I still don't see it, but that's okay. Try searching for "Egypt Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Then "Syria Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Or hell, have some fun and just search for "crisis actor".
We do not owe Bush an apology. The whole premise for getting us involved in a war was a lie! Fake intelligence supporting a fake threat. Yellow cake was proven to be a fabrication contrived by Italian intelligence agencies. "Mobile Chemical Weapons Plants" were proven to be a lie. The only chemical weapons Iraq had was what we sold them in the 80s, and trained them to use against Iran and the Kurdish people (which they did and the US supported them).
Bush gained house support for Gulf 2 because of a long string of lies convincing people that Iraq was a threat to the US homeland.
Since we have proof that the Iraq war was based on a lie, we have many more people today questioning the same theme being run against Syria. Kerry and Obama claiming it does not matter who used the weapons is idiocy. Not that you said "it does not matter", more showing the direction the party has been moving to convince you that we should bomb Syria.
Bush got UN and Congressional support before every military action, and now we are being told Obama doesn't need to.
You have an untrue statement there. Bush may have gotten Congress approval (for some actions, but not all), but the UN never approved the Gulf war. As to the 48 countries, I don't think you have to try very hard to see who and why they were with the US. Same players, same game, different area of the globe.
For clarity, I'm not claiming Obama is "good" or taking a correct course of action. I am telling you that Bush can not be painted as a good guy.
If you were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you were a terrorist or pro-terrorists by Bush's statements. Did you forget the whole "you are either for us or against us" speech used and intended to stifle questioning policy? MSM labelled many people unpatriotic as well as pro-terrorist.
I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But
data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly
reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?
I don't see how you get your first question, no comments here even imply that the videos were faked. The question that is pertinent is "who used the chemical?". Are you perhaps confused by the term "False Flag"? The term does not imply that an event did not happen, but rather implies that the event was staged. This is the Hegelian dialectic (problem => reaction => solution).
John Kerry last week stated that it did not matter who used chemical weapons. That statement is absolutely wrong, and I really hope you are intelligent enough to know that Kerry was wrong.
You start out fine (first paragraph), but then go out to left field. The "Left" in the US is doing, and has done, the same exact things as the "Right". People claim Obama is a minority so does stupid things. Bush was just an idiot, so did stupid things. Clinton was just horny, so did stupid things. The other Bush was an asshole, and did stupid things. Reagan was an actor, and did stupid things. How many of these people are really stupid? How many times do you have to see both parties do the same exact things to convince you that the "Left" and "Right" became a false paradigm a very long time ago?
I'm not claiming that you and I can't have philosophical differences, I'm claiming that what we have had in politics since the 70s are from the same team and none of them work for the US Citizens.
People need to get over the bullshit they have been fed and open their eyes to reality. David Copperfield and Chris Angel do not have real magic powers. People are distracted from seeing what they really do in a performance, or things are hidden from view. I'm really not sure how people don't understand that what we have been seeing in politics is the same thing. They use race, religion, patriotism, "for the children" irrational arguments, and false "left" vs "right" arguments to keep you looking the other way. They always extend the same policies that are bad for citizens, and often pass even worse laws. Each new guy claiming "it's gonna change" and not a damn thing changes.
These tricks are not new, they date back to our earliest writings. Socrates despised the Sophists because they taught these arts to the noble class.
Thousands of people have been trying to tell people what has been happening. They rarely get media time, so you have to look for them. Gary Allen, George Carlin, Mark Dice, and hell go back and listen to what Eisenhower and Kennedy said.
What? A robot is a one time cost? Nope, not even close. Cheaper maintenance? Nope, that is not close either. It takes higher skills to maintain, reprogram, and repair robots. Then you have fuels required to power them.
Look at farm equipment for example. Machinery that was supposed to be cheaper has become community or rental property because it's much more expensive than paying labor. Many places still use manual labor to harvest because it's cheaper to do than machine harvest.
Many of these menial jobs were how my generation learned to "work" and be responsible. The same could be said with fast food jobs, and picking veggies at the farm during the summer. Many of these kids now turning 16 want money, but don't have the opportunity to work. If you are 15, labor laws will prevent you from working. At 16 it's employment is not simply hindered by labor laws, but those jobs are filled with adults that should be working higher payed jobs that no longer exist.
You are following a propaganda line that started at around the Reagan years, and has continued till today. The US Tax payer has given their Tax money to a Government that paid companies to move their jobs over seas. The same Government that convinced many people that NAFTA was a good thing (or people behind the Government would be more appropriate). The same government that disbanded tariffs and claims fair trade would hurt the people of the US. That is idiocy mind you, but people are duped into believing a politician over common sense.
If you have doubts, look at why Obama has been trying to extend NAFTA to the Pacific rim. If he was really concerned, why would you not only embrace one of the biggest detriments to the US worker and extend it? Don't repeat propaganda, stop and think!
