a choice between quackery and sound science is not a choice
it's preying on the science illiteracy of many and steering them to make uneducated bad choices that hurt their health. all to turn a quick buck and bask in the blessings of idiots
all markets degenerate into monopolies and oligopolies naturally. all of them
unless they are regulated, they stay that way. smaller competitors are unfairly treated (just undercut prices until the upstart goes bankrupt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... one of a thousand ways to abuse a market unfairly with no competition) and consumers are gouged
"They are no longer richer then most of Europe primarily because most of the region periodically insists on throwing the foreign corporations out."
any serious economist or historian would assert a couple dozen reasons for latin america's problems, nevermind the fact that the temper tantrums of venezuela over the past few decades is not germaine to 1900 nor can it be extrapolated to a dozen other countries, which is where this "fact" about "throwing foreign corporations out" seems to come from, some propaganda addled mind
this guy comes across as an alex jones HURR DURR blowhard spouting low iq "facts" and he gets modded up?
this guy is a moron, a liar, and a troll. and someone modded him up because he provided "links"
i can do the same
here is my link proving that fusion power has been blocked by the illuminati in the year 1970
In 1900 Latin American was richer per capita then most of Europe. They are no longer richer then most of Europe primarily because most of the region periodically insists on throwing the foreign corporations out.
i stopped reading there. that's not history. that's not a remotely accurate or true statement. i don't know if you think you are a clever liar or if you mindlessly believe some ignorant crap shoveled at you, but you can't present a coherent and credible argument by saying such dumb shit. your words serve as a pretty good example of the kind of feeble ignorance some low iq types depend upon to defend the moronic pap they believe in
frankly, i admire a society that brings corporations to heel
rather than the sick pathetic american society where corporations buy the government, corrupt it, and then propagandized morons think that's actually ok. as the middle class shrinks more and they work harder for less. the morons think that's "capitalism". no it isn't, it's cronyism. healthy capitalism is a strictly regulated market, not the biggest players in the market buying the government, regulatory capture, and then abusing smaller players and consumers
i really don't know why there are so many americans so eager to suck plutocrat cock
exactly as they are robbed and raped by them. and think it's the governments fault. because the corporation controlled media channels tell them that. when it's the corporations corrupting their government
i would be delighted to talk to you if you would agree to basic simple aspects of reality. but if you deny truth and persist with a belief that contradicts simple evidence, then to continue to deal with you is simply a form of insanity
god bless dawkins, because i don't have the stomach for dealing with wackjobs. this is what it is like dealing with someone like yourself who has beliefs in contradiction to simple reality:
pointing to corrections that haven't been done yet doesn't mean anything. if something is obscure and unimportant it can persist for years, with no impact. and then it's corrected. if it's important, it will probably be corrected in days or minutes
can anyone point to any other media that this isn't true about? (i'm not talking about corrections, that may never be made, simply that all media has a backlog of errors that need correcting)
and questioning wikipedia's veracity, alone, has no value
judge it against other options and their veracity
the traditional encyclopedia is subject to the editorial whims of professionals, and professionals can have agendas and are not automatically superior to a mass of impartial folk. emphasis on "mass." as thousands of editors, even if there's been a drop in participation, is superior to an overworked few with questionable biases
and please note we're talking about brief introductions to topics, not deep dives into esoteric academic specialties. wikipedia is never intended as a replacement for serious texts on topics. and if someone is relying on wikipedia alone for vital topics, that's the reader's fault, not wikipedia
wikipedia's innate superiority is the same reason we have juries instead of professional judges. professional judges can start deciding cases based on having something to prove: "i'm finding this guy guilty because i made the previous guy innocent" or "this guy is clearly innocent, but it's important to send a message, so i'm finding him guilty"
certainly, a million examples of bad juries can be found. we can find problems with the jury system that are truly horrible
as if that means anything. because all other options are worse
this is classic form of propaganda, half-truth, cognitive fallacy: criticism in a vacuum
outside of the context of other choices, anything can be made to look like shit
for example, we can criticize all sort so problems with democracy. there are many problems with democracy and they are real and major. it's just that our other options are clearly worse
likewise with wikipedia: you can list thousands of things wrong with wikipedia, some truly horrendous
but it's still superior to what came before and other current options
i really did. and i just did it again with this comment. because i mean this:
if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you
you can't have a useful conversation with someone who lies and denies really simple facts. you're in the same category as creationists and antivaxxers. you can't be taken seriously because your belief is predicated on denying truth
The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.
