"Just because there is no such thing as a partical does not instantly make the other option correct"
Actually, when there are only two choices, and one is invalid, then the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one.
"Your right though, I made a mistake but you knew what I meant though so did you really have to be so anal?"
Well, I figured I learned how to spell and compose coherently. YOU never bothered with these things, and your inability to accurately convey your meaning is immensely frustrating to those of us who paid attention in school.
So the real question is did you really have to be such a shitty writer.
"Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".
That's what Occam's Razor is for. As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase). God, being unprovable, will rarely (if ever) fit these criteria.
I've heard you make this argument (that it's about the money) several times. Mostly, I think, because you have been refuted on everything else. Let me say you are perfectly within your rights to ask where your money is going.
Now, since this card potentially saves cost by eliminating several systems and replacing them with one (I'm assuming it is cheaper, but that information will be available) your last point is invalid as well. You will most likely be saving money, so save your outraged taxpayer crap (you're not really upset about the money, you just can't think of any other way to knock this down).
Hehe police state. Funny, I imagine you're some punk college brat who hasn't seen a REAL police state (don't lie and say you have troll, we all know you haven't).
Amazingly, since we in the US have an all volunteer army (this is where someone attempts to claim a draft is coming) none of your points matter at all. You don't like the rules, don't play the game.
I think the gp was making the point that ID cards for government employees are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to ID cards for private citizens. They were right. I saw no reference to "Big Brother's disinterest in running our lives".
In fact, I'm not sure why "big brother" and "running our lives" are even valid topics of discussion. You do realize no one is being forced to get these ID cards.
Maybe if you tried less of the chicken little stuff, you'd be taken more seriously.
"outnumbered by simpler systems that do the job just as well"
I would argue there are many significant accomplishments of humans that have yet to be approached by ANY other species.
"is it fair to give people an advantage because they have money"
Because that's not happening right now. Better schools, better health care, better nutrition, and better extra-curricular activities won't help a child be more successful.
None of which proves anything. You know very well that your DVD player will fail, yet you try to use this as an example. No technology works 100% of the time. You know that, so why try to keep up this charade? Does it really hurt that much to admit you fucked up?
As far as the fallout goes, you didn't say it would kill some people you said
"the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us"
WILL. As in it's a fact (it's not and you know it) so why equivocate now? There's not one iota of causation anywhere in your link. Maybe you should have checked it out first.
You know, I don't mind having a discussion with people who disagree, but don't say something dumb then try to prop it up. It's obvious and sad, and I know you can do better.
I love it. I've never seen anyone backpedal so fast in my life.
"unconstitutional is a form of illegal" hehe nice. Couldn't take it back so you equivocate huh?
"The Constitution is, in some parts, absolute"
No, it's not, and insisting it is doesn't help you look like less of an idiot. NO part of the constitution is immutable, including the 1st. You know fire in a crowded theatre and all that. By the way I love that. "Um, well, you see, uh, it is and is isn't". Sounds like someone is trying to play both sides (poorly).
"You introduced slavery into the thread with your (correct) assertion that slavery was made illegal by the courts"
You can claim all you want that the courts didn't decide this, but you need to read a history book. The amendment wasn't law until it was declared constitutional by... the US Supreme Court.
Now, I'm going to ask you a question (yes, i'm a sadist I know). What about separate but equal? It was constitutional, then it wasn't. Which time was the right choice? The constitution NEVER changed, but was interpreted two different ways, and both times the decisions were LAW.
Regardless of your reverence for the constitution, it is only a guiding document, not a hard and fast set of rules. You fundamental inability to grasp that concept leaves us at an impasse.
I'll simply have to wait for you to get smarter (long wait I'm sure).
Oh by the way, that snarkiness I was talking about, it's still there. You're too poorly educated to have a serious discussion with. Is someone smarter around that could ghost your posts for you?
Oh right, shitty attitude = no friends. Sorry, just do the best you can with your limited capabilities.
You didn't answer my question. YOU insist it has to be 100% reliable, but fail to provide a single example of any technology that is 100% reliable. If you don't want your feet held to the fire, don't say stupid shit.
"the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us"
You say this authoritatively, as if it were fact. Find a source.
You won't but that won't matter to you, because as I said, you're more interested in being a partisan than the truth.
Interestingly, why didn't you say you hated it when Clinton supported it? I'm amazed at how many of you line up to suck his dick like that.
Lie. Office of Homeland Security, newly created security czar, airport checkpoints, increased security at ports, war in Iraq etc. All of these combat a different individual threat, but specifically DON"T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ICBM's. Did you deliberately ignore these examples? Probably, because you know you're wrong and don't want to admit it.
