What do you mean a "successful enterprise"? Craigslist is not an enterprise. It's a charity. It charges no money for its services. Neither the posters nor the viewers pay. It displays no ads. It survives on donations. You may not think of the people it helps as being in need of charity, but the modus operandi of Craigslist is that of charity. So this is just one charity giving money to another charity.
The fact that they provide employment in a place where there is no alternative (even if you accept that premise which is a case you haven't quite made) is NOT tantamount to destroying "other viable choices" for the people they employ. So you are still wrong. You still have not shown that they are destroying rather than creating paths to improving personal choices and personal well-being for their employees.
Except that no one is working on destroying the viable choices of the workers in China. Certainly Apple isn't. Nor is Foxconn. Nor the Chinese government. So I didn't miss anything. I had no way of knowing or nor any reason to assume that you'd be arguing from the facts which do not exist. In fact, everyone in question is creating better choices than the ones which were available to the workers before.
Then you missed the main point of the argument. Slaves had their life choices taken away. Those who start out in a bad lot in life and chose to work to improve it do not have their choices taken away You are choosing to put emphasis on one aspect of the situation while ignoring the rest. You want to keep attention on their miserable lot in life. And you want to ignore free will. Well, you can be a puppy of a wealth person. You'll have a very luxurious life-style. But you won't be any better off than a slave. It is the free will that defines our humanity -- not the level of material wealth we manage (or fail) to achieve.
We are all slaves to natural law by your definition of slavery. And yet we are not. A rich person (in the US) enjoyed a worse life style 100 years ago than a poor person does today (in the US). Was a rich person of a 100 years ago effectively poor? No. We constantly work to overcome the limitations put on us by nature. Some start at a lower point and some at a higher point. But a slave does not have the option of attempting to improve his conditions. He doesn't have a choice of actions. The fact that so many in China have will not be able to shake off so much of the nature's harshness does not make them slaves. Nor can you equate to slave masters those who would provide a path for those Chinese workers to shake off some of the harshness of mother nature.
Jon Stewart has never had a show on which he hasn't told at least one lie. While I do believe the Chinese factory conditions are atrocious, I would not take Jon's word for it.
But The Jungle was a fictional account. Sinclair was a Communist -- openly so. He was a member of the Socialist party for decades. While the abuses he described most likely did take place, the frequency of their occurrence was most likely exaggerated for propaganda purposes and, of course, for dramatic literary effect.
I just want to make sure you understand something. The fact that people don't argue with you is not an indication that they don't have a valid argument. Nor is it an indication that they agree with you. People don't argue with you because you disgust them.
How are they being evil? By complying with local laws? Aren't they mostly unwilling participants in this? Shouldn't the countries in question be held responsible for the legal standards they set?
How is this evil? They bore the cost of fighting for free speech in every legislation for a while. But, at the end of the day, they can't fight with every country's local law. They have the choice of not doing business there at all (if asked to censor) or to comply with laws which are sometimes draconian, sometimes misguided and sometimes plain silly. They DID try to carry the free speech torch. But if the costs of it keep increasing, can you really put it on them to bare those costs? They aren't in the business of politics. They are in the business of providing a user experience. You can't exactly say they went out there and volunteered their services as a censor. That would be Cisco.
On a more pragmatic note, it's the job of the population of any one country to fight for their freedoms. It's not the job of a foreign corporation to come in to enable that freedom. They are not enabling censorship. They are complying with it. It is, after all, their best available search results which they have to suppress in order to comply with local laws. If they have to reduce the quality of the product they provide, they are lose competitive edge in that market.
Mention to them that copyright terms are so long that the IP ownership industry now owns everything they learned as a child. And if they can't use their childhood stories/songs/pictures without paying someone money, then they can't develop as creative adults.
I already explained to you that those who point out flaws in your theory don't need to have a counter theory. They simply need to show that your evidence is faulty or that your logic has flaws. Otherwise, the world is flat because it's flat as far as the eyes can see. And it rest on a big turtle. Of course, "the world is flat" is a subtle mistake. But "it rests on a big turtle", that is a far reaching conclusion not justified by the data. You don't like what you hear and so you are mad. Good. You'll remember the point because you are mad. Even after your anger subsides, you'll remember the point. You'll be able to rationally consider the alternatives to your current world view then. Until such time, I wish you luck.