Interesting points, and I agree with most of your perspective. What I take issue with in TFA is this statement. because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work. It reeks as badly as "These are jobs American's won't do" that require us to overlook illegal immigrants.
Your explanation, I accept that certain things can be automated like soil testing. To claim "people don't want to work" I say is an appeal to emotion argument that nobody should fall for (yet sadly many do). People do want to work assuming that they get paid fairly for the work being done.
The school system needs to be entirely restructured from the ground up.
We agree on this, moving back to a classical education would require this. While I did not call out that it requires a do-over, I believe it should be absolutely implied in disbanding the "industrial education methods" we currently use..
We teach kids at a snails pace and I think that needs to stop. Grade 1 - 3 should be all basic math, english, science and history, Grade 4 - 5 should be a bridge between basic concepts and advanced concepts, Grade 6 - 8 should be introducing concepts like calculus, physics and basic advanced concepts. I personally feel that by the end of grade 8 a student should be able to handle basic calculus, basic physics and be able to comprehend adult literature.
In essence, this is the Trivium method. You make nearly identical statements to what I said, so there is no disagreement.
Why do I think this? In grade 6,7,8 I kept asking questions about basically everything. I kept wanting to know how why my science textbook said something or how my math textbook can claim something works out. My teachers could never answer me and I think that is completely unacceptable. If you're going to teach out of a textbook you should be able to handle all the questions that can arise. I can read the textbook, I already mentioned that. As a teacher you have to pick up where the textbook leaves off, other wise you doing no more of a job then I'm doing. I can read and understand the material so if you the teacher can't add another dimension to it then I have to question your job.
When I was in grade 8 I literally asked this question to the teachers: "Ms Patterson, I don't believe light can travel in straight line because at some point it will approach a black hole, when it approaches a black hole, which I understand to have infinite gravity, won't the light be bent and there for no long travelling in a straight line?", Her response was, "No light always travels in a straight line because the textbook says it does", I questioned her again and got kicked out of the room for being a disturbance. Being a disturbance in my school usually mean't you asked a question which the bone heads couldn't answer and that made the "slow" kids have more difficultly.
If the Government forces the methods and materials, changing teachers does not matter. Thousands of teachers quit jobs when they see that they can't actually teach and are forced to indoctrinate. Talk to teachers that understand classical methods and why we should go back to them. Lots of people are of course just happy to have a job. There are many who don't know that 80 years ago our methods were very different with very different results. Today we have allegedly educated people that can't communicate clearly, and have difficulty with critical thought. 50 years ago, we developed strategic bombers and stealth technology with slide rules.
How should of this been handled? Simple, Ms Patterson should of told me, "Well that's an interesting concept, I will let you know tomorrow", she should of gone home and looked it up and let the entire class know what the outcome was. A teachers job is grow knowledge and induce a deep love of learning into the students. Currently we under teach kids and make them feel like the only acceptable way to deal with school is to keep your mouth shut and not asked questions.
This is why I think we need the more qualified teachers. Well I don't think that a grade 8 teacher should had a PhD in quantum physics I do think that a grade 8 teacher should be able to openly and knowledgeable talk about everything in a grade 8 textbook including handling questions about the material.
I agree that a teachers job is to teach learning. I disagree that the teachers are the real problem. Go look at how much regulation there is on education. Look at what laws state teachers must do and how they must teach. Teachers get fired if they don't play the game.
If you mandate a shitty foundation, you can't expect solid walls and roof.
I don't disagree with there being many bad teachers, but disagree with much of your premise. Elementary school does not require "specialists" for curriculum. It never has, and never will. What you should be learning in K-6 are very basic skills and concepts. 7-12 generally has specialist teachers. Even here, there is not enough to require everything be specialized because you are not learning overly complex subjects. (complexity based on an educators perspective, not the students).
Requesting specialization at such a low grade in my opinion harms more than helps. Physics and Math should be taught at the same time by the same people. Knowing "why" we perform and know certain math techniques is just as important as knowing "a^2 + b^2 = c^2". Calculating impulse power with algebra is easier and logical. That connecting of education is something we don't see in many schools.
For nearly 2,000 years we developed a method of education based on first a Trivium, then a Quadrivium. Learn how to think critically, express ideas, and basics of mathematics (addition/multiplication and their opposites). Later, we learn physics and algebra, then physics and calculus, music and trig, history and debate, etc...
In the last 70 years, that was scrapped for the Russian style "industrial" education system. You should immediately ask yourself why we went to a communist based education system. The communist name for the education is of course different, but the methods are identical.
Teachers are controlled by Government in what they teach, as well as how they teach it. While that happens, you won't be able to HIRE QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND GET THE RIGHT MATERIAL IN PLACE!!!!!!. The Government currently has what they want, at the expense of you and your children's education.