i stopped reading here. i'm still trying to understand if you are being incredible stupid or malicious
you do understand that a large media buy can (well, no, they *do*, every day) flood a topic with lies, confusion, propaganda, right?
do you deny that?
if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you
9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, chemtrails poison our mind, etc: that's the same quality of your words on this topic. on this topic, you're a kook. because you deny a very simple and obvious fact and construct a wackjob belief in direct contradiction to simple and obvious reality
The law that was struck down did exactly that. It made it a federal crime for some people, and not others, to talk. You know this, so why are you lying?
the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies. why are *you* lying?
really, your stunning naivete or malicious intellectual dishonesty on this topic is ridiculous
you want to assert that media buys by people with lots of money to serve corrupt financial influence is not real? you really want to assert that?
it's like dealing with a creationist or an antivaxxer: you can't continue to assert an insane and clearly false belief and expect to be taken seriously
unless of course you have a lot of money and flood and dominate the topic... then you are taken "seriously" by professional whores, aka corrupt politicians
yes, he's a nonviolent person, but we don't know that
if i point a gun at you as a joke and you don't know me, you're going to react as if i am serious
likewise, anyone flying towards a government building could be a harmless protester, but we have to assume their intentions are violent. simply because we have to be responsible and protect people from harm
frankly, he's lucky to be a live. and i agree with him 100% ideologically. but i would have preferred he had been shot down. yes, he could be killed if shot down. so you shouldn't FLY AT A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. it's really not complicated to understand that's a threat
you cannot pull stunts that can easily be construed as malicious and be expected to get away with it. there are a million better ways to get your point across. the guy obviously was creative, he couldn't think of something else far less threatening?
i am a manufacturer that pollutes the water source of a small town. i don't want to spend the millions it would take to fix that, pay reparations, face oversight, etc.
instead i spend a lot of money, but less money, on 72 point bold font lies on page 2 of my local paper every day. "jobs will be lost!" (despite my sky high profits that could easily absorb the costs) "the pollution is harmless!" (contrary to solid scientific evidence) " no one is actually polluting!" {despite proof)
the proof, science, and financials are attested to by honest citizens, and this is buried on page 32, mostly unread
most people read the lies first, and only a few people scan the editorials for 30 seconds. in this way popular opinion is shifted, and the populace is left with beliefs that do not match truth
do you understand that example?
welcome to the reality of a topic you are injecting a profoundly ignorant or malicious willful intellectual dishonesty into
stop lying, or start thinking, whether you are malicious or just stupid on this topic
But would you prefer that the government stop you from being able to talk?
no one is telling anyone not to talk. what is being said is that your speech should rise and fall on its merit alone. not automatically dominate the conversation, simply because someone purchased that. usually to preserve corrupt sources of income that exists exactly because the truthful speech about the corruption is squelched and drowned out by lies and propaganda
are you trying to say purchased lies and propaganda don't exist and can't dominate and flood out the truth unfairly?
People who have good enough ideas to attract the support of others, so that they can voice their opinions in concert, aren't stopped from doing so.
they are stopped
do you think the full page 72 point bold faced lie on page 2 has equal influence as the carefully reasoned and truthful letter to the editor buried on the bottom of page 32?
this is what i don't understand about you:
you're trying to deny a very obvious fact: that money can influence opinion unfairly. it does. this is not a fact in doubt by anyone intelligent and honest on this topic
so if you continue to deny that, we are left wondering if you are an intelligent person with malicious intent. or a very dumb person who can't understand something very simple
the repetition of lies in bought and paid for media channels crowds out truth. people are easy to confuse and don't have the time to research topics. so you smack them over the head repeatedly with smears and propaganda and you move opinion away from truth
those who derive cash from unfair sources depend upon keeping people divided and ignorant as to the truth to keep robbing us. it's an investment
this notion that money mixed with speech is fair is stupid and laughable. it's the very definition of corruption. if you honestly see no problem with it your intent is malicious or you're stupendously naive/ ignorant
if you get to plaster propaganda and lies, it is very easy to crowd out truth and reason
you do understand people lie in the service of their agenda, right?
