you might think they would be futile...
Your point is weak. I don't doubt that the War on Some Drugs is having a "big effect", as you claim, except that this big effect is all negative and completely futile. No government has ever successfully prohibited a good or service that people desired. Furthermore, whether or not I think something is futile is besides the point. The immense failure of the War on Some Drugs is self-evident.
By the way, what I did there, it's called making an analogy.
Look at the subject of my original post. Arguing by analogy is necessarily flawed and I reject all analogy-based arguments outright. If your argument really is as strong and awesome as you think it is, then you should be able to convince me without relying on analogies.
No set of circumstances is ever exactly like another...
Which is why I reject all analogies. You will have to find another way to convince me.
The problem with your entire argument is that you're talking about prostitution, not drugs. They are two different subjects.
Perhaps prostitution went down because our notions of fidelity have also dropped. The punishments for adultery have gone by the wayside. Divorce is not seen as a necessarily negative thing. Women are more likely to have sex for recreational purposes rather than because their husband wants them to. All of these things lead to the decrease of the demand for prostitutes and have nothing to do with the draconian law enforcement that you tacitly defend.
Sure it's a failure
... well, all of their reasons suck, and I believe yours will, too. Why don't you share them and we can discuss them?
Then it should be abandoned. Except that calling it a "failure" is a huge understatement. It has failed in every single one of its goals, killed and maimed innocent people in the process, and destroyed our freedoms (4th amendment, anyone?).
but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good alternative
If it has failed it its goals (which you admit), then it is not achieving anything. Going back to the way it was before would necessarily be better, espcecially given that the War on Some Drugs also brings unintended consequences.
You can't say for sure that things would be better if we legalized drugs.
Things would be better because:
a> Citizens would no longer forfeit property (contra the 4th amendment) simply because the government suspects that it was used as part of a drug sale
b> We would have better police protection, as the police would be trying to catch predators rather than people who merely want to use a product that some people don't happen to like
c> Productive members our society who are holding jobs and hiring people that happen to use drugs would not be put in jail
d> The drugs would become less expensive and the profit (and, consequently, crime) motives for selling them would be removed
e> The U.S. military could focus on its real job (protecting the country) rather than enforcing idiotic drug laws
f> The U.S. Government could reduce in size
I could go on and on!
Perhaps *bad* is an improvement over *worse*.
Except that you have assumed that things would be worse if drugs were legalized. You have not shown it. Most people claim that things would be worse if drugs were legalized because
Kind of a moron, aren't you?
... oh... but if you care to actually respond to my post instead of just making shit up about what you THINK I said and flying off the handle about it, feel free.
You don't fare much better than the one you accuse. By diving to invective you will make him resistant to anything you say.
Maybe it's the whole "paying for shit" part, that bothers cheap-ass whiners like me who are so full of horseshit?
You could have put it so much better than you did. How about this: I am opposed to paying for vote-buying programs cooked up by politicians who merely take money from people whose votes they don't need and give it to those whose votes they do need.
Do us all a favor and go hop off a tall bridge. People like you are dragging down the world's average IQ...
Do us (meaning, those of us who think we pay too much in Federal taxes) a favor and don't make any kind of threat agaist our opponents. It makes our position look "extreme".
Your flying off the handle does not "even the score"! Try using facts and reason next time.
How charming. What product or service do you sell?
:)
:)
l /n onrec/tastest021187.htm
I'm not sure which product or service it will be. The possibilities are endless. Consider high-end interior decorators. Do their decorating skills really merit the hundreds of dollars per hour that they demand, or is it more about providing the ability to say to one's high-class friends, "Yes, my apartment was designed by $high_end_designer" ? I think it's the latter, not the former.
Since you have arrogantly presumed all of your customers to be fools, I want to make sure I never do business with you.
I don't assume them to be fools at all: that is your analysis, not mine. I assume them to be interested in things that I am not interested in, and I also notice that it presents a great opportunity to make money. Furthermore, you are more than welcome to not do business with me. Allow me to introduce you to the most powerful words in retail: You are not my customer.
Oh, and do post a link to the blind chocolate studies you mentioned. I happen to think that they are nothing more than a con artist's justification for his living.
You're cute and sexy when you're smug and condescending!
I'd heard the study on the radio about a year ago, and a quick google revealed this:
http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/include.pl/food/va
The page will try to redirect you to a login page, so be ready to hit "stop" as soon as it loads. It's not the blind taste test (maybe my brain inserted that, who knows, it's been a year), but instead a study by Consumer Reports. Godiva rated 4.3, Russel Stover rated 4.7. Neither of them were the top-rated chocolates.
I was once told by an MBA that in order for my consulting services to be valued more, I should raise my rates. People automatically think that they get what they pay for, therefor a free distro can't be worth as much as an XP or Solaris license.
:)
I agree, and there's more to it than that:
Consider Godiva chocolates. I've read studies that state that blind taste tests cannot rate them higher than Russell-Stover chocolates, a much less expensive chocolate. The reason why Godiva exists is because people want to pay more for chocolate. It's part of a high-class lifestyle. They need to feel high-class, and they need to fit in with their high-class friends. This same phenomenon is true with many other products. Just replace "high-class" with "cool", and you'll see what had fueled the sale of Nike shoes for years.
I'm not interested in using products to make me feel like I'm better or, or in using products to impress my friends. I am, however, interested in selling products to people who feel that way. It seems to me that the seller is in the much more intelligent position than the buyer.