"i gave a theory and you don't have one" argument got old around high school. in fact, most high debate teams wouldn't let you get away with it. and yet you think it's appropriate to make this argument in actual science. silly
There have been standardized tests in elementary through high schools for at least 30 years.
Ok, and now we have the means to have more fine-grained information.
Trying to judge a teacher solely on metrics is as stupid as trying to judge a programmer on lines-of-code per day
Depends on the metrics. Just like you CAN judge a programmer on some metrics. There are good metrics for judging teachers' performance. And, no, teacher's salary is not a good metric. It says nothing about how well they perform their job.
"Synonymous" does not mean "identical". It means that it can be interchanged in some contexts. In this particular context they do not mean even remotely the same thing.
Any news that is 'owned' by Murdoch is highly tainted and, from my experience
At least you are honest about the fact that your arguing guilt by association. Maybe you didn't mean to be honest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did. Kudos.
What you didn't understand,
There is nothing that you said that I didn't understand. There was, however, plenty that I disagreed with.
my OP was in jest,
It was a joke steaming from an attempt to use mockery to introduce a false premise. I challenged that false premise (of guilt y association). That is all. I made an accusation of ad hominem on your part. The accusation stands.
you didn't notice.
Or didn't care.
ou, then, pointed at irony, while posing Murdoch-employee-like ad-hominem,
Nonsense. I made no ad hominem attacks.
Lol... mainstream = reliable... lol. Bye turd.
This is how you prove that I am arguing ad hominem? Ok. If everyone arguing with me made it that easy, then arguing would be pretty boring.
By the way, if you don't think this kind of concerted effort to use politics to suppress research goes on, why do you think there are so few academic studies pointing out that marijuana is harmless? Anyone who publishes such a study can just as well say goodbye to any future government funding. Anyone, on the other hand, who publishes a study supporting the claim that marijuana is harmful can see their grants trickling in. This is actually well known. Do you think it works any different with carbon-emissions studies? I repeat, government views it as a potential source of large tax revenue. Do you really think that issuing of grants will not follow the same politicization in one field when it does in another?
There is far more funding for scientists trying to disprove climate change than there is for those trying to prove it.
That's blatantly false. Anyone from ANY field who questions the so-called consensus risks having their funding pulled. And there is much more funding of academia research coming from the government than there is from the private sector. For example, AMS ran an article about a month ago that purported to support the AGW hypothesis. The problem is that they went over all the math that is used to establish the basic physics of energy transfer research. And at no point did they show that this in any way actually supports the hypothesis. This is the kind of distortion that this propaganda campaign has led to. Entire field of study are attempting to declare allegiance to the hypothesis without actually being able to say anything meaningful to support it. Mathematicians just as most researchers in basic sciences rely on government funding for basic research. Do you think they feel free to question what is seen as a source of future tax revenue (carbon tax)? Not even close.
ou're not going to listen to what I have to say unless I get my own show on Fox News.
Seriously? I haven't mentioned Fox news as a source of information at any point. Can you do anything but throw around vitriol with occasional mention of your favorite gripe against political right wing to spice it up? Because if you can't, then no, you won't convince me. I am only interested in science as a method of fact finding. If you view it as a way feel warm an fuzzy about your politics, then you are irrational.
What you're essentially claiming is that, based on a few scientists' objections and no observable evidence, we should reopen the entire question of whether or not climate change is happening.
No, not only is not the essence of my claim, it's not even a component of it. The question is NOT closed. It's only closed in the eyes of politicians and a fairly small minority of anointed scientists who have appropriated the name of "climate scientists" for themselves. They do not represent a scientific community at large. They certainly are not the only ones whose opinion on the subject has weight. But they do control who gets into the priesthood by controlling who gets to publish and who gets their PhD thesis' signed.
You're slippery, I'll give you that.
Absolute nonsense. I am honest and not dogmatic. And the fact that you can't corner me into your dogma is what makes you think that I must be lying or lack intelligence. Re-examine your assumptions. If you really mean them, of course. There is also a chance that you are just arguing a point because you are paid to or because you agree with me and you are goading me into helping to formulate your argument.
