Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that. When you vote with your wallet, you always have less votes than a corporation, because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.
Actually, if you've ever read his writing on anarchism you'd know that he fits the definition of an anarchist very well. Might I add, this is a definition created by actual anarchists, not by right-wingers like yourself (who often have an agenda in redefining the words we use for your own gain, much like the doublethink you refer to).
Alar wasn't as big of a problem because we don't eat that many apples. Soft drinks are completely different; people drink way too much of them (although really, drinking soft drinks in any amount is unhealthy because of all the other problems associated with them). Thus, this could be an actual serious risk.
It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.
Are you kidding me? Factory farms exist to pump out large amounts of food to corporations that sell mostly to the first world. For instance, the vast majority of beef made in them goes to McDonalds. GMOs are used mainly for profit, not for some egalitarian purpose. In the third and second world, a lot of people still can't afford the junk that is produced through those methods. The third world has enough food for itself; they just don't have the infrastructure or political/economic freedom to get their hands on it. We don't need to further pollute our food to help feed everyone; we need to fix the poverty problem and do something about corporate corruption.
This is modded Insightful? How about Troll? Honestly, you complain about people blaming the wrong source on the one hand and blame "vegan hippies" on the other with no proof that vegans are responsible for the claims.
Flickr uses Yahoo Maps though, which is mediocre compared to Google Maps. Honestly, try zooming in on a place in Flickr and compare it with the zoomed in view on Google. The view on Google Maps is much clearer.
Actually, I don't like the Democrats any more than I like the Republicans. But that's because they are both conservative parties. I asked about real liberals, not the Democrats.
Because big corporations that will lose money if we protect the environment (ExxonMobil, etc) fund their campaigns.
Why do right-to-lifer's support the death penalty?
Because they believe in moral absolutism, which always breeds hypocrisy.
Why do liberals promote loss of liberty?
You left this one too vague. Honestly, this question makes no sense.
Why do those who dodge military service advocate preemptive war?
Because rich kids who become president are more than willing to use their power to line their wallets with more money even if it gets other people killed. They aren't concerned with the ethical dilemma or the hypocrisy, as the public won't ask too many questions so long as enough propaganda is produced.
Did Rand's cult ever have a reputation to begin with? Rand herself was notorious for her hypocrisy. Her "philosophy" (widely rejected by academia) is full of poorly done arguments, unsourced statements, and pseudo-psychology. She never attempted to prove that she told the truth, and she never had any integrity at all outside of the trust of her cult.
Actually, you are expected to watch ads; you are not required to do so. Nobody can stop you from changing the channel or taking a bathroom break (at least not yet).
One thing I've noticed over the years as a Wikipedia contributor is that there's nothing done to stop Rand's wacko cult followers from turning her article into a shrine to her. I once tried to fix this problem, but it turns out that her cult will not allow anything, no matter how well cited, to make her look bad. To this day, I can still point to biases left in the article that they will not allow anyone to correct. And even when there are admins around, her followers are allowed to harass contributors who don't worship her as well. I've often atributted this to Wikipedia's inability to stop large biased mobs from taking over any article they want to (as admins refuse to stop people from adding biased information). Still, I've had a long-standing suspicion that this has something to do with Jimbo's worship of her, and I am still not convinced that I'm wrong.
Honestly, I've found articles in the English version that are no better. Just look at any article involving Ayn Rand. In those articles, Rand's followers make up the majority of editors, thus allowing them to get away with deleting any facts (even if they are cited) that they don't agree with. The articles about her are constantly censored simply because 1) Wikipedia is unequipped to deal with a biased mob attacking one or more articles, and 2) the sources that make Rand look bad are often deleted, thus making it look like the "truth" is that Rand has very few detractors.
In the Chinese Wikipedia, the government's bias censors the text; in the English Wikipedia, editorial mobs are glad to use their own bias to censor it.
If you don't like any of the candidates available, you should still vote, but use the write-in box to vote for "none of the above." If "none of the above" got the majority of votes, they'd have to run the election again (possibly with new candidates). In our current political climate, where the one/two party/parties give us candidates who are exactly the same, I think this would help make them more aware that the voters often don't vote because they don't like any of their choices.
This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.
Actually, fascism is a right-wing ideology by definition. Granted, the supposedly left-wing Democrats are going along with it, but they are centrists, not leftists; centrists go along with anything to "remain" in the ever-moving "center". Because of this, the two parties are, essentially, two sides of the same coin.