I don't think you have to do anything abnormal or illegal to find out someone's breaking the law. Gathering evidence after making that determination is not illegal, though this is the case many are trying to make. IANAL, but I have not seen any arguments that have merit. Mostly this goes to breach of contract, however an illegal contract is not enforceable.
Do you know why? Because he wasn't supposed to be looking at this information in the first place. He's a sysadmin, not an intelligence analyst or auditor. In short, he blatantly abused his privileges, broke the law, circumvented the chain of command, and now he's a hero?
You are ignoring the fact that he could also see who was participating in illegal activities. You assume, possibly incorrectly, that he felt he could trust making a report to his superiors. I never claimed he was a hero, I claimed that his method was correct in my opinion.
Which is why "Internal Affairs" and other organizations generally tend to be OUTSIDE other chains of command. This is no excuse.
I guess you really don't know much about Government work. Army internal affairs is a department in the Army, CIA internal affairs is an office in the CIA, etc... Most of those have regulations requiring you to report first to your commanding officer, then to their commanding officer, etc... up the chain. If a person in the chain is in question, with permission you can visit the internal affairs offices.
Surely you can name just 3, with a legit reference for each, since there are NUMEROUS court cases and stories?
See released and declassified documents for COINTELPRO, MOCKINGBIRD, Plumbbob, Crossroads, MKUltra, and no there is no reason to continue. It is simply too easy to find this information.
Fallacy is not "inescapable". In the post you first responded to, I never claimed the person was "wrong" or "correct". I stated that in my opinion there are too many variables to make a factual claim. Your response was to attack that opinion as well as claim that a piece of science to back that position was wrong simply because. Yes, I defend my opinions just as anyone should.
To avoid fallacy, provide facts for someone to consider that counters their current belief. Attempt to use sound arguments that don't rely on easy to spot false analogies (and other clumsy fallacies). Lastly, don't assume to know anything about the person you are speaking, such as "People who say that games are violent have no experience with real violence". Chances are that if the person is speaking about a topic they do have some experiences with it.
Personally I love good debate, and enjoy having my opinion challenged. I enjoy reading materials that counter my beliefs more than I enjoy reading what backs my beliefs. Rhetoric is completely trainable, and not that difficult with enough practice.
Except the bit I was disputing which is kind of the point.
Rubbish, show me what was misquoted.
Huh? No one is disputing that a bunch of 1.5 - 2 metre munitions with a chemical payload landed in rebel held territory and killed a bunch of people at this point, not even Russia and China or even Assad.
Citation is required, I see no evidence anywhere. No, some blogger's opinion from the UK does not count. Facts only.
I Googled and I could find nothing, only the things that backed up what I said to you.
You could have found by searching for "United Nations finds rebels guilty". You obviously didn't try very hard to search.
An interesting search I just tried was "march 2013 un finds fsa used chemical weapons". It's amazing how many links there are to this: "Leaked Documents: US Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack".
http://www.thejournal.ie/video-bomb-strikes-un-observer-vehicle-after-attack-on-funeral-452319-May2012/ [thejournal.ie]
Look up UNSMIS, it pulled out of Syria last year precisely because it was too unsafe and kept getting attacked by both sides of the conflict. Unlike you I can back up my claims thanks.
I almost laughed at this article when I read "Minutes later, a roadside bomb exploded, damaging one of the observer mission’s cars." in the article. The Syrian Army is now planting IEDs and blowing them up huh? Come on now, you can't really be that daft can you?
Further, we have this in the same article. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is calling on the UN observer mission to investigate today’s attack on the funeral and bring the perpetrators to justice.
The mission confirmed that one of its vehicles was struck by a bomb and that three were damaged in the explosion, but said that there were no injuries in the attack.
Last week, a roadside bomb struck a Syrian security vehicle shortly after the UN mission had driven by.
This is not selecting facts to suite your opinion, this is outright denial of reality!
This is pretty funny given that twice in your post you demonstrated outright you have absolutely no idea what you are on about. You're completely out of touch with the situation and are speculating wildly based on pre-conceptions formed by past fuckups.
Wildly based speculation that we need to find facts and not blindly believe propaganda when we have a history of receiving primarily propaganda from media and politicians? You have provided no facts that back your belief that it was Assad. You have provided no facts that show the UN was attacked by Syria (your link is laughable, unless you can't read). You have said we need to hold Assad accountable without merit! Who exactly is wildly speculating? I'd recommend you find a mirror before tossing out accusations.
There are a whole lot of people that make a whole lot of preposterous claims. PETA claims that fish are "sea kittens" for example. I don't given them credence and won't argue in their favor. To imply that you can not debate a point because of someone espousing a horrible opinion is nonsense.
Technically they are not supposed to go immediately to the public. Military, Government, and DOD people are supposed to use the chain of command first. Unfortunately, this does not work in most cases since the chain of command in a corrupt organization is also corrupt. Numerous court cases and stories are to be found regarding how internal whistle blowers are treated (sometimes killed with their whole family, etc...)