Do you honestly think all think that nobody is looking into this?
The very point of WSJ editorial was that too many people are afraid that they careers would end if they even tried to look into it. Read it. It's not that long.
In a recent high-profile study, some highly respected physicists skeptical of climate change took the time to actully study it. They all changed their opinion afterward.
One. Not "some", but one Richard Muller simply wanted to reanalyze the data. He wasn't a denier, as was widely reported, but was simply insisting that he wanted to inspect the data for himself to make sure the claims about the patterns in the data stood up. They did. That's all that happened. This does not confirm the larger theme. It certainly does not confirm that all variables have been accounted for. It only confirms that given the same inputs, the outputs from the computer models would be the same. Basically, his study confirmed that the programs they wrote to analyze the data did not have bugs. That is all.
Have these scientists presented evidence to the contrary and had them rejected?
Why would they have to? The signatories to the editorial are taking issue with the tone of the discourse -- not with the conclusions. They DID NOT make the claim that AGW is false. Having not made that claim, they don't have to prove it. But if someone, someone else, comes along and says that effect of certain other significant variables has not been accounted for, they don't have to make a study to prove it. Whether or not those variables have an effect on the original AGW findings does not take a study. It only take an examination of the conditions under which the AGW findings' data was collected.
What they have claimed is that the effect of the results found by the AGW study was overstated. Given how prone the pro AGW side is to exaggerate (you yourself just made a claim that a much more wide confirmation came from would be skeptics than actually did), the case of these 16 is easy to make. Until the rhetoric cools down, wouldn't trust the claims on either, to be honest. But certainly when someone makes the argument "have you disproven my claim?", it raises my eyebrow.
Furthermore, plenty of arguments against the full breadth of conclusions of the AGW camp do not require a study, but simply point out the limitations of the studies which have been conducted so far. That is a perfectly valid scientific position. Asking the question "but have considered this?" does not require that they need to make a study before even ask the question. If the factor is valid in considering the subject, then calling those who'd ask the question "crackpots" only serves to invalidate the original study. It shows that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Yes, the ass-backwardness of the modern educational system... Tracking performance through metrics... like grades. Education is not art. It's passing down to the next generation what is already known. Since there is a way to measure it, it should be measured. Measurements don't exist because they are fun or cool or turn somebody on. They exist because they are informative.
I made absolutely no such claim. My claim was that WSJ is not a fringe news outlet because it's mainstream. So claiming that it is a fringe news outlet is invalid.
No time to waste explaining nuts and bolts to blowhard dimwits.
Okie dokie. But f you can't understand the difference between the position you tried to assign to me and the one I actually made, then you live just in that glass house of being a dimwit from which you shouldn't throw stones.
like saying 99% of the scientific community is wrong
This isn't the case. It's not 99%. It's not even 80%. And some of the signatories of that editorial are physicists. How do you not trust a physicist's view on an issue which is in the most direct sense related to heat flow and possible drag on heat flow? How do you dismiss an astrophysicist's view on a study which deals with spectrum analysis of satellite imagery? And how do you make the claim on what is the opinion of "99% of the scientists" given how much active known suppression of skepticism there is in this field? Any field which suppresses skepticism ends up being an echo chamber of unchallenged ideas. Calling really well established scientists crackpots just because they point out the fact scientific inquiry should not be so policy driven and should be more fact-finding driven is precisely how you suppress skeptical views. You are doing it yourself as well. The only people who claim that 99% (or some other ridiculously high number) of scientists are completely convinced of the AGW hypothesis are not themselves scientists. They are generally politicians and reporters. Or worse, lawyers and actors. Not only do the people making the 99% claim do not impress me as trustworthy, they generally come off as down right seedy. Why exactly should I not believe the scientists who encourage a healthy amount of skepticism and should believe the lawyers, actors, entertainers, politicians who claim that the case is settled? Oh, right. The Bible is true because the Bible says its true.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean a "successful enterprise"? Craigslist is not an enterprise. It's a charity. It charges no money for its services. Neither the posters nor the viewers pay. It displays no ads. It survives on donations. You may not think of the people it helps as being in need of charity, but the modus operandi of Craigslist is that of charity. So this is just one charity giving money to another charity.