I've heard the Randists claim that, but as far as I can tell they are the ones being biased. I never deleted any of their sources, yet they constantly delete sources I add (including one in which an academic proved her ideology to be based around a logical fallacy). I am hardly obsessed with her; I am just trying to fix one of Wikipedia's biggest POV problems, which I highly doubt Jimbo is that concerned about.
Actually, my problem with Rand is somewhat a result of dealing with the Wikipedians who worship her. I try to be unbiased about her article, and try to keep it as NPOV as possible, but unfortunately the Randists are extremely vicious about keeping the article biased. Their cult-like nature has led me to have a serious personal disgust for her.
I didn't say they had to decide the content. What I asked them for was to help deal with the problem, which they didn't. They have allowed a notorious multi-banned editor to continue to wreck the article without any attempt to at least convince him to explain his rabidly pro-Rand edits. They have been told that there is a huge slant amongst the editors, but they don't try to balance it out by at least facilitating the editing process. I only asked them to try to help out with the article, and they wouldn't even do that.
As for Jimbo, I'm not assuming he does it out in the open. I've been on Wikipedia enough to know you can communicate through e-mail with each other instead of typing into the website itself. That's why one of the admins got away with telling me off; e-mail can bypassing any policy because it isn't monitored.
Who says the tag is unreasonable? And if very few people agree with it, you've got mob rule again. Like I said, the Randists are trying to keep it biased, and they'd gladly take advantage of such a rule. They've already tried to slant voting involving these articles the same way.
And Jimbo's love for Rand is no rumor; it's well known that he once ran a Rand discussion site on the net before he founded Wikipedia. How this effects Wikipedia has been a matter of debate not only amongst editors, but also in the media (one media venue once called him "Ayn Rand-obsessed").
But Rand's fans delete any dispute tags. They refuse to solve any dispute, and instead just throw around the same illogical arguments over and over again until the opposition quits. Then, they just take down the tag and continue destroying the article.
And trust me, I've used every venue possible to get the admins to notice this one. And yet, nobody does anything. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if upper management is holding them back for personal reasons.
And yet you can't cite the discussion page in an academic paper. And most people only read the article alone. Thus, Wikipedia is doing a great disservice to its readers by presenting an anti-academic pseudophilosopher as the real thing when anyone who's been in academia knows that she's flat-out rejected as being a highly derivative, illogical (her work is based in fallacy) nutjob unworthy of serious attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that. When you vote with your wallet, you always have less votes than a corporation, because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.
Actually, if you've ever read his writing on anarchism you'd know that he fits the definition of an anarchist very well. Might I add, this is a definition created by actual anarchists, not by right-wingers like yourself (who often have an agenda in redefining the words we use for your own gain, much like the doublethink you refer to).
Alar wasn't as big of a problem because we don't eat that many apples. Soft drinks are completely different; people drink way too much of them (although really, drinking soft drinks in any amount is unhealthy because of all the other problems associated with them). Thus, this could be an actual serious risk.
This is modded Insightful? How about Troll? Honestly, you complain about people blaming the wrong source on the one hand and blame "vegan hippies" on the other with no proof that vegans are responsible for the claims.
In "Slaughterhouse-Five," Vonnegut wrote that he wanted his epitaph to be "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt."
Flickr uses Yahoo Maps though, which is mediocre compared to Google Maps. Honestly, try zooming in on a place in Flickr and compare it with the zoomed in view on Google. The view on Google Maps is much clearer.
Actually, I don't like the Democrats any more than I like the Republicans. But that's because they are both conservative parties. I asked about real liberals, not the Democrats.
Did Rand's cult ever have a reputation to begin with? Rand herself was notorious for her hypocrisy. Her "philosophy" (widely rejected by academia) is full of poorly done arguments, unsourced statements, and pseudo-psychology. She never attempted to prove that she told the truth, and she never had any integrity at all outside of the trust of her cult.
Actually, you are expected to watch ads; you are not required to do so. Nobody can stop you from changing the channel or taking a bathroom break (at least not yet).