What Snowden did in this case is correct. Not going public mind you, but going to journalists who are supposed to be working for the public's interests.
What I, and many others, find so interesting is that our media has become so corrupt that we have to have alternative news sources which hold the original 'credo of journalism' in mind when working. I'm sure if he turned the data over to the NY Post, he would have been in jail and the public would still have no knowledge.
Lengthy chain to get to the point, but the point is that he did not go "public". He went to journalists, and did so correctly in my never so humble opinion. Part of the journalism credo is to determine what to release to the public in order to present the story while protecting the Government.
I really wish you'd just stop lying and pretending I've said things I haven't. It's quite stupid, i.e.:
Everything I have claimed you said has been in quotes, from your quoted text. If you intended a different statement than you wrote, clarify and expand instead of making false claims of misquoting.
I haven't said they can't deliver CWs. It's quite obvious they're capable of delivering standard artillery and mortar rounds with a chemical payload. What I have said is there's no evidence that they're capable of delivering 1 and a half metre long munitions, let alone from the middle of government held territory. That's quite a contrast to what you're saying I've said.
There is no proof that this happened! This is the whole reason I stated that we need to find facts. The initial reports of this come from a sole male living in the UK. This has been expanded on in the US without any other proof. It is the lack of proof that is causing China and Russia to warn the US away from intervention. Your initial claim was that the FSA could not deliver CWs. Then you stated "of this type" when no "type" has been found.
To not see why this false claim is a concern, ignores history! Google "Iraq Yellow Cake" and you will find out that this was a scam report intentionally manufactured and spread for FUD purposes. None of it was ever true!
Where have I dropped this exactly? I asked you to provide a source. You haven't done this, so should I assume you just made it up or are you going to actually provide evidence for your assertion?
Google is not broken. If you fail to do any work at all how are you able to debate from a rational point. Sorry, that is an absolute failure on your part and shows you have no desire for facts that might counter your opinion.
Most of the rest is you repeating the same broken logic as you have previously.
If a country holds a double standard of law, the law is unjust. There is no other way of putting it. So the US can hold Nukes for deterrent, but other nations cant? Or maybe the US only feels like their allies should have deterrents? With numerous varying standards, there can be no justice.
Further, an unjust punishment can not be used in seeking justice. The answer to someone being killed is not to kill a whole lot more. The answer is to bring the people or persons to justice. Now if you want to look at another interesting example of US injustice, remember back to Afghanistan. Bush told al Qada "give us Bin Laden" and al Qada said "give us proof he is complicit and we will hand him hover immediately. Bush's answer was to invade and never prove anything.
In other words, this is not a unique situation. The premise of using unjust methods of prosecution and punishments are never the result of a just party or someone seeking real justice. To believe that is possible requires a mental disorder.
Now to this one, which is a funny one.
Yes he has, he's also fired artillery, mortar shells and bullets into Turkey killing Turkish civilians in their own homes. This is why I'm suspicious of your one-sidedness as you're either brutally uninformed on the issue or intentionally presenting a very biased case.
I'm not one sided, I said we need to fact find. Bombing Turkey when Turkey is allowing unfettered access routes to rebels is a logical military action is it not? Turkey is also being used to ship military gear in to Syria, and holds rebel training camps. If you do not see this as a viable military target given those circumstances, then you had best start petitioning against drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and every other place that the US has been and is hitting for the same purpose.
I read, and have read, countless reports on Syria as well as other countries in the Middle East. Never have I seen a report that Syria attacked the UN, let alone intentionally attacked them. Unlike you, I did try to Goog
In fairness, I never made a claim as to any percentage or marker for this case. I agree it's not high, but to deny it happens ignores how children are being raised in high poverty and crime areas like Detroit.
Hmm, which leisure-time activity is more constructive for an unsupervised teen: (a) playing violent video games without "s.petry-approved moral instruction" - the horrors, or (b) boosting a car for quick cash for meth, then unprotected sex with the girlfriend.
False analogy. It's not like a person only has those two choices, so picking two extremes is an irrational method of attempting to prove your point.
People who say that games are violent have no experience with real violence. People who say that games are addictive have no experience with real addiction..
Yet another fallacy based on a false assumption. You have no idea what my experiences are, and I have no desire to expand on them since they are irrelevant to the points I made. Further you have no idea what anyone else' experiences are, regarding violence, who make similar claims to myself. I will give you a hint however, which is that many of us are military veterans.
To your last statement regarding addiction, why would you refute scientific evidence to support your opinion? That is a rhetorical question, no need to answer. It's not like you have presented anything resembling a rational point previously so I have no expectation that you will do so in response.
If you can't come up with sound logic for your position, please don't bother to reply. It becomes tedious pointing out flawed and fallacy ridden arguments.
The first "Depends" is that if parents are supervising, and teaching morals I agree. If nobody is around to teach morals, then I believe that games can have a desensitizing effect on more natural morals.
