Couldn't agree more. It would be nice to just discuss
the possible risks and benefits of a medical procedure,
but there's always some nut butting in rambling about how
"God commands me to spill my child's blood", or "if it can
wait, it's probably best to let the boy choose for himself,
since people should be able to make their own medical
choices wherever possible". Bunch of crazies.
Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials.
That's true, but what about the much larger set of studies that show no correlation between circumcision status and any STD?
The idea is that you'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was.... You'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that wouldn't get rejected.
Isn't that pretty much what I said?
Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies.
An actual treatment based on embryonic stem cells would certainly change the terms of the debate, but isn't that irrelevant as to whether or not adults stem cells are the only way to do certain things?
The government does something bad, and it's out to get you.
The government does something good, and it's a "tactical deception", designed to lull you into a false sense of security, and it's out to get you.
Your theory is not falsifiable.
I don't think he meant his post to be a proof of psychological egoism. I think he meant "people have their own agendas" which should be self-evident, or "even when people do something right they are often doing it because it benefits them in some way" which is pretty basic psychology.
"the faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt". That could be true for purely Darwinian evolution...
In other words, I think we adapted even quicker that plants, but putting on rad-suits or getting away from the area, and telling others about the danger.
I think he was only talking about "adaptation" in the biological evolution/genetic sense of the word. A species that becomes radiation resistant and one that simply gets killed off in the affected area have both adapted in the general sense of the word, but I don't think that he was talking about "local extinction based geographical adaptation" (if that's the right phrase), even though it could easily happen much more quickly. Intelligence is that same way, when people use cultural adaptation they aren't biologically different, so they aren't adapting in the way he was using the word.
I cannot agree that intelligence is simply another survival mechanism
It may be quite unique, but (as far as we can tell) it really did develop as just another way to survive better.
In space, all other things being equal, those prospects wouldn't exist. Deficiencies, once they crop up, aren't going away. You need to have everything covered in advance. Everything. Right down to the last trace mineral.
Good point, but I'm not sure what that has to do with "A spacecraft with a closed soil ecology, isolated from earth, with only plants to feed the crew, would not be viable in the long term".
Earth's "special property" is that we aren't trying to manage the whole ecology. It's taken care of for us.
Again, I agree with your statements, but I don't know how "non-terrestrial agriculture will require more planning and management that the terrestrial variety" implies that "meat is needed".
Let's apply that logic to the first sighting of sperm fertilizing an egg.
1. Laboratory conditions. Check.
2. "The new findings suggest a possible method for traits to be passed from both mother and father to child..." Check.
3. Proof that babies come from sex. Not a chance.
4. Someone with a time machine that can verify that my mother would degrade herself like that? Nope.
Fertilization still remains philosophical at best, NOT science.
A spacecraft with a closed soil ecology,... with only plants to feed the crew, would not be viable in the long term. Might not be vitamin deficiency that gets the crew, but something would.
So vegetarians/vegans/fruititarians can't exist in space? What's Earth's special property that allows them to exist here?
There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way.
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy.
I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.
There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
That's exactly my point.
The difference is that I'm not actually a racist; I was making a point. But I believe cliffski actually is an ageist.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.
Yes, I would be guilty of ageism if I thought an 8 year old who proved his ability to drive safely shouldn't be given a license, or a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts simply because of his age.
I do strongly support the idea that there should be legal ways of getting around age limits (emancipation, etc). I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.
I do, however, find it interesting that you assume I must share your ageist beliefs.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.
Well, let's say that we discover what really happens after death, let's say it's being born again as a new person, starting a whole new life, does it make you want to live to 400 with your mind in a computer?
Well, one of those is speculation based on hopeful thinking at best, while the other is currently speculative but would obviously be demonstrable if it does become practical. I'd take an adequate near-guarantee over an awesome bit of wishful thinking.
...even living a 1,000 years in a computer simulation sounds better than nothing. ...you may not necessarily live another 100 years of the same life in the same worsening conditions as you're living in.
You seem to think that the secular possibilities of life extension are all inherently negative. That's quite a bias you have there.
When you're very old, you're supposed to have lived a worthwhile and interesting life, and if everything went fine you've done anything you've wanted to and have witnessed the creation of your 4th generation of descendants.
So if everything goes well and you want the things that society tells us constitute a "good life", then things are OK. What about the rest of us?