You can't sue a fiction writer for defamation, so I am not sure how much I buy this.
The fact that they provide employment in a place where there is no alternative (even if you accept that premise which is a case you haven't quite made) is NOT tantamount to destroying "other viable choices" for the people they employ. So you are still wrong. You still have not shown that they are destroying rather than creating paths to improving personal choices and personal well-being for their employees.
Except that no one is working on destroying the viable choices of the workers in China. Certainly Apple isn't. Nor is Foxconn. Nor the Chinese government. So I didn't miss anything. I had no way of knowing or nor any reason to assume that you'd be arguing from the facts which do not exist. In fact, everyone in question is creating better choices than the ones which were available to the workers before.
Then you missed the main point of the argument. Slaves had their life choices taken away. Those who start out in a bad lot in life and chose to work to improve it do not have their choices taken away You are choosing to put emphasis on one aspect of the situation while ignoring the rest. You want to keep attention on their miserable lot in life. And you want to ignore free will. Well, you can be a puppy of a wealth person. You'll have a very luxurious life-style. But you won't be any better off than a slave. It is the free will that defines our humanity -- not the level of material wealth we manage (or fail) to achieve.
And? Can you name a power that the Senate has which the executive has not asserted to have as well?
We are all slaves to natural law by your definition of slavery. And yet we are not. A rich person (in the US) enjoyed a worse life style 100 years ago than a poor person does today (in the US). Was a rich person of a 100 years ago effectively poor? No. We constantly work to overcome the limitations put on us by nature. Some start at a lower point and some at a higher point. But a slave does not have the option of attempting to improve his conditions. He doesn't have a choice of actions. The fact that so many in China have will not be able to shake off so much of the nature's harshness does not make them slaves. Nor can you equate to slave masters those who would provide a path for those Chinese workers to shake off some of the harshness of mother nature.
Jon Stewart has never had a show on which he hasn't told at least one lie. While I do believe the Chinese factory conditions are atrocious, I would not take Jon's word for it.
But The Jungle was a fictional account. Sinclair was a Communist -- openly so. He was a member of the Socialist party for decades. While the abuses he described most likely did take place, the frequency of their occurrence was most likely exaggerated for propaganda purposes and, of course, for dramatic literary effect.
I just want to make sure you understand something. The fact that people don't argue with you is not an indication that they don't have a valid argument. Nor is it an indication that they agree with you. People don't argue with you because you disgust them.
How are they being evil? By complying with local laws? Aren't they mostly unwilling participants in this? Shouldn't the countries in question be held responsible for the legal standards they set?
How is this evil? They bore the cost of fighting for free speech in every legislation for a while. But, at the end of the day, they can't fight with every country's local law. They have the choice of not doing business there at all (if asked to censor) or to comply with laws which are sometimes draconian, sometimes misguided and sometimes plain silly. They DID try to carry the free speech torch. But if the costs of it keep increasing, can you really put it on them to bare those costs? They aren't in the business of politics. They are in the business of providing a user experience. You can't exactly say they went out there and volunteered their services as a censor. That would be Cisco.
On a more pragmatic note, it's the job of the population of any one country to fight for their freedoms. It's not the job of a foreign corporation to come in to enable that freedom. They are not enabling censorship. They are complying with it. It is, after all, their best available search results which they have to suppress in order to comply with local laws. If they have to reduce the quality of the product they provide, they are lose competitive edge in that market.
Sounds like they are complying with censorship rather than enabling it.
Mention to them that copyright terms are so long that the IP ownership industry now owns everything they learned as a child. And if they can't use their childhood stories/songs/pictures without paying someone money, then they can't develop as creative adults.
I already explained to you that those who point out flaws in your theory don't need to have a counter theory. They simply need to show that your evidence is faulty or that your logic has flaws. Otherwise, the world is flat because it's flat as far as the eyes can see. And it rest on a big turtle. Of course, "the world is flat" is a subtle mistake. But "it rests on a big turtle", that is a far reaching conclusion not justified by the data. You don't like what you hear and so you are mad. Good. You'll remember the point because you are mad. Even after your anger subsides, you'll remember the point. You'll be able to rationally consider the alternatives to your current world view then. Until such time, I wish you luck.