After reading what I just wrote, I think it important that I point out that the majority of the responsibility of raising the child is with the parents and not a video game maker. The video games play a role, but are not of course the ultimate issue.
The second "depends" is that games are not designed for learning. More often than not, games are designed to induce psychological addiction similar to gambling (not the same mind you, but games can use similar tactics to lure people in). Here is a reference.
While one may conceivably argue that WoW, or Team Fortress are not "violent", in that would not be true.
As with most things dealing with psychology, there is no absolute formula to make a claim that "games are not harmful". At the same time there is no absolute formula to make the claim "games are harmful". While you may not have been impacted, a child in a parent absent environment playing GTA may be impacted.
You don't know where she is, you speculate where she is. Even if she told you she was in the parking lot you would not "know" she was not on the road. If you guess that she should have gotten to the store at 2:00 PM, and you text at 2:05 are you sure she is at the store? Not until the act and waiting for the response, and even then it's not "fact" unless your GPS and Spycam rig shows here to be there.
Passing _any_ law, criminal or civil requires clear definitions of not just the crime, but the victim and perpetrator. Adding invisible goblins does not make anyone safer, it makes the law less clear. It makes it easy to rope in perpetrators by convenience, and not perpetrators that actually did something wrong or had bad intent.
Now if you texted something a few minutes after she left, something along the lines of "your mom just called and said she hated you, then committed suicide on the phone" and that was fabricated with the intent of distracting your wife, we already have laws to cover that. It's called abuse.
I did not misread, I gave separate analogies. Changing their comment from "brought" to "bought" would not make any difference on why their analogy is wrong.
Are you assumed to know via esp, osmosis, telepathic link, etc... that your wife is not pulled over to respond to your text? In a parking lot ready to leave? Just stopped at a red light so has a minimum of 30 seconds to see/respond to texts? I'll give you that you would know your wife has voice to text, but not whether or not you "know" she is using it.
You simply can not know without evidence, and a no law will change that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't see it, but that's okay. Try searching for "Egypt Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Then "Syria Crisis Actor" in Youtube. Or hell, have some fun and just search for "crisis actor".
We do not owe Bush an apology. The whole premise for getting us involved in a war was a lie! Fake intelligence supporting a fake threat. Yellow cake was proven to be a fabrication contrived by Italian intelligence agencies. "Mobile Chemical Weapons Plants" were proven to be a lie. The only chemical weapons Iraq had was what we sold them in the 80s, and trained them to use against Iran and the Kurdish people (which they did and the US supported them).
Bush gained house support for Gulf 2 because of a long string of lies convincing people that Iraq was a threat to the US homeland.
Since we have proof that the Iraq war was based on a lie, we have many more people today questioning the same theme being run against Syria. Kerry and Obama claiming it does not matter who used the weapons is idiocy. Not that you said "it does not matter", more showing the direction the party has been moving to convince you that we should bomb Syria.
Bush got UN and Congressional support before every military action, and now we are being told Obama doesn't need to.
You have an untrue statement there. Bush may have gotten Congress approval (for some actions, but not all), but the UN never approved the Gulf war. As to the 48 countries, I don't think you have to try very hard to see who and why they were with the US. Same players, same game, different area of the globe.
For clarity, I'm not claiming Obama is "good" or taking a correct course of action. I am telling you that Bush can not be painted as a good guy.
If you were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you were a terrorist or pro-terrorists by Bush's statements. Did you forget the whole "you are either for us or against us" speech used and intended to stifle questioning policy? MSM labelled many people unpatriotic as well as pro-terrorist.
I don't understand the claim. Is the claim that the videos are fabricated? But data about hundreds of dead, including kids, comes from many independent sources, some of which are highly reliable - such as doctors without borders. Are all these sources in on it, and not many people actually died?
I don't see how you get your first question, no comments here even imply that the videos were faked. The question that is pertinent is "who used the chemical?". Are you perhaps confused by the term "False Flag"? The term does not imply that an event did not happen, but rather implies that the event was staged. This is the Hegelian dialectic (problem => reaction => solution).
John Kerry last week stated that it did not matter who used chemical weapons. That statement is absolutely wrong, and I really hope you are intelligent enough to know that Kerry was wrong.
You start out fine (first paragraph), but then go out to left field. The "Left" in the US is doing, and has done, the same exact things as the "Right". People claim Obama is a minority so does stupid things. Bush was just an idiot, so did stupid things. Clinton was just horny, so did stupid things. The other Bush was an asshole, and did stupid things. Reagan was an actor, and did stupid things. How many of these people are really stupid? How many times do you have to see both parties do the same exact things to convince you that the "Left" and "Right" became a false paradigm a very long time ago?
I'm not claiming that you and I can't have philosophical differences, I'm claiming that what we have had in politics since the 70s are from the same team and none of them work for the US Citizens.