broke ass liars exist too. it's just that they get drowned out by truth, all else being equal
add money to the equation, and lies crowd out truth, because those who make money from sources that depend upon lying need to keep that coming. it's an investment: keep people dumb and divided, and you can keep robbing them
this notion that money is the equivalent of speech is stupid and laughable. that anyone says it with a straight face is simple proof of how corrupt they are
you're not being intellectually honest. if the guy with the most money gets the most speech, that is a corrupt government. it's pretty much the exact definition of corruption
"i have more money than you, therefore my words matter more than you" that's the end result of what you are saying, whether you admit to it or not. now you need to be intellectually honest and admit that's what your beliefs really mean. you embrace corruption
you know, corruption destroying your country should be more important to you than hating unions
but it's exactly this shortsighted hate they use to keep us weak and divided
you're the problem. more than unions, more than the corruption really. because they can't keep us divided while they rob us, unless so many people like you care about hating your fellow americans than looking out for a government that actually represents you
go ahead: hate minorities. hat ethe poor. hate people with different social views
you hate. that's what is most important to you. more than looking out for yourself. they laugh and rob you. you, you're the problem
Slashdot Mirror
he's not questioning groupthink
he's pushing antiscience quackery while wearing the mantle of respectable surgeon
in the name of ignorant groupthink
you have it backwards
do you believe science is just groupthink?
he's irresponsibly pandering to ignorance to raise his profile
ignorant think he's informing them and giving them "choices"
but this is merely a logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
a choice between quackery and sound science is not a choice
it's preying on the science illiteracy of many and steering them to make uneducated bad choices that hurt their health. all to turn a quick buck and bask in the blessings of idiots
the nationmaster link clearly shows your statement to be a lie
moronic thread over
all markets degenerate into monopolies and oligopolies naturally. all of them
unless they are regulated, they stay that way. smaller competitors are unfairly treated (just undercut prices until the upstart goes bankrupt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... one of a thousand ways to abuse a market unfairly with no competition) and consumers are gouged
of course, there are corrupt regulations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
so the point is to remove the corruption
remove the regulations and what you have is far worse
the statement
I think healthy capitalism is where the competition is so strong that regulations aren't needed
is a religious belief (free market fundamentalism?)
there is zero evidence in reality for your statement
in fact, simple economic history proves the opposite
did the person who voted the lying moron up hover over his links?
the first is an unrelated bing advertisement come on and the second is an xls that no one security aware is going to click on
here are the real facts:
http://www.nationmaster.com/co...
great time to be a kiwi
then there is this assertion:
"They are no longer richer then most of Europe primarily because most of the region periodically insists on throwing the foreign corporations out."
any serious economist or historian would assert a couple dozen reasons for latin america's problems, nevermind the fact that the temper tantrums of venezuela over the past few decades is not germaine to 1900 nor can it be extrapolated to a dozen other countries, which is where this "fact" about "throwing foreign corporations out" seems to come from, some propaganda addled mind
this guy comes across as an alex jones HURR DURR blowhard spouting low iq "facts" and he gets modded up?
this guy is a moron, a liar, and a troll. and someone modded him up because he provided "links"
i can do the same
here is my link proving that fusion power has been blocked by the illuminati in the year 1970
fact!
pfffft
In 1900 Latin American was richer per capita then most of Europe. They are no longer richer then most of Europe primarily because most of the region periodically insists on throwing the foreign corporations out.
i stopped reading there. that's not history. that's not a remotely accurate or true statement. i don't know if you think you are a clever liar or if you mindlessly believe some ignorant crap shoveled at you, but you can't present a coherent and credible argument by saying such dumb shit. your words serve as a pretty good example of the kind of feeble ignorance some low iq types depend upon to defend the moronic pap they believe in
there doesn't even have to be any malice
abuse can happen simply as a function of market dynamics where one player is so suffocatingly dominant
the eu might want to make some corrections to that
it's their right. and they have a plausible case
yes, microsoft may have some obsessive grievances about google's dominance and might be cheer leading
and?