"i gave a theory and you don't have one" argument got old around high school. in fact, most high debate teams wouldn't let you get away with it. and yet you think it's appropriate to make this argument in actual science. silly
There have been standardized tests in elementary through high schools for at least 30 years.
Ok, and now we have the means to have more fine-grained information.
Trying to judge a teacher solely on metrics is as stupid as trying to judge a programmer on lines-of-code per day
Depends on the metrics. Just like you CAN judge a programmer on some metrics. There are good metrics for judging teachers' performance. And, no, teacher's salary is not a good metric. It says nothing about how well they perform their job.
Mainstream/Popular are synonymous;
"Synonymous" does not mean "identical". It means that it can be interchanged in some contexts. In this particular context they do not mean even remotely the same thing.
Any news that is 'owned' by Murdoch is highly tainted and, from my experience
At least you are honest about the fact that your arguing guilt by association. Maybe you didn't mean to be honest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did. Kudos.
What you didn't understand,
There is nothing that you said that I didn't understand. There was, however, plenty that I disagreed with.
my OP was in jest,
It was a joke steaming from an attempt to use mockery to introduce a false premise. I challenged that false premise (of guilt y association). That is all. I made an accusation of ad hominem on your part. The accusation stands.
you didn't notice.
Or didn't care.
ou, then, pointed at irony, while posing Murdoch-employee-like ad-hominem,
Nonsense. I made no ad hominem attacks.
Lol... mainstream = reliable... lol. Bye turd.
This is how you prove that I am arguing ad hominem? Ok. If everyone arguing with me made it that easy, then arguing would be pretty boring.
By the way, if you don't think this kind of concerted effort to use politics to suppress research goes on, why do you think there are so few academic studies pointing out that marijuana is harmless? Anyone who publishes such a study can just as well say goodbye to any future government funding. Anyone, on the other hand, who publishes a study supporting the claim that marijuana is harmful can see their grants trickling in. This is actually well known. Do you think it works any different with carbon-emissions studies? I repeat, government views it as a potential source of large tax revenue. Do you really think that issuing of grants will not follow the same politicization in one field when it does in another?
There is far more funding for scientists trying to disprove climate change than there is for those trying to prove it.
That's blatantly false. Anyone from ANY field who questions the so-called consensus risks having their funding pulled. And there is much more funding of academia research coming from the government than there is from the private sector. For example, AMS ran an article about a month ago that purported to support the AGW hypothesis. The problem is that they went over all the math that is used to establish the basic physics of energy transfer research. And at no point did they show that this in any way actually supports the hypothesis. This is the kind of distortion that this propaganda campaign has led to. Entire field of study are attempting to declare allegiance to the hypothesis without actually being able to say anything meaningful to support it. Mathematicians just as most researchers in basic sciences rely on government funding for basic research. Do you think they feel free to question what is seen as a source of future tax revenue (carbon tax)? Not even close.
ou're not going to listen to what I have to say unless I get my own show on Fox News.
Seriously? I haven't mentioned Fox news as a source of information at any point. Can you do anything but throw around vitriol with occasional mention of your favorite gripe against political right wing to spice it up? Because if you can't, then no, you won't convince me. I am only interested in science as a method of fact finding. If you view it as a way feel warm an fuzzy about your politics, then you are irrational.
What you're essentially claiming is that, based on a few scientists' objections and no observable evidence, we should reopen the entire question of whether or not climate change is happening.
No, not only is not the essence of my claim, it's not even a component of it. The question is NOT closed. It's only closed in the eyes of politicians and a fairly small minority of anointed scientists who have appropriated the name of "climate scientists" for themselves. They do not represent a scientific community at large. They certainly are not the only ones whose opinion on the subject has weight. But they do control who gets into the priesthood by controlling who gets to publish and who gets their PhD thesis' signed.
You're slippery, I'll give you that.