People need to get over the bullshit they have been fed and open their eyes to reality. David Copperfield and Chris Angel do not have real magic powers. People are distracted from seeing what they really do in a performance, or things are hidden from view. I'm really not sure how people don't understand that what we have been seeing in politics is the same thing. They use race, religion, patriotism, "for the children" irrational arguments, and false "left" vs "right" arguments to keep you looking the other way. They always extend the same policies that are bad for citizens, and often pass even worse laws. Each new guy claiming "it's gonna change" and not a damn thing changes.
These tricks are not new, they date back to our earliest writings. Socrates despised the Sophists because they taught these arts to the noble class.
Thousands of people have been trying to tell people what has been happening. They rarely get media time, so you have to look for them. Gary Allen, George Carlin, Mark Dice, and hell go back and listen to what Eisenhower and Kennedy said.
What? A robot is a one time cost? Nope, not even close. Cheaper maintenance? Nope, that is not close either. It takes higher skills to maintain, reprogram, and repair robots. Then you have fuels required to power them.
Look at farm equipment for example. Machinery that was supposed to be cheaper has become community or rental property because it's much more expensive than paying labor. Many places still use manual labor to harvest because it's cheaper to do than machine harvest.
Many of these menial jobs were how my generation learned to "work" and be responsible. The same could be said with fast food jobs, and picking veggies at the farm during the summer. Many of these kids now turning 16 want money, but don't have the opportunity to work. If you are 15, labor laws will prevent you from working. At 16 it's employment is not simply hindered by labor laws, but those jobs are filled with adults that should be working higher payed jobs that no longer exist.
You are following a propaganda line that started at around the Reagan years, and has continued till today. The US Tax payer has given their Tax money to a Government that paid companies to move their jobs over seas. The same Government that convinced many people that NAFTA was a good thing (or people behind the Government would be more appropriate). The same government that disbanded tariffs and claims fair trade would hurt the people of the US. That is idiocy mind you, but people are duped into believing a politician over common sense.
If you have doubts, look at why Obama has been trying to extend NAFTA to the Pacific rim. If he was really concerned, why would you not only embrace one of the biggest detriments to the US worker and extend it? Don't repeat propaganda, stop and think!
Interesting points, and I agree with most of your perspective. What I take issue with in TFA is this statement. because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work. It reeks as badly as "These are jobs American's won't do" that require us to overlook illegal immigrants.
Your explanation, I accept that certain things can be automated like soil testing. To claim "people don't want to work" I say is an appeal to emotion argument that nobody should fall for (yet sadly many do). People do want to work assuming that they get paid fairly for the work being done.
I disagree with you.
With which statement do you disagree?
The school system needs to be entirely restructured from the ground up.
We agree on this, moving back to a classical education would require this. While I did not call out that it requires a do-over, I believe it should be absolutely implied in disbanding the "industrial education methods" we currently use..
We teach kids at a snails pace and I think that needs to stop. Grade 1 - 3 should be all basic math, english, science and history, Grade 4 - 5 should be a bridge between basic concepts and advanced concepts, Grade 6 - 8 should be introducing concepts like calculus, physics and basic advanced concepts. I personally feel that by the end of grade 8 a student should be able to handle basic calculus, basic physics and be able to comprehend adult literature.
In essence, this is the Trivium method. You make nearly identical statements to what I said, so there is no disagreement.
Why do I think this? In grade 6,7,8 I kept asking questions about basically everything. I kept wanting to know how why my science textbook said something or how my math textbook can claim something works out. My teachers could never answer me and I think that is completely unacceptable. If you're going to teach out of a textbook you should be able to handle all the questions that can arise. I can read the textbook, I already mentioned that. As a teacher you have to pick up where the textbook leaves off, other wise you doing no more of a job then I'm doing. I can read and understand the material so if you the teacher can't add another dimension to it then I have to question your job. When I was in grade 8 I literally asked this question to the teachers: "Ms Patterson, I don't believe light can travel in straight line because at some point it will approach a black hole, when it approaches a black hole, which I understand to have infinite gravity, won't the light be bent and there for no long travelling in a straight line?", Her response was, "No light always travels in a straight line because the textbook says it does", I questioned her again and got kicked out of the room for being a disturbance. Being a disturbance in my school usually mean't you asked a question which the bone heads couldn't answer and that made the "slow" kids have more difficultly.
If the Government forces the methods and materials, changing teachers does not matter. Thousands of teachers quit jobs when they see that they can't actually teach and are forced to indoctrinate. Talk to teachers that understand classical methods and why we should go back to them. Lots of people are of course just happy to have a job. There are many who don't know that 80 years ago our methods were very different with very different results. Today we have allegedly educated people that can't communicate clearly, and have difficulty with critical thought. 50 years ago, we developed strategic bombers and stealth technology with slide rules.