I'm just saying, old people aren't all scared of dying, a lot of them wouldn't mind, a number of them can't wait for it.
Most that can't wait for it are living pretty terrible lives, so I don't blame them for wanting out, or are true believers in one of the afterlife stories, so forgive me, but I don't find that to be a good basis for judging the value of a longer life. As for the ones that aren't scared, I'd suggest that they've just accepted that they will die, which is just the final stage of the grieving process - and just because people can come to terms with something doesn't mean that it isn't horrible.
I guess my main point is that because death is unwanted and inevitable, societies put a great deal of effort into making it more palatable. But if the 'inevitable' premise changes, we shouldn't let the coping mechanisms keep us locked into our current thinking. To make an analogy, warfare was inevitable early in human history, because of limited resources and minimal population control. But later on things like patriotism/nationalism, the glory of success in battle, and doing God's will evolved into justifications for warfare, rather than just ways to cope with it.
As for immortality, I think it'll never happen, not because it's impossible, but because I think we'll understand why it's undesirable before we make it happen.
>> or maybe sick of antisocial kids screaming and shouting in restaurants?
How is that any different from being "sick of antisocial blacks screaming and shouting in movie theaters"?
That's probably one of the most racist things I've ever read.
Do you think your personal prejudices justify legal/commercial discrimination?
No, but unless you're advocating drivers licenses for 8 year olds and holding adults to the terms of contracts they signed when they were 12, you're just as guilty of "ageism" as the post you replied to.
Without elecricity in rural areas, modern farming is not sustainable. If it disappeared tomorrow, most of the cities would likely starve.:)
True, but that would be quite different than if farming had spent the last century developing technology and practices without grid power. With less reliable power in rural areas, couldn't people have adapted by moving energy-intensive practices (like dairies) closer to cities, and powered more equipment with power take offs or their own IC engines? If rural areas had been more dependent on wind (and later solar) power, who knows how those industries would have developed with a large, ready market.
But my point wasn't that rural electrification was bad, or that farming isn't currently dependent on grid power. My point was that giving rural electrification credit for all (or most of) of the improvements in farming for the last 90 years (which was the implication of the post I replied to) was at best an absurd exaggeration.
I do have a problem with you owning apples and keeping them from a hungry person when you are not.
I have a problem with it as well, but I have to balance the short-term good of feeding one person with the long-term good of making sure that those who find or grow the apples have an incentive to keep doing that. This limits me to only taking things in a generally agreed upon way (taxes), or to persuading people to give the hungry person an apple (charity).
Look, if possessing something because of your actions entitles you to that thing, then taking something from you is an action, and I'm entitled to what I take.
Except that the defining characteristic of 'ownership' is that other people can't take or use it without permission.
Unlike personal property, real property takes a State to defend.
Nice rhetoric, but even nomads have rules about ownership, and people to settle disputes. There's nothing special about owning sections of dirt that requires that a tribal government become something new.
As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
Well, yeah. When it comes to property, the job of the government is to protect the ones that own it from the ones that don't.
And that explains the problems I have with libertarians.
Your problem seems to extend to all but a very few political groups, and pretty much anything like what I'd call 'civilization'.
When the big power companies balked at wiring the countryside for electricity, the government formed cooperatives to get the job done, as part of the New Deal.
In the '20s, the average American family spent 25%-30% of its income on food. Nowadays it's about 10%.
I'm sure you won't argue that the investment, and the subsequent increase in agricultural production, were not beneficial to the country as a whole?
And I'm sure that you won't argue that rural electrification was the primary cause of this change, dwarfing the shift from human/animal labor to internal combustion powered machinery, the introduction of hybridized seed, modern irrigation equipment, artificial sources of nitrogen fertilizer, better breeding programs, increased knowledge in several scientific fields, and the general increase in productivity during the same period.
Sorry to butt in, but this argument always confused me.
Where do these rights derive from? I'm honestly curious what your answer will be.
You've got the answer right here: Your personal possessions, I would never touch and in fact, I would help you defend them from someone who tried to take them.
And all other kinds of ownership are based off that same intuitive sense of ownership.
Your lands, well, there's where it starts to get fuzzy.
Well, you have no problem with me owning apples that I've picked, even if I'm not hungry right now and someone else is. So wouldn't the same logic apply to an apple tree I've planted? Other than the fact that I can't carry the apple tree with me, and the tree is planted rather than picked, it's pretty much the same situation - because of my actions I possess something, and have the right to keep it.