I'm done with you. You've lied and obfuscated because you have a dogma to protect. What is to be gained from having a discussion with you when you're going to make shit up?
"It needs to work 100% to be effective and right now it's at 0%."
Does any tech work 100% of the time? I can't think of any. If you can you're a better man than I. Regardless, even if it was 100% effective, you'd still find something to complain about. You're a classic "hater".
Let's be honest, you hate W and you're looking for something to rant about. Stop trying to make it look like a justified cause.
"There are plenty of absolutes in the Constitution"
Listen, this is the last time I'll banter with you. So pay attention. All the examples you cited are only WORDS ON A PIECE OF PAPER until precedent is set. Last time I checked, JUDGES set precedent, not pieces of paper.
"I repeat my eariler example: if Congress passed a law making Fundamentalist Zoroastrianism the state religion and the Supremes okayed it, it would still be a violation of Amendment I"
So what? That doesn't make it ILLEGAL. It makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which isn't the same thing. More importantly, if you had ever had experience with law (you haven't I can tell) you would realize that Judges decide what is constitutional as well. No absolutes, because every single word in the constitution is open to judicial interpretation. Now explain to me how something can be absolute and open to interpretation at the same time.
"The courts did not decide that slavery was illegal"
Never said they did. YOU said that in attempt to act as though you knew something about the subject. But if you really knew anything, you would understand that the 13th was necessary because THE COURTS would not uphold protections granted in the 5th. Specifically
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
In the future, before you suggest someone educate themselves, you should know what you're talking about.
One last thing, I DO know what I'm talking about, I'm more well read on the subject than you, and I'm right. Stop being such a snarky little prick when you think you know something, I'm sure people will like you more.
"The whole point of the post was really that ABM systems are not an effective bargaining chip when many other methods of attack are avilable"
So you develop systems to counter those as well. This is not the defense version of a swiss-army knife, with one size fits all defensive action.
Unlike you, the people in charge of our defense program are perfectly capable of doing 2 things simultaneously. It's not an either or, regardless of how any times you attempt to reduce it to one.
"I'll stop criticising it when you have an effective missile defence system which could save me from a nuclear attack"
And how do you suggest we develop one without spending money and testing it?
Everything you said is true. However, none of it proves the technology infeasible. In fact, there is no proof that the tech is "infeasible" only that it currently doesn't work. So what? Many advances in technology failed repeatedly before we got it right. How many other technological advances would be squashed if we applied your standards?
Of course, when proven wrong the standard tack is to attack the messenger. It must not be true because Gorby was bought and sold. How sad that you can't admit you're wrong about something, but have to make up grand conspiracy theories to justify your beliefs.
Amazingly, I let facts justify my beliefs. Trust me, you should try it, people will have more respect for you if you do.
No, but what about all the tech that came from the program to get us to the moon, smartass. You can't say that didn't advance our society, but I'm sure you'll try.
"Countries are never going to send a missle against the US"
You can't say that. You have no fucking idea what another country will do in 20 years. If you disagree, make a reasonable argument, but don't lie, or make shit up.
When that threat is the total destruction of the US, then yes we throw whatever we need to at it.
As far as the rest, why can't several different systems be developed to counter different threats? Why do you insist it has to "Address the most realistic threat(s) first"? You don't think we can do two things at once?
Of course you do, you just wanted to bolster your argument by drawing a false dichotomy. It's certainly possible to develop a system to counter credible threats, and a different system to counte ICBM's. They are not mutually exclusive.
You still didn't address my point. How can a system designed to stop one thing be expected to stop something entirely different? It can't. By nukes, I meant ICBM's (my fault for assuming we were talking about ICBM's when the whole discussion was about ICBM's and the system is designed for ICBM's). Metal detectors can't stop plastic shivs. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.
"How about we just agree that as far as things have been going, the whole program is a waste of money?"
How about this instead. We agree that you will find a way to criticize this system, even if it were to save you personally from a nuclear attack some day. I think that's closer to the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that Doctors support religion because it has observable positive PHYSICAL effects, completely unrelated to anything supernatural.
As far as the rest of your post, doctors aren't trained researchers, so their opinion of science carries the same weight as a dog catcher's.
"Just because there is no such thing as a partical does not instantly make the other option correct"
Actually, when there are only two choices, and one is invalid, then the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one.
"Your right though, I made a mistake but you knew what I meant though so did you really have to be so anal?"
Well, I figured I learned how to spell and compose coherently. YOU never bothered with these things, and your inability to accurately convey your meaning is immensely frustrating to those of us who paid attention in school.
So the real question is did you really have to be such a shitty writer.
"Isn't that assigning a human metaphor to the divine?"
You mean like the bible?
"Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".
That's what Occam's Razor is for. As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase). God, being unprovable, will rarely (if ever) fit these criteria.
"Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, 'Is Light a Partical or a Wave?'"
Easy, wave. Mostly because there's no such thing as a partical.
I've heard you make this argument (that it's about the money) several times. Mostly, I think, because you have been refuted on everything else. Let me say you are perfectly within your rights to ask where your money is going.
Now, since this card potentially saves cost by eliminating several systems and replacing them with one (I'm assuming it is cheaper, but that information will be available) your last point is invalid as well. You will most likely be saving money, so save your outraged taxpayer crap (you're not really upset about the money, you just can't think of any other way to knock this down).
Hehe police state. Funny, I imagine you're some punk college brat who hasn't seen a REAL police state (don't lie and say you have troll, we all know you haven't).
Amazingly, since we in the US have an all volunteer army (this is where someone attempts to claim a draft is coming) none of your points matter at all. You don't like the rules, don't play the game.
I think the gp was making the point that ID cards for government employees are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to ID cards for private citizens. They were right. I saw no reference to "Big Brother's disinterest in running our lives".
In fact, I'm not sure why "big brother" and "running our lives" are even valid topics of discussion. You do realize no one is being forced to get these ID cards.
Maybe if you tried less of the chicken little stuff, you'd be taken more seriously.
"outnumbered by simpler systems that do the job just as well" I would argue there are many significant accomplishments of humans that have yet to be approached by ANY other species.
"is it fair to give people an advantage because they have money"
Because that's not happening right now. Better schools, better health care, better nutrition, and better extra-curricular activities won't help a child be more successful.
No chicken-little antics please.
"And as for your ad homium attacks"
Not only are you too stupid to read a book about constitutional law (a subject which clearly baffles you) but you can't even spell ad hominem.
And telling me to grow up IS an ad hominem attack. So you're a liar, a moron, and a hypocrite. I could have guessed that though.
None of which proves anything. You know very well that your DVD player will fail, yet you try to use this as an example. No technology works 100% of the time. You know that, so why try to keep up this charade? Does it really hurt that much to admit you fucked up?
As far as the fallout goes, you didn't say it would kill some people you said
"the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us"
WILL. As in it's a fact (it's not and you know it) so why equivocate now? There's not one iota of causation anywhere in your link. Maybe you should have checked it out first.
You know, I don't mind having a discussion with people who disagree, but don't say something dumb then try to prop it up. It's obvious and sad, and I know you can do better.
I love it. I've never seen anyone backpedal so fast in my life.
"unconstitutional is a form of illegal" hehe nice. Couldn't take it back so you equivocate huh?
"The Constitution is, in some parts, absolute"
No, it's not, and insisting it is doesn't help you look like less of an idiot. NO part of the constitution is immutable, including the 1st. You know fire in a crowded theatre and all that. By the way I love that. "Um, well, you see, uh, it is and is isn't". Sounds like someone is trying to play both sides (poorly).
"You introduced slavery into the thread with your (correct) assertion that slavery was made illegal by the courts"
You can claim all you want that the courts didn't decide this, but you need to read a history book. The amendment wasn't law until it was declared constitutional by... the US Supreme Court.
Now, I'm going to ask you a question (yes, i'm a sadist I know). What about separate but equal? It was constitutional, then it wasn't. Which time was the right choice? The constitution NEVER changed, but was interpreted two different ways, and both times the decisions were LAW.
Regardless of your reverence for the constitution, it is only a guiding document, not a hard and fast set of rules. You fundamental inability to grasp that concept leaves us at an impasse.
I'll simply have to wait for you to get smarter (long wait I'm sure).
Oh by the way, that snarkiness I was talking about, it's still there. You're too poorly educated to have a serious discussion with. Is someone smarter around that could ghost your posts for you?
Oh right, shitty attitude = no friends. Sorry, just do the best you can with your limited capabilities.
You didn't answer my question. YOU insist it has to be 100% reliable, but fail to provide a single example of any technology that is 100% reliable. If you don't want your feet held to the fire, don't say stupid shit. "the fallout from our own missiles will be enough to come back and kill us" You say this authoritatively, as if it were fact. Find a source. You won't but that won't matter to you, because as I said, you're more interested in being a partisan than the truth. Interestingly, why didn't you say you hated it when Clinton supported it? I'm amazed at how many of you line up to suck his dick like that.