You'd be surprised, but neuroscience is disproving Rand's pseudophilosophy:_ of_altr.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/23/neuroscience
One thing I've noticed over the years as a Wikipedia contributor is that there's nothing done to stop Rand's wacko cult followers from turning her article into a shrine to her. I once tried to fix this problem, but it turns out that her cult will not allow anything, no matter how well cited, to make her look bad. To this day, I can still point to biases left in the article that they will not allow anyone to correct. And even when there are admins around, her followers are allowed to harass contributors who don't worship her as well. I've often atributted this to Wikipedia's inability to stop large biased mobs from taking over any article they want to (as admins refuse to stop people from adding biased information). Still, I've had a long-standing suspicion that this has something to do with Jimbo's worship of her, and I am still not convinced that I'm wrong.
Check the link. I was making a joke based on the parody of Dawkins in the link.
This article seems quite preposterous. As Richard Dawkins points out, belief in Santa is unscientific.
Honestly, I've found articles in the English version that are no better. Just look at any article involving Ayn Rand. In those articles, Rand's followers make up the majority of editors, thus allowing them to get away with deleting any facts (even if they are cited) that they don't agree with. The articles about her are constantly censored simply because 1) Wikipedia is unequipped to deal with a biased mob attacking one or more articles, and 2) the sources that make Rand look bad are often deleted, thus making it look like the "truth" is that Rand has very few detractors.
In the Chinese Wikipedia, the government's bias censors the text; in the English Wikipedia, editorial mobs are glad to use their own bias to censor it.
If you don't like any of the candidates available, you should still vote, but use the write-in box to vote for "none of the above." If "none of the above" got the majority of votes, they'd have to run the election again (possibly with new candidates). In our current political climate, where the one/two party/parties give us candidates who are exactly the same, I think this would help make them more aware that the voters often don't vote because they don't like any of their choices.
This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.
Actually, fascism is a right-wing ideology by definition. Granted, the supposedly left-wing Democrats are going along with it, but they are centrists, not leftists; centrists go along with anything to "remain" in the ever-moving "center". Because of this, the two parties are, essentially, two sides of the same coin.I've heard the Randists claim that, but as far as I can tell they are the ones being biased. I never deleted any of their sources, yet they constantly delete sources I add (including one in which an academic proved her ideology to be based around a logical fallacy). I am hardly obsessed with her; I am just trying to fix one of Wikipedia's biggest POV problems, which I highly doubt Jimbo is that concerned about.
Actually, my problem with Rand is somewhat a result of dealing with the Wikipedians who worship her. I try to be unbiased about her article, and try to keep it as NPOV as possible, but unfortunately the Randists are extremely vicious about keeping the article biased. Their cult-like nature has led me to have a serious personal disgust for her.
I didn't say they had to decide the content. What I asked them for was to help deal with the problem, which they didn't. They have allowed a notorious multi-banned editor to continue to wreck the article without any attempt to at least convince him to explain his rabidly pro-Rand edits. They have been told that there is a huge slant amongst the editors, but they don't try to balance it out by at least facilitating the editing process. I only asked them to try to help out with the article, and they wouldn't even do that.
As for Jimbo, I'm not assuming he does it out in the open. I've been on Wikipedia enough to know you can communicate through e-mail with each other instead of typing into the website itself. That's why one of the admins got away with telling me off; e-mail can bypassing any policy because it isn't monitored.
Who says the tag is unreasonable? And if very few people agree with it, you've got mob rule again. Like I said, the Randists are trying to keep it biased, and they'd gladly take advantage of such a rule. They've already tried to slant voting involving these articles the same way.
And Jimbo's love for Rand is no rumor; it's well known that he once ran a Rand discussion site on the net before he founded Wikipedia. How this effects Wikipedia has been a matter of debate not only amongst editors, but also in the media (one media venue once called him "Ayn Rand-obsessed").
But Rand's fans delete any dispute tags. They refuse to solve any dispute, and instead just throw around the same illogical arguments over and over again until the opposition quits. Then, they just take down the tag and continue destroying the article.
And trust me, I've used every venue possible to get the admins to notice this one. And yet, nobody does anything. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if upper management is holding them back for personal reasons.
And yet you can't cite the discussion page in an academic paper. And most people only read the article alone. Thus, Wikipedia is doing a great disservice to its readers by presenting an anti-academic pseudophilosopher as the real thing when anyone who's been in academia knows that she's flat-out rejected as being a highly derivative, illogical (her work is based in fallacy) nutjob unworthy of serious attention.