Last I checked, though he wants to outlaw abortion personally he also is against the Federal government having the power to make it illegal.
Like it or not (and I am pro-choice), that is in line with the Constitution and the way our governments (state and federal) are constituted. Yes, it's a step backward for a certain type of progress, but that progress has been made in a way which has compromised the integrity of the system by ignoring certain things which should have been done to change it. Ignoring those requirements has also lead to many other things which are harmful to the continued liberty of the people. Ignoring important things for the sake of expediency will ultimately end the US as a recognizable system of government.
It's sort of amusing that there's an only before soybeans. Soybeans are one of the largest staple crops in the world. I'm not sure exactly in which spot they fall, but soy production ranks at about 1/4 weight of the top staple crop produced (corn).
Organic beef is where a lot of the bovine diseases come from.
Yes, because feeding herbivores MBM is a common practice on organic farms, resulting in the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
If you want to blame Foot-and-mouth on organics, yeah, I'd assume farming practices in the 16th century weren't reliant on many processed chemicals, but that's a far cry from the modern organic industry.
Or were you referring to some other major bovine diseases currently plaguing the globe?
A portion of the concepts numbers are used to describe are intuitive. Numbers themselves, especially when used in an incredibly abstract manner, are not in and of themselves necessarily intuitive.
A loaded term is anything designed to elicit a particular response, especially when that response is not backed up by the evidence when presented neutrally.
Your use of language is the exact definition of "loaded."
With regards to the definition of a majority I wonder if you noticed the section of the paper dedicated to the sample and to degree it is not representative of the larger population.
Which means your drawing conclusions from it other than what are actually contained within is a stretch at best.
Your arguments are intellectually dishonest, plain and simple. While you could have chosen a route to argue your point which was firmly grounded in fact, you instead choose to twist and manipulate things in order to paint them in a particular light. The only thing you manage to do is make it harder for anti-spanking people to be taken seriously because of your blatant misrepresentation of the facts. You won't convince anyone who wasn't already convinced, and anyone who reads your sources critically will suspect (rightly) that you are not being forthright and therefore your entire premise is untrustworthy.
It is not, however, an error when A actually is both not as bad as B and is also acceptable in its own right. Your example already pre-supposes both are wrong, so adds nothing to the discussion. But I'm guessing you knew that already, and instead decided to take a cheap shot. I see why you may believe anything you don't agree with is the "unintelligent, easy route," as it was the first route you, yourself took here.
That I'll agree with. I think where there's disagreement is between those who believe the above is the only thing that ever happens, versus those who don't.
I don't know about most. One thing about the studies that have been done is that parents involved in them frequently admitted that anger and frustration played a role in their behavior.
No, as it's not possible to actually prove a negative. However, no evidence currently exists to support a claim to the contrary, so it's really only a matter of me inappropriately phrasing my statement.
The only imaging studies I've found on the issue relate to corporal punishment that is classified as abusive. If you're aware of one supporting a claim that corporal punishment which does not act as a chronic stressor impedes brain development, please share.
Not all traumas are equivalent. Clearly, from the imaging studies that do exist, striking a child with an object regularly over the course of several years is clearly chronically traumatic while doing so uncommonly and with an open hand is not clearly chronically traumatic. That satisfies the criteria to deny the implicit assertion made by the poster to whom I was responding (that is, the force used cannot be differentiated biologically).
Still not finding anything resembling a scholarly article which says that. The one you linked later on certainly doesn't, since slapping a child's hand once is not in the same ballpark as spanking a child any more than spanking a child is in the same ballpark as beating them with a wooden spoon or a belt. Also, "usually" implies >50%, and the article you link later disagrees with you there, even if you change "slapping a child's hand" into the much more loaded phrase "hitting your child." You're not doing yourself any favors in convincing someone with a different viewpoint by playing that sort of game. What appears more likely is that, rather than attempting to have a dialogue, you are first and foremost attempting to demonize a large spectrum of behavior by equating it with a much smaller, more extreme, spectrum of behavior. Effective? Certainly. Objective and honest? Not in the slightest.