A factory?
Just an extension of the same logic of the apple tree - the people who built it preformed the actions necessary to create it, so they have a special relation with it - ownership. Of course, in modern times the sale of the finished factory to someone else is prearranged, so the actual builders end up with money rather than the factory, but the concept is the same.
Mineral rights? Intellectual 'property?'
These are a bit different, and have more to do with governments trying to encourage certain activities - we want people to invest in things (prospect or create) and fully exploit things (be able to let others in without losing control of it). Just like recognizing other people's right to own factories is good for you even if you never own a factory, because you can buy things made in factories (like the computer that you're on), recognizing these more abstract rights means that more minerals and creative works are available to you. (Even though in the case of IP the current system seems to be counterproductive, the concept itself isn't so crazy.)
That's exactly what he's done, and you just aren't capable of conceding, or seeing the difference in what I have said and to what you are answering.
Well, that isn't what he's done, you're just as incapable of conceding, and you never address my points directly. So we're stuck here.
Unfortunately, nuclear power plants aren't like skydiving, where its a single individual that pretty much decides if they're jumping out of the plane or not.
Right, that's why having an open conversation is so important - it's a decision we have to make together. But it looks like you're insisting that certain ideas shouldn't even be allowed on the table.
You are not changing the assessment of any waste except the waste that is recycled, not all nuclear waste.... sure, which is why oceanographers and conservationists are measuring oceans to the milliliter... because every drop counts.
That's a legitimate viewpoint, but other people believe it's a fairly effective way to manage the risks - and that's a legitimate viewpoint as well, not a fallacy.
// I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness, right or wrong, my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff. so I wrote a perfect solution fallacy between the lines
Your insistence that the deadliness of something means that the only option is not to use it looks like a textbook example.
The good news for me is that it gives me a fourth option to the troll/stubborn/learning issue framework I had been using. If it's correct, your insistence on a perfect solution means that imperfect solutions get dismissed out of hand. So when someone offers one, you assume that they must be making some kind of mistake or are warping your argument.
And I suppose that it good for you in that you'll be remembered as someone merely blinded by passion, rather than something more negative.
I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness
That's correct, Jurily was the one who brought up the subject of recycling and how it may lower the amount of danger nuclear power poses. He wasn't changing or ignoring the meaning of your statements, only adding his own. And that's why everyone else knows he wasn't using a straw man - you cannot make a straw man argument by adding new information, only by misrepresenting what another person says, which he hasn't done.
More to the point, you seem to think that we're disputing the fact that nuclear power plants make nuclear waste - we aren't. We're disputing the idea that nuclear power plants are too dangerous to use, which is an opinion based on the difference between a person's tolerance for danger and their assessment of the danger posed by the plants. Because the results of recycling that waste can change that assessment, they're germane to the conversation.
my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff.
That is a good example of the perfect solution fallacy.
Anyway, this thread should be closed to new posts soon, and it's pretty clear that you're beyond my ability to help. So good luck, I think you'll need it.
And so, thus, you can finally see you were wrong, yes? About your straw man argument?
Jurily did not make a straw man argument. Your stubborn misunderstanding of that phrase was abundantly (and painfully) obvious even to a random reader (c6gunner).
We shouldn't use nuclear power because of dangers it produces, such as "near eternal deadly waste."
I don't think that it's so dangerous that we can't use it, because we do have ways to mitigate many of those dangers, such as by recycling the waste.
That is not a straw man because it is directed at the phrase in bold through the part in quotes, not directly at the part in quotes.
LOL - now we are talking
No, you're just trying to change the topic back to something that you aren't blatantly wrong about. Next time, stick with this type of post instead of making false claims about other people's statements.
Let us hope that Ballard found the Lord Jesus before he passed into great beyond.
That would have been cool, but you'd think that that kind of discovery would be in all the papers. Besides, I didn't think he was into archeology.
After you die, it's too late.
True, graverobbing works only when some of the participants are deceased.
Maybe it's time for YOU to call on Jesus and turn your life over to His saving grace
Well, I did call on Dr. Jesus Perez-Lopez to save my knee. Two hours of surgery and a little PT, and I could start running again.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't agree more. It would be nice to just discuss the possible risks and benefits of a medical procedure, but there's always some nut butting in rambling about how "God commands me to spill my child's blood", or "if it can wait, it's probably best to let the boy choose for himself, since people should be able to make their own medical choices wherever possible". Bunch of crazies.
Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials.
That's true, but what about the much larger set of studies that show no correlation between circumcision status and any STD?
The idea is that you'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was. ... You'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that wouldn't get rejected.
Isn't that pretty much what I said?
Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies.
An actual treatment based on embryonic stem cells would certainly change the terms of the debate, but isn't that irrelevant as to whether or not adults stem cells are the only way to do certain things?
And to clone a person you'd need a stem cell to begin with..
No, all you'd need is any adult cell from the patient and an egg cell from any donor - no adult stem cell needed (unless you count the egg cell).
So that "embryonic stem cell" would be created from the adult stem cell..
No.
The government does something bad, and it's out to get you.
The government does something good, and it's a "tactical deception", designed to lull you into a false sense of security, and it's out to get you.
Your theory is not falsifiable.
I don't think he meant his post to be a proof of psychological egoism. I think he meant "people have their own agendas" which should be self-evident, or "even when people do something right they are often doing it because it benefits them in some way" which is pretty basic psychology.
The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself.
Unless we clone the patient and get embryonic stem cells from the clone.
"the faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt". That could be true for purely Darwinian evolution...
In other words, I think we adapted even quicker that plants, but putting on rad-suits or getting away from the area, and telling others about the danger.
I think he was only talking about "adaptation" in the biological evolution/genetic sense of the word. A species that becomes radiation resistant and one that simply gets killed off in the affected area have both adapted in the general sense of the word, but I don't think that he was talking about "local extinction based geographical adaptation" (if that's the right phrase), even though it could easily happen much more quickly. Intelligence is that same way, when people use cultural adaptation they aren't biologically different, so they aren't adapting in the way he was using the word.
I cannot agree that intelligence is simply another survival mechanism
It may be quite unique, but (as far as we can tell) it really did develop as just another way to survive better.
In space, all other things being equal, those prospects wouldn't exist. Deficiencies, once they crop up, aren't going away. You need to have everything covered in advance. Everything. Right down to the last trace mineral.
Good point, but I'm not sure what that has to do with "A spacecraft with a closed soil ecology, isolated from earth, with only plants to feed the crew, would not be viable in the long term".
Earth's "special property" is that we aren't trying to manage the whole ecology. It's taken care of for us.
Again, I agree with your statements, but I don't know how "non-terrestrial agriculture will require more planning and management that the terrestrial variety" implies that "meat is needed".
that buzzing sound is the point of faith flying above your head.
Choosing to believe what you want to believe?
Let's apply that logic to the first sighting of sperm fertilizing an egg.
1. Laboratory conditions. Check.
2. "The new findings suggest a possible method for traits to be passed from both mother and father to child..." Check.
3. Proof that babies come from sex. Not a chance.
4. Someone with a time machine that can verify that my mother would degrade herself like that? Nope.
Fertilization still remains philosophical at best, NOT science.
A spacecraft with a closed soil ecology, ... with only plants to feed the crew, would not be viable in the long term. Might not be vitamin deficiency that gets the crew, but something would.
So vegetarians/vegans/fruititarians can't exist in space? What's Earth's special property that allows them to exist here?
There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way.
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy.
I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.
There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
That's exactly my point.
The difference is that I'm not actually a racist; I was making a point. But I believe cliffski actually is an ageist.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.
Yes, I would be guilty of ageism if I thought an 8 year old who proved his ability to drive safely shouldn't be given a license, or a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts simply because of his age.
I do strongly support the idea that there should be legal ways of getting around age limits (emancipation, etc). I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.
I do, however, find it interesting that you assume I must share your ageist beliefs.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.
Well, let's say that we discover what really happens after death, let's say it's being born again as a new person, starting a whole new life, does it make you want to live to 400 with your mind in a computer?
Well, one of those is speculation based on hopeful thinking at best, while the other is currently speculative but would obviously be demonstrable if it does become practical. I'd take an adequate near-guarantee over an awesome bit of wishful thinking.
You seem to think that the secular possibilities of life extension are all inherently negative. That's quite a bias you have there.
When you're very old, you're supposed to have lived a worthwhile and interesting life, and if everything went fine you've done anything you've wanted to and have witnessed the creation of your 4th generation of descendants.