How should of this been handled? Simple, Ms Patterson should of told me, "Well that's an interesting concept, I will let you know tomorrow", she should of gone home and looked it up and let the entire class know what the outcome was. A teachers job is grow knowledge and induce a deep love of learning into the students. Currently we under teach kids and make them feel like the only acceptable way to deal with school is to keep your mouth shut and not asked questions. This is why I think we need the more qualified teachers. Well I don't think that a grade 8 teacher should had a PhD in quantum physics I do think that a grade 8 teacher should be able to openly and knowledgeable talk about everything in a grade 8 textbook including handling questions about the material.
I agree that a teachers job is to teach learning. I disagree that the teachers are the real problem. Go look at how much regulation there is on education. Look at what laws state teachers must do and how they must teach. Teachers get fired if they don't play the game.
If you mandate a shitty foundation, you can't expect solid walls and roof.
I don't disagree with there being many bad teachers, but disagree with much of your premise. Elementary school does not require "specialists" for curriculum. It never has, and never will. What you should be learning in K-6 are very basic skills and concepts. 7-12 generally has specialist teachers. Even here, there is not enough to require everything be specialized because you are not learning overly complex subjects. (complexity based on an educators perspective, not the students).
Requesting specialization at such a low grade in my opinion harms more than helps. Physics and Math should be taught at the same time by the same people. Knowing "why" we perform and know certain math techniques is just as important as knowing "a^2 + b^2 = c^2". Calculating impulse power with algebra is easier and logical. That connecting of education is something we don't see in many schools.
For nearly 2,000 years we developed a method of education based on first a Trivium, then a Quadrivium. Learn how to think critically, express ideas, and basics of mathematics (addition/multiplication and their opposites). Later, we learn physics and algebra, then physics and calculus, music and trig, history and debate, etc...
In the last 70 years, that was scrapped for the Russian style "industrial" education system. You should immediately ask yourself why we went to a communist based education system. The communist name for the education is of course different, but the methods are identical.
Teachers are controlled by Government in what they teach, as well as how they teach it. While that happens, you won't be able to HIRE QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND GET THE RIGHT MATERIAL IN PLACE!!!!!!. The Government currently has what they want, at the expense of you and your children's education.
You missed what I stated. If a crime has bed determined, gathering evide ce is legal.
I don't think you have to do anything abnormal or illegal to find out someone's breaking the law. Gathering evidence after making that determination is not illegal, though this is the case many are trying to make. IANAL, but I have not seen any arguments that have merit. Mostly this goes to breach of contract, however an illegal contract is not enforceable.
Do you know why? Because he wasn't supposed to be looking at this information in the first place. He's a sysadmin, not an intelligence analyst or auditor. In short, he blatantly abused his privileges, broke the law, circumvented the chain of command, and now he's a hero?
You are ignoring the fact that he could also see who was participating in illegal activities. You assume, possibly incorrectly, that he felt he could trust making a report to his superiors. I never claimed he was a hero, I claimed that his method was correct in my opinion.
Which is why "Internal Affairs" and other organizations generally tend to be OUTSIDE other chains of command. This is no excuse.
I guess you really don't know much about Government work. Army internal affairs is a department in the Army, CIA internal affairs is an office in the CIA, etc... Most of those have regulations requiring you to report first to your commanding officer, then to their commanding officer, etc... up the chain. If a person in the chain is in question, with permission you can visit the internal affairs offices.
Surely you can name just 3, with a legit reference for each, since there are NUMEROUS court cases and stories?
See released and declassified documents for COINTELPRO, MOCKINGBIRD, Plumbbob, Crossroads, MKUltra, and no there is no reason to continue. It is simply too easy to find this information.
Fallacy is not "inescapable". In the post you first responded to, I never claimed the person was "wrong" or "correct". I stated that in my opinion there are too many variables to make a factual claim. Your response was to attack that opinion as well as claim that a piece of science to back that position was wrong simply because. Yes, I defend my opinions just as anyone should.
To avoid fallacy, provide facts for someone to consider that counters their current belief. Attempt to use sound arguments that don't rely on easy to spot false analogies (and other clumsy fallacies). Lastly, don't assume to know anything about the person you are speaking, such as "People who say that games are violent have no experience with real violence". Chances are that if the person is speaking about a topic they do have some experiences with it.
Personally I love good debate, and enjoy having my opinion challenged. I enjoy reading materials that counter my beliefs more than I enjoy reading what backs my beliefs. Rhetoric is completely trainable, and not that difficult with enough practice.
Except the bit I was disputing which is kind of the point.
Rubbish, show me what was misquoted.
Huh? No one is disputing that a bunch of 1.5 - 2 metre munitions with a chemical payload landed in rebel held territory and killed a bunch of people at this point, not even Russia and China or even Assad.
Citation is required, I see no evidence anywhere. No, some blogger's opinion from the UK does not count. Facts only.
I Googled and I could find nothing, only the things that backed up what I said to you.