What the articles worth anything linked there do all agree on is that spanking shouldn't be relied on as a regular form of punishment (a distinction lost on many, apparently including you), and the first one that comes up in the AAP search specifically states "The most controversial form of punishment is spanking. Some believe the child should never be struck. Others feel there should be a return of the 'woodshed' philosophy. Neither is right. The 'never spank' group is apt to be overly concerned about the child's reaction, and the 'woodshed' group does not have the patience to rely on other methods."
It's interesting that you choose to use the loaded terms "acceptable to hit infants," when "hit" includes slapping the child's hand in that study, and in order for it to support your coupling of "majority" and "infant" requires quite a stretch on what age constitutes infancy. Most people don't consider a 3-year-old an infant any longer, and the largest contingent of physical punishment used to make up that majority is slapping a child's hand. Your previous posts about hitting children at the age of 12 months is limited almost exclusively to slapping a child's hand (something you fail to mention), which is (admittedly, only my own observation) almost as frequently a reaction to get a child to immediately stop potentially dangerous or destructive behavior as it is a punishment.
So, while you could actually use that study's data to make reasonable points to back up your position, you instead spin it to make one particular part of it sound far worse than it actually is.
Your treatment of the facts raises serious questions about your ability to discuss this issue objectively.
This almost directly mirrors my hypothesis of what will happen to the US. I also believe that, on the whole, such a situation will have better outcomes than our current political constructs.
I have never seen a parent spank a child who was just barely able to walk (~12 months). This is a put-up-or-shut-up sort of statement that needs some serious evidence to back it up.
Unfortunately, ther. seems to be a dearth of people who understand (and are able to practice) responsible moderation. It's all or nothing, and such people are unable to comprehend gradients between black and white.
There's a big difference between a spanking and a beating. And yes, if repeated trauma causes genetic changes, obviously the body's response is graded by the severity of the trauma.
More likely, as with most things, the effects are the result of a combination of physical and psychological trauma. Spankings, used as a tool by a responsible parent, don't cause psychological trauma. Beatings by an abusive parent, however, are psychologically traumatic. There is a difference, though I'm aware that people who believe in "Indigo Children" are unable to comprehend that such a difference exists.
Democracy sucks but it's better than the alternatives.
There are many forms of democracy, and some of them are amongst the worst forms of government ever conceived. As a result this statement is, in some cases, flat out wrong. At very best it's disingenuous and misleading.
Because your backups are always kept with the servers, right?
In the case of evidentiary seizure, it is irrelevant where they're kept unless they're in a jurisdiction untouchable by the US judiciary. There aren't many of those, and using one to store backups is probably just this side of impossible to accomplish realistically with the scale of data we're talking about.
I was simply making the point that they are illegal. Laws aren't always Constitutional, but they are still technically laws, even if they aren't (or shouldn't be) enforceable.
When you're the subject of a raid like this, it doesn't matter if you have backups. They take those too.
If the above is the lesson learned, then anyone backing up their data needs to do it onto a server in a country which has no legal reciprocity with the US. In those cases, the US just uses the military instead of the judiciary.
If people opposed to it (either out of ideology or ignorance) lie about it long enough, people who don't know any better believe them. Arguments like M1FCJ's are why the current corrupt politicians continue to win: they're willing to lie repeatedly about policies which might actually change something. Power brokers simply describe the opposition as the antithesis of what the opposition actually stands for and people without the time/intelligence/morals (pick one) continue to support the power brokers.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers doesn't (Representative; not even a Senator), at least not in a form bearing more than the slightest resemblance to the content of the letter.
Her offices send back position pieces which address the topic, at best, in the most general of terms, but make clear that the person drafting the response did no more than skim the letter for key terms.
Not everyone has their head stuck up Blizzard's nether regions. I game avidly and, though I recognize the game to which it belongs, had no idea what DOTA stood for prior to reading it in comments attached to this story.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, though he wants to outlaw abortion personally he also is against the Federal government having the power to make it illegal.
Like it or not (and I am pro-choice), that is in line with the Constitution and the way our governments (state and federal) are constituted. Yes, it's a step backward for a certain type of progress, but that progress has been made in a way which has compromised the integrity of the system by ignoring certain things which should have been done to change it. Ignoring those requirements has also lead to many other things which are harmful to the continued liberty of the people. Ignoring important things for the sake of expediency will ultimately end the US as a recognizable system of government.
It's sort of amusing that there's an only before soybeans. Soybeans are one of the largest staple crops in the world. I'm not sure exactly in which spot they fall, but soy production ranks at about 1/4 weight of the top staple crop produced (corn).
Organic beef is where a lot of the bovine diseases come from.
Yes, because feeding herbivores MBM is a common practice on organic farms, resulting in the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
If you want to blame Foot-and-mouth on organics, yeah, I'd assume farming practices in the 16th century weren't reliant on many processed chemicals, but that's a far cry from the modern organic industry.
Or were you referring to some other major bovine diseases currently plaguing the globe?
A portion of the concepts numbers are used to describe are intuitive. Numbers themselves, especially when used in an incredibly abstract manner, are not in and of themselves necessarily intuitive.
A loaded term is anything designed to elicit a particular response, especially when that response is not backed up by the evidence when presented neutrally.
Your use of language is the exact definition of "loaded."
With regards to the definition of a majority I wonder if you noticed the section of the paper dedicated to the sample and to degree it is not representative of the larger population.
Which means your drawing conclusions from it other than what are actually contained within is a stretch at best.
Your arguments are intellectually dishonest, plain and simple. While you could have chosen a route to argue your point which was firmly grounded in fact, you instead choose to twist and manipulate things in order to paint them in a particular light. The only thing you manage to do is make it harder for anti-spanking people to be taken seriously because of your blatant misrepresentation of the facts. You won't convince anyone who wasn't already convinced, and anyone who reads your sources critically will suspect (rightly) that you are not being forthright and therefore your entire premise is untrustworthy.
It is not, however, an error when A actually is both not as bad as B and is also acceptable in its own right. Your example already pre-supposes both are wrong, so adds nothing to the discussion. But I'm guessing you knew that already, and instead decided to take a cheap shot. I see why you may believe anything you don't agree with is the "unintelligent, easy route," as it was the first route you, yourself took here.
That I'll agree with. I think where there's disagreement is between those who believe the above is the only thing that ever happens, versus those who don't.
I don't know about most. One thing about the studies that have been done is that parents involved in them frequently admitted that anger and frustration played a role in their behavior.
No, as it's not possible to actually prove a negative. However, no evidence currently exists to support a claim to the contrary, so it's really only a matter of me inappropriately phrasing my statement.
The only imaging studies I've found on the issue relate to corporal punishment that is classified as abusive. If you're aware of one supporting a claim that corporal punishment which does not act as a chronic stressor impedes brain development, please share.
Not all traumas are equivalent. Clearly, from the imaging studies that do exist, striking a child with an object regularly over the course of several years is clearly chronically traumatic while doing so uncommonly and with an open hand is not clearly chronically traumatic. That satisfies the criteria to deny the implicit assertion made by the poster to whom I was responding (that is, the force used cannot be differentiated biologically).
Still not finding anything resembling a scholarly article which says that. The one you linked later on certainly doesn't, since slapping a child's hand once is not in the same ballpark as spanking a child any more than spanking a child is in the same ballpark as beating them with a wooden spoon or a belt. Also, "usually" implies >50%, and the article you link later disagrees with you there, even if you change "slapping a child's hand" into the much more loaded phrase "hitting your child." You're not doing yourself any favors in convincing someone with a different viewpoint by playing that sort of game. What appears more likely is that, rather than attempting to have a dialogue, you are first and foremost attempting to demonize a large spectrum of behavior by equating it with a much smaller, more extreme, spectrum of behavior. Effective? Certainly. Objective and honest? Not in the slightest.
What the articles worth anything linked there do all agree on is that spanking shouldn't be relied on as a regular form of punishment (a distinction lost on many, apparently including you), and the first one that comes up in the AAP search specifically states "The most controversial form of punishment is spanking. Some believe the child should never be struck. Others feel there should be a return of the 'woodshed' philosophy. Neither is right. The 'never spank' group is apt to be overly concerned about the child's reaction, and the 'woodshed' group does not have the patience to rely on other methods."
It's interesting that you choose to use the loaded terms "acceptable to hit infants," when "hit" includes slapping the child's hand in that study, and in order for it to support your coupling of "majority" and "infant" requires quite a stretch on what age constitutes infancy. Most people don't consider a 3-year-old an infant any longer, and the largest contingent of physical punishment used to make up that majority is slapping a child's hand. Your previous posts about hitting children at the age of 12 months is limited almost exclusively to slapping a child's hand (something you fail to mention), which is (admittedly, only my own observation) almost as frequently a reaction to get a child to immediately stop potentially dangerous or destructive behavior as it is a punishment.
So, while you could actually use that study's data to make reasonable points to back up your position, you instead spin it to make one particular part of it sound far worse than it actually is.
Your treatment of the facts raises serious questions about your ability to discuss this issue objectively.
This almost directly mirrors my hypothesis of what will happen to the US. I also believe that, on the whole, such a situation will have better outcomes than our current political constructs.
I have never seen a parent spank a child who was just barely able to walk (~12 months). This is a put-up-or-shut-up sort of statement that needs some serious evidence to back it up.
Yes, it can be.
That does not mean in necessarily is.
Your post could be read to mean you're a moron, but does not necessarily mean you're a moron. See the difference?
Unfortunately, ther. seems to be a dearth of people who understand (and are able to practice) responsible moderation. It's all or nothing, and such people are unable to comprehend gradients between black and white.
There's a big difference between a spanking and a beating. And yes, if repeated trauma causes genetic changes, obviously the body's response is graded by the severity of the trauma.
More likely, as with most things, the effects are the result of a combination of physical and psychological trauma. Spankings, used as a tool by a responsible parent, don't cause psychological trauma. Beatings by an abusive parent, however, are psychologically traumatic. There is a difference, though I'm aware that people who believe in "Indigo Children" are unable to comprehend that such a difference exists.
My take on the case:
Sun requires licensing to ship their JVM and SDK with a commercial product.
Google claims their wrote their own without using any Sun code.
If that is true, there's Google's case: they're not using the parts requiring licensing.
Democracy sucks but it's better than the alternatives.
There are many forms of democracy, and some of them are amongst the worst forms of government ever conceived. As a result this statement is, in some cases, flat out wrong. At very best it's disingenuous and misleading.
Because your backups are always kept with the servers, right?
In the case of evidentiary seizure, it is irrelevant where they're kept unless they're in a jurisdiction untouchable by the US judiciary. There aren't many of those, and using one to store backups is probably just this side of impossible to accomplish realistically with the scale of data we're talking about.
I was simply making the point that they are illegal. Laws aren't always Constitutional, but they are still technically laws, even if they aren't (or shouldn't be) enforceable.
When you're the subject of a raid like this, it doesn't matter if you have backups. They take those too.
If the above is the lesson learned, then anyone backing up their data needs to do it onto a server in a country which has no legal reciprocity with the US. In those cases, the US just uses the military instead of the judiciary.
If people opposed to it (either out of ideology or ignorance) lie about it long enough, people who don't know any better believe them. Arguments like M1FCJ's are why the current corrupt politicians continue to win: they're willing to lie repeatedly about policies which might actually change something. Power brokers simply describe the opposition as the antithesis of what the opposition actually stands for and people without the time/intelligence/morals (pick one) continue to support the power brokers.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers doesn't (Representative; not even a Senator), at least not in a form bearing more than the slightest resemblance to the content of the letter.
Her offices send back position pieces which address the topic, at best, in the most general of terms, but make clear that the person drafting the response did no more than skim the letter for key terms.
Then again, you might not be.
Not everyone has their head stuck up Blizzard's nether regions. I game avidly and, though I recognize the game to which it belongs, had no idea what DOTA stood for prior to reading it in comments attached to this story.
Really. It's not discriminatory pricing based on location. It's selective discounts based on customer profiles.