"You know, since we aren't"
Lie. Office of Homeland Security, newly created security czar, airport checkpoints, increased security at ports, war in Iraq etc. All of these combat a different individual threat, but specifically DON"T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ICBM's. Did you deliberately ignore these examples? Probably, because you know you're wrong and don't want to admit it.
I'm done with you. You've lied and obfuscated because you have a dogma to protect. What is to be gained from having a discussion with you when you're going to make shit up?
"It needs to work 100% to be effective and right now it's at 0%."
Does any tech work 100% of the time? I can't think of any. If you can you're a better man than I. Regardless, even if it was 100% effective, you'd still find something to complain about. You're a classic "hater".
Let's be honest, you hate W and you're looking for something to rant about. Stop trying to make it look like a justified cause.
"There are plenty of absolutes in the Constitution"
Listen, this is the last time I'll banter with you. So pay attention. All the examples you cited are only WORDS ON A PIECE OF PAPER until precedent is set. Last time I checked, JUDGES set precedent, not pieces of paper.
"I repeat my eariler example: if Congress passed a law making Fundamentalist Zoroastrianism the state religion and the Supremes okayed it, it would still be a violation of Amendment I"
So what? That doesn't make it ILLEGAL. It makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which isn't the same thing. More importantly, if you had ever had experience with law (you haven't I can tell) you would realize that Judges decide what is constitutional as well. No absolutes, because every single word in the constitution is open to judicial interpretation. Now explain to me how something can be absolute and open to interpretation at the same time.
"The courts did not decide that slavery was illegal"
Never said they did. YOU said that in attempt to act as though you knew something about the subject. But if you really knew anything, you would understand that the 13th was necessary because THE COURTS would not uphold protections granted in the 5th. Specifically
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
In the future, before you suggest someone educate themselves, you should know what you're talking about.
One last thing, I DO know what I'm talking about, I'm more well read on the subject than you, and I'm right. Stop being such a snarky little prick when you think you know something, I'm sure people will like you more.
"The whole point of the post was really that ABM systems are not an effective bargaining chip when many other methods of attack are avilable"
So you develop systems to counter those as well. This is not the defense version of a swiss-army knife, with one size fits all defensive action.
Unlike you, the people in charge of our defense program are perfectly capable of doing 2 things simultaneously. It's not an either or, regardless of how any times you attempt to reduce it to one.
"I'll stop criticising it when you have an effective missile defence system which could save me from a nuclear attack"
And how do you suggest we develop one without spending money and testing it?
Everything you said is true. However, none of it proves the technology infeasible. In fact, there is no proof that the tech is "infeasible" only that it currently doesn't work. So what? Many advances in technology failed repeatedly before we got it right. How many other technological advances would be squashed if we applied your standards?
Of course, when proven wrong the standard tack is to attack the messenger. It must not be true because Gorby was bought and sold. How sad that you can't admit you're wrong about something, but have to make up grand conspiracy theories to justify your beliefs.
Amazingly, I let facts justify my beliefs. Trust me, you should try it, people will have more respect for you if you do.
No, but what about all the tech that came from the program to get us to the moon, smartass. You can't say that didn't advance our society, but I'm sure you'll try.
"Countries are never going to send a missle against the US"
You can't say that. You have no fucking idea what another country will do in 20 years. If you disagree, make a reasonable argument, but don't lie, or make shit up.
"Do we throw billions at a very remote threat"
When that threat is the total destruction of the US, then yes we throw whatever we need to at it.
As far as the rest, why can't several different systems be developed to counter different threats? Why do you insist it has to "Address the most realistic threat(s) first"? You don't think we can do two things at once?
Of course you do, you just wanted to bolster your argument by drawing a false dichotomy. It's certainly possible to develop a system to counter credible threats, and a different system to counte ICBM's. They are not mutually exclusive.
And so in your myopic world the fact that no threats CURRENTLY exist means they never will? How does that make sense.
Leave this to the adults please, I hear your xbox calling.
You still didn't address my point. How can a system designed to stop one thing be expected to stop something entirely different? It can't. By nukes, I meant ICBM's (my fault for assuming we were talking about ICBM's when the whole discussion was about ICBM's and the system is designed for ICBM's). Metal detectors can't stop plastic shivs. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.
"How about we just agree that as far as things have been going, the whole program is a waste of money?"
How about this instead. We agree that you will find a way to criticize this system, even if it were to save you personally from a nuclear attack some day. I think that's closer to the truth.