Absolute nonsense. I am honest and not dogmatic. And the fact that you can't corner me into your dogma is what makes you think that I must be lying or lack intelligence. Re-examine your assumptions. If you really mean them, of course. There is also a chance that you are just arguing a point because you are paid to or because you agree with me and you are goading me into helping to formulate your argument.
Do you honestly think all think that nobody is looking into this?
The very point of WSJ editorial was that too many people are afraid that they careers would end if they even tried to look into it. Read it. It's not that long.
In a recent high-profile study, some highly respected physicists skeptical of climate change took the time to actully study it. They all changed their opinion afterward.
One. Not "some", but one Richard Muller simply wanted to reanalyze the data. He wasn't a denier, as was widely reported, but was simply insisting that he wanted to inspect the data for himself to make sure the claims about the patterns in the data stood up. They did. That's all that happened. This does not confirm the larger theme. It certainly does not confirm that all variables have been accounted for. It only confirms that given the same inputs, the outputs from the computer models would be the same. Basically, his study confirmed that the programs they wrote to analyze the data did not have bugs. That is all.
Have these scientists presented evidence to the contrary and had them rejected?
Why would they have to? The signatories to the editorial are taking issue with the tone of the discourse -- not with the conclusions. They DID NOT make the claim that AGW is false. Having not made that claim, they don't have to prove it. But if someone, someone else, comes along and says that effect of certain other significant variables has not been accounted for, they don't have to make a study to prove it. Whether or not those variables have an effect on the original AGW findings does not take a study. It only take an examination of the conditions under which the AGW findings' data was collected.
What they have claimed is that the effect of the results found by the AGW study was overstated. Given how prone the pro AGW side is to exaggerate (you yourself just made a claim that a much more wide confirmation came from would be skeptics than actually did), the case of these 16 is easy to make. Until the rhetoric cools down, wouldn't trust the claims on either, to be honest. But certainly when someone makes the argument "have you disproven my claim?", it raises my eyebrow.
Furthermore, plenty of arguments against the full breadth of conclusions of the AGW camp do not require a study, but simply point out the limitations of the studies which have been conducted so far. That is a perfectly valid scientific position. Asking the question "but have considered this?" does not require that they need to make a study before even ask the question. If the factor is valid in considering the subject, then calling those who'd ask the question "crackpots" only serves to invalidate the original study. It shows that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Not only is he a Catholic, his political activism is largely in line with modern Catholic establishment.
Yes, the ass-backwardness of the modern educational system... Tracking performance through metrics... like grades. Education is not art. It's passing down to the next generation what is already known. Since there is a way to measure it, it should be measured. Measurements don't exist because they are fun or cool or turn somebody on. They exist because they are informative.
Wsj is valid because it is popular?
I made absolutely no such claim. My claim was that WSJ is not a fringe news outlet because it's mainstream. So claiming that it is a fringe news outlet is invalid.
No time to waste explaining nuts and bolts to blowhard dimwits.
Okie dokie. But f you can't understand the difference between the position you tried to assign to me and the one I actually made, then you live just in that glass house of being a dimwit from which you shouldn't throw stones.
like saying 99% of the scientific community is wrong
This isn't the case. It's not 99%. It's not even 80%. And some of the signatories of that editorial are physicists. How do you not trust a physicist's view on an issue which is in the most direct sense related to heat flow and possible drag on heat flow? How do you dismiss an astrophysicist's view on a study which deals with spectrum analysis of satellite imagery? And how do you make the claim on what is the opinion of "99% of the scientists" given how much active known suppression of skepticism there is in this field? Any field which suppresses skepticism ends up being an echo chamber of unchallenged ideas. Calling really well established scientists crackpots just because they point out the fact scientific inquiry should not be so policy driven and should be more fact-finding driven is precisely how you suppress skeptical views. You are doing it yourself as well. The only people who claim that 99% (or some other ridiculously high number) of scientists are completely convinced of the AGW hypothesis are not themselves scientists. They are generally politicians and reporters. Or worse, lawyers and actors. Not only do the people making the 99% claim do not impress me as trustworthy, they generally come off as down right seedy. Why exactly should I not believe the scientists who encourage a healthy amount of skepticism and should believe the lawyers, actors, entertainers, politicians who claim that the case is settled? Oh, right. The Bible is true because the Bible says its true.