the real story here is microsoft just doesn't fucking matter. it's yahoo or aol. a geriatric has been puttering along to mediocrity and obsolescence
wang computer. sony. ibm. microsoft
middle age and elderly
oh they'll eke out a respectable slow fade for a long time. they should try to fade away with some dignity i suppose
the eu can do whatever the fuck it wants
in the eu
frankly, i admire a society that brings corporations to heel
rather than the sick pathetic american society where corporations buy the government, corrupt it, and then propagandized morons think that's actually ok. as the middle class shrinks more and they work harder for less. the morons think that's "capitalism". no it isn't, it's cronyism. healthy capitalism is a strictly regulated market, not the biggest players in the market buying the government, regulatory capture, and then abusing smaller players and consumers
i really don't know why there are so many americans so eager to suck plutocrat cock
exactly as they are robbed and raped by them. and think it's the governments fault. because the corporation controlled media channels tell them that. when it's the corporations corrupting their government
fucking morons
microsoft is eternal evil , it always does wrong, and google is eternal good, it can never do wrong
this might have made sense 15 years ago, but google has immense power ripe for abuse
google needs to be reigned in and bought to heel on issues where it's power is too complete
i'm glad someone is doing it. i don't really care if microsoft is along for the ride or not, and it doesn't really matter
i would be delighted to talk to you if you would agree to basic simple aspects of reality. but if you deny truth and persist with a belief that contradicts simple evidence, then to continue to deal with you is simply a form of insanity
god bless dawkins, because i don't have the stomach for dealing with wackjobs. this is what it is like dealing with someone like yourself who has beliefs in contradiction to simple reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
sorry dude, don't have the time
but you can persist like the guy who smells like urine, and thinks people back down because he's tough
pointing to corrections that haven't been done yet doesn't mean anything. if something is obscure and unimportant it can persist for years, with no impact. and then it's corrected. if it's important, it will probably be corrected in days or minutes
can anyone point to any other media that this isn't true about? (i'm not talking about corrections, that may never be made, simply that all media has a backlog of errors that need correcting)
and questioning wikipedia's veracity, alone, has no value
judge it against other options and their veracity
the traditional encyclopedia is subject to the editorial whims of professionals, and professionals can have agendas and are not automatically superior to a mass of impartial folk. emphasis on "mass." as thousands of editors, even if there's been a drop in participation, is superior to an overworked few with questionable biases
and please note we're talking about brief introductions to topics, not deep dives into esoteric academic specialties. wikipedia is never intended as a replacement for serious texts on topics. and if someone is relying on wikipedia alone for vital topics, that's the reader's fault, not wikipedia
wikipedia's innate superiority is the same reason we have juries instead of professional judges. professional judges can start deciding cases based on having something to prove: "i'm finding this guy guilty because i made the previous guy innocent" or "this guy is clearly innocent, but it's important to send a message, so i'm finding him guilty"
certainly, a million examples of bad juries can be found. we can find problems with the jury system that are truly horrible
as if that means anything. because all other options are worse
this is classic form of propaganda, half-truth, cognitive fallacy: criticism in a vacuum
outside of the context of other choices, anything can be made to look like shit
for example, we can criticize all sort so problems with democracy. there are many problems with democracy and they are real and major. it's just that our other options are clearly worse
likewise with wikipedia: you can list thousands of things wrong with wikipedia, some truly horrendous
but it's still superior to what came before and other current options
No you didn't
i really did. and i just did it again with this comment. because i mean this:
if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you
you can't have a useful conversation with someone who lies and denies really simple facts. you're in the same category as creationists and antivaxxers. you can't be taken seriously because your belief is predicated on denying truth
useless conversation over
The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.
i stopped reading here. i'm still trying to understand if you are being incredible stupid or malicious
you do understand that a large media buy can (well, no, they *do*, every day) flood a topic with lies, confusion, propaganda, right?
do you deny that?
if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you
9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, chemtrails poison our mind, etc: that's the same quality of your words on this topic. on this topic, you're a kook. because you deny a very simple and obvious fact and construct a wackjob belief in direct contradiction to simple and obvious reality
The law that was struck down did exactly that. It made it a federal crime for some people, and not others, to talk. You know this, so why are you lying?
the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies. why are *you* lying?
really, your stunning naivete or malicious intellectual dishonesty on this topic is ridiculous
you want to assert that media buys by people with lots of money to serve corrupt financial influence is not real? you really want to assert that?
it's like dealing with a creationist or an antivaxxer: you can't continue to assert an insane and clearly false belief and expect to be taken seriously
unless of course you have a lot of money and flood and dominate the topic... then you are taken "seriously" by professional whores, aka corrupt politicians
the problem was what he did wasn't harmless
yes, he's a nonviolent person, but we don't know that
if i point a gun at you as a joke and you don't know me, you're going to react as if i am serious
likewise, anyone flying towards a government building could be a harmless protester, but we have to assume their intentions are violent. simply because we have to be responsible and protect people from harm
frankly, he's lucky to be a live. and i agree with him 100% ideologically. but i would have preferred he had been shot down. yes, he could be killed if shot down. so you shouldn't FLY AT A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. it's really not complicated to understand that's a threat
you cannot pull stunts that can easily be construed as malicious and be expected to get away with it. there are a million better ways to get your point across. the guy obviously was creative, he couldn't think of something else far less threatening?
i am a manufacturer that pollutes the water source of a small town. i don't want to spend the millions it would take to fix that, pay reparations, face oversight, etc.
instead i spend a lot of money, but less money, on 72 point bold font lies on page 2 of my local paper every day. "jobs will be lost!" (despite my sky high profits that could easily absorb the costs) "the pollution is harmless!" (contrary to solid scientific evidence) " no one is actually polluting!" {despite proof)
the proof, science, and financials are attested to by honest citizens, and this is buried on page 32, mostly unread
most people read the lies first, and only a few people scan the editorials for 30 seconds. in this way popular opinion is shifted, and the populace is left with beliefs that do not match truth
do you understand that example?
welcome to the reality of a topic you are injecting a profoundly ignorant or malicious willful intellectual dishonesty into
stop lying, or start thinking, whether you are malicious or just stupid on this topic
But would you prefer that the government stop you from being able to talk?
no one is telling anyone not to talk. what is being said is that your speech should rise and fall on its merit alone. not automatically dominate the conversation, simply because someone purchased that. usually to preserve corrupt sources of income that exists exactly because the truthful speech about the corruption is squelched and drowned out by lies and propaganda
are you trying to say purchased lies and propaganda don't exist and can't dominate and flood out the truth unfairly?
People who have good enough ideas to attract the support of others, so that they can voice their opinions in concert, aren't stopped from doing so.
they are stopped
do you think the full page 72 point bold faced lie on page 2 has equal influence as the carefully reasoned and truthful letter to the editor buried on the bottom of page 32?
this is what i don't understand about you:
you're trying to deny a very obvious fact: that money can influence opinion unfairly. it does. this is not a fact in doubt by anyone intelligent and honest on this topic
so if you continue to deny that, we are left wondering if you are an intelligent person with malicious intent. or a very dumb person who can't understand something very simple
the repetition of lies in bought and paid for media channels crowds out truth. people are easy to confuse and don't have the time to research topics. so you smack them over the head repeatedly with smears and propaganda and you move opinion away from truth
those who derive cash from unfair sources depend upon keeping people divided and ignorant as to the truth to keep robbing us. it's an investment
this notion that money mixed with speech is fair is stupid and laughable. it's the very definition of corruption. if you honestly see no problem with it your intent is malicious or you're stupendously naive/ ignorant
if you get to plaster propaganda and lies, it is very easy to crowd out truth and reason
you do understand people lie in the service of their agenda, right?
broke ass liars exist too. it's just that they get drowned out by truth, all else being equal
add money to the equation, and lies crowd out truth, because those who make money from sources that depend upon lying need to keep that coming. it's an investment: keep people dumb and divided, and you can keep robbing them
this notion that money is the equivalent of speech is stupid and laughable. that anyone says it with a straight face is simple proof of how corrupt they are
you're not being intellectually honest. if the guy with the most money gets the most speech, that is a corrupt government. it's pretty much the exact definition of corruption
"i have more money than you, therefore my words matter more than you" that's the end result of what you are saying, whether you admit to it or not. now you need to be intellectually honest and admit that's what your beliefs really mean. you embrace corruption
money isn't speech
money is corruption
if the guy with the most money gets the most speech, that is in fact the exact definition of corruption
you know, corruption destroying your country should be more important to you than hating unions
but it's exactly this shortsighted hate they use to keep us weak and divided
you're the problem. more than unions, more than the corruption really. because they can't keep us divided while they rob us, unless so many people like you care about hating your fellow americans than looking out for a government that actually represents you
go ahead: hate minorities. hat ethe poor. hate people with different social views
you hate. that's what is most important to you. more than looking out for yourself. they laugh and rob you. you, you're the problem
most americans agree with him
he could have chosen a better way to make his point. but he'll be prosecuted, and the corruption will continue
relevant username
people really have to understand that Scientology is a thug mafia make believing it is a religion. it is no religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...