So if everything goes well and you want the things that society tells us constitute a "good life", then things are OK. What about the rest of us?
I'm just saying, old people aren't all scared of dying, a lot of them wouldn't mind, a number of them can't wait for it.
Most that can't wait for it are living pretty terrible lives, so I don't blame them for wanting out, or are true believers in one of the afterlife stories, so forgive me, but I don't find that to be a good basis for judging the value of a longer life. As for the ones that aren't scared, I'd suggest that they've just accepted that they will die, which is just the final stage of the grieving process - and just because people can come to terms with something doesn't mean that it isn't horrible.
I guess my main point is that because death is unwanted and inevitable, societies put a great deal of effort into making it more palatable. But if the 'inevitable' premise changes, we shouldn't let the coping mechanisms keep us locked into our current thinking. To make an analogy, warfare was inevitable early in human history, because of limited resources and minimal population control. But later on things like patriotism/nationalism, the glory of success in battle, and doing God's will evolved into justifications for warfare, rather than just ways to cope with it.
As for immortality, I think it'll never happen, not because it's impossible, but because I think we'll understand why it's undesirable before we make it happen.
Care to elaborate?
>> or maybe sick of antisocial kids screaming and shouting in restaurants?
How is that any different from being "sick of antisocial blacks screaming and shouting in movie theaters"?
That's probably one of the most racist things I've ever read.
Do you think your personal prejudices justify legal/commercial discrimination?
No, but unless you're advocating drivers licenses for 8 year olds and holding adults to the terms of contracts they signed when they were 12, you're just as guilty of "ageism" as the post you replied to.
Without elecricity in rural areas, modern farming is not sustainable. If it disappeared tomorrow, most of the cities would likely starve. :)
True, but that would be quite different than if farming had spent the last century developing technology and practices without grid power. With less reliable power in rural areas, couldn't people have adapted by moving energy-intensive practices (like dairies) closer to cities, and powered more equipment with power take offs or their own IC engines? If rural areas had been more dependent on wind (and later solar) power, who knows how those industries would have developed with a large, ready market.
But my point wasn't that rural electrification was bad, or that farming isn't currently dependent on grid power. My point was that giving rural electrification credit for all (or most of) of the improvements in farming for the last 90 years (which was the implication of the post I replied to) was at best an absurd exaggeration.
I do have a problem with you owning apples and keeping them from a hungry person when you are not.
I have a problem with it as well, but I have to balance the short-term good of feeding one person with the long-term good of making sure that those who find or grow the apples have an incentive to keep doing that. This limits me to only taking things in a generally agreed upon way (taxes), or to persuading people to give the hungry person an apple (charity).
Look, if possessing something because of your actions entitles you to that thing, then taking something from you is an action, and I'm entitled to what I take.
Except that the defining characteristic of 'ownership' is that other people can't take or use it without permission.
Unlike personal property, real property takes a State to defend.
Nice rhetoric, but even nomads have rules about ownership, and people to settle disputes. There's nothing special about owning sections of dirt that requires that a tribal government become something new.
As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
Well, yeah. When it comes to property, the job of the government is to protect the ones that own it from the ones that don't.
And that explains the problems I have with libertarians.
Your problem seems to extend to all but a very few political groups, and pretty much anything like what I'd call 'civilization'.
When the big power companies balked at wiring the countryside for electricity, the government formed cooperatives to get the job done, as part of the New Deal.
In the '20s, the average American family spent 25%-30% of its income on food. Nowadays it's about 10%.
I'm sure you won't argue that the investment, and the subsequent increase in agricultural production, were not beneficial to the country as a whole?
And I'm sure that you won't argue that rural electrification was the primary cause of this change, dwarfing the shift from human/animal labor to internal combustion powered machinery, the introduction of hybridized seed, modern irrigation equipment, artificial sources of nitrogen fertilizer, better breeding programs, increased knowledge in several scientific fields, and the general increase in productivity during the same period.
Sorry to butt in, but this argument always confused me.
Where do these rights derive from? I'm honestly curious what your answer will be.
You've got the answer right here:
Your personal possessions, I would never touch and in fact, I would help you defend them from someone who tried to take them.
And all other kinds of ownership are based off that same intuitive sense of ownership.
Your lands, well, there's where it starts to get fuzzy.
Well, you have no problem with me owning apples that I've picked, even if I'm not hungry right now and someone else is. So wouldn't the same logic apply to an apple tree I've planted? Other than the fact that I can't carry the apple tree with me, and the tree is planted rather than picked, it's pretty much the same situation - because of my actions I possess something, and have the right to keep it.
A factory?
Just an extension of the same logic of the apple tree - the people who built it preformed the actions necessary to create it, so they have a special relation with it - ownership. Of course, in modern times the sale of the finished factory to someone else is prearranged, so the actual builders end up with money rather than the factory, but the concept is the same.
Mineral rights? Intellectual 'property?'
These are a bit different, and have more to do with governments trying to encourage certain activities - we want people to invest in things (prospect or create) and fully exploit things (be able to let others in without losing control of it). Just like recognizing other people's right to own factories is good for you even if you never own a factory, because you can buy things made in factories (like the computer that you're on), recognizing these more abstract rights means that more minerals and creative works are available to you. (Even though in the case of IP the current system seems to be counterproductive, the concept itself isn't so crazy.)
That's exactly what he's done, and you just aren't capable of conceding, or seeing the difference in what I have said and to what you are answering.
Well, that isn't what he's done, you're just as incapable of conceding, and you never address my points directly. So we're stuck here.
Unfortunately, nuclear power plants aren't like skydiving, where its a single individual that pretty much decides if they're jumping out of the plane or not.
Right, that's why having an open conversation is so important - it's a decision we have to make together. But it looks like you're insisting that certain ideas shouldn't even be allowed on the table.
You are not changing the assessment of any waste except the waste that is recycled, not all nuclear waste. ... sure, which is why oceanographers and conservationists are measuring oceans to the milliliter... because every drop counts.
That's a legitimate viewpoint, but other people believe it's a fairly effective way to manage the risks - and that's a legitimate viewpoint as well, not a fallacy.
so I wrote a perfect solution fallacy between the lines
Your insistence that the deadliness of something means that the only option is not to use it looks like a textbook example.
The good news for me is that it gives me a fourth option to the troll/stubborn/learning issue framework I had been using. If it's correct, your insistence on a perfect solution means that imperfect solutions get dismissed out of hand. So when someone offers one, you assume that they must be making some kind of mistake or are warping your argument.
And I suppose that it good for you in that you'll be remembered as someone merely blinded by passion, rather than something more negative.
I never intimated that we need a way to mitigate the deadliness
That's correct, Jurily was the one who brought up the subject of recycling and how it may lower the amount of danger nuclear power poses. He wasn't changing or ignoring the meaning of your statements, only adding his own. And that's why everyone else knows he wasn't using a straw man - you cannot make a straw man argument by adding new information, only by misrepresenting what another person says, which he hasn't done.
More to the point, you seem to think that we're disputing the fact that nuclear power plants make nuclear waste - we aren't. We're disputing the idea that nuclear power plants are too dangerous to use, which is an opinion based on the difference between a person's tolerance for danger and their assessment of the danger posed by the plants. Because the results of recycling that waste can change that assessment, they're germane to the conversation.
my meaning is that we have no option but to cease production of the stuff.
That is a good example of the perfect solution fallacy.
Anyway, this thread should be closed to new posts soon, and it's pretty clear that you're beyond my ability to help. So good luck, I think you'll need it.
And so, thus, you can finally see you were wrong, yes? About your straw man argument?
Jurily did not make a straw man argument. Your stubborn misunderstanding of that phrase was abundantly (and painfully) obvious even to a random reader (c6gunner).
We shouldn't use nuclear power because of dangers it produces, such as "near eternal deadly waste."
I don't think that it's so dangerous that we can't use it, because we do have ways to mitigate many of those dangers, such as by recycling the waste.
That is not a straw man because it is directed at the phrase in bold through the part in quotes, not directly at the part in quotes.
LOL - now we are talking
No, you're just trying to change the topic back to something that you aren't blatantly wrong about. Next time, stick with this type of post instead of making false claims about other people's statements.
Let us hope that Ballard found the Lord Jesus before he passed into great beyond.
That would have been cool, but you'd think that that kind of discovery would be in all the papers. Besides, I didn't think he was into archeology.
After you die, it's too late.
True, graverobbing works only when some of the participants are deceased.
Maybe it's time for YOU to call on Jesus and turn your life over to His saving grace
Well, I did call on Dr. Jesus Perez-Lopez to save my knee. Two hours of surgery and a little PT, and I could start running again.