You could have found by searching for "United Nations finds rebels guilty". You obviously didn't try very hard to search.
An interesting search I just tried was "march 2013 un finds fsa used chemical weapons". It's amazing how many links there are to this: "Leaked Documents: US Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack".
http://www.thejournal.ie/video-bomb-strikes-un-observer-vehicle-after-attack-on-funeral-452319-May2012/ [thejournal.ie] Look up UNSMIS, it pulled out of Syria last year precisely because it was too unsafe and kept getting attacked by both sides of the conflict. Unlike you I can back up my claims thanks.
I almost laughed at this article when I read "Minutes later, a roadside bomb exploded, damaging one of the observer mission’s cars." in the article. The Syrian Army is now planting IEDs and blowing them up huh? Come on now, you can't really be that daft can you?
Further, we have this in the same article. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is calling on the UN observer mission to investigate today’s attack on the funeral and bring the perpetrators to justice. The mission confirmed that one of its vehicles was struck by a bomb and that three were damaged in the explosion, but said that there were no injuries in the attack. Last week, a roadside bomb struck a Syrian security vehicle shortly after the UN mission had driven by.
This is not selecting facts to suite your opinion, this is outright denial of reality!
This is pretty funny given that twice in your post you demonstrated outright you have absolutely no idea what you are on about. You're completely out of touch with the situation and are speculating wildly based on pre-conceptions formed by past fuckups.
Wildly based speculation that we need to find facts and not blindly believe propaganda when we have a history of receiving primarily propaganda from media and politicians? You have provided no facts that back your belief that it was Assad. You have provided no facts that show the UN was attacked by Syria (your link is laughable, unless you can't read). You have said we need to hold Assad accountable without merit! Who exactly is wildly speculating? I'd recommend you find a mirror before tossing out accusations.
There are a whole lot of people that make a whole lot of preposterous claims. PETA claims that fish are "sea kittens" for example. I don't given them credence and won't argue in their favor. To imply that you can not debate a point because of someone espousing a horrible opinion is nonsense.
Technically they are not supposed to go immediately to the public. Military, Government, and DOD people are supposed to use the chain of command first. Unfortunately, this does not work in most cases since the chain of command in a corrupt organization is also corrupt. Numerous court cases and stories are to be found regarding how internal whistle blowers are treated (sometimes killed with their whole family, etc...)
What Snowden did in this case is correct. Not going public mind you, but going to journalists who are supposed to be working for the public's interests.
What I, and many others, find so interesting is that our media has become so corrupt that we have to have alternative news sources which hold the original 'credo of journalism' in mind when working. I'm sure if he turned the data over to the NY Post, he would have been in jail and the public would still have no knowledge.
Lengthy chain to get to the point, but the point is that he did not go "public". He went to journalists, and did so correctly in my never so humble opinion. Part of the journalism credo is to determine what to release to the public in order to present the story while protecting the Government.
I really wish you'd just stop lying and pretending I've said things I haven't. It's quite stupid, i.e.:
Everything I have claimed you said has been in quotes, from your quoted text. If you intended a different statement than you wrote, clarify and expand instead of making false claims of misquoting.
I haven't said they can't deliver CWs. It's quite obvious they're capable of delivering standard artillery and mortar rounds with a chemical payload. What I have said is there's no evidence that they're capable of delivering 1 and a half metre long munitions, let alone from the middle of government held territory. That's quite a contrast to what you're saying I've said.
There is no proof that this happened! This is the whole reason I stated that we need to find facts. The initial reports of this come from a sole male living in the UK. This has been expanded on in the US without any other proof. It is the lack of proof that is causing China and Russia to warn the US away from intervention. Your initial claim was that the FSA could not deliver CWs. Then you stated "of this type" when no "type" has been found.
To not see why this false claim is a concern, ignores history! Google "Iraq Yellow Cake" and you will find out that this was a scam report intentionally manufactured and spread for FUD purposes. None of it was ever true!
Where have I dropped this exactly? I asked you to provide a source. You haven't done this, so should I assume you just made it up or are you going to actually provide evidence for your assertion?
Google is not broken. If you fail to do any work at all how are you able to debate from a rational point. Sorry, that is an absolute failure on your part and shows you have no desire for facts that might counter your opinion.
Most of the rest is you repeating the same broken logic as you have previously.
If a country holds a double standard of law, the law is unjust. There is no other way of putting it. So the US can hold Nukes for deterrent, but other nations cant? Or maybe the US only feels like their allies should have deterrents? With numerous varying standards, there can be no justice.
Further, an unjust punishment can not be used in seeking justice. The answer to someone being killed is not to kill a whole lot more. The answer is to bring the people or persons to justice. Now if you want to look at another interesting example of US injustice, remember back to Afghanistan. Bush told al Qada "give us Bin Laden" and al Qada said "give us proof he is complicit and we will hand him hover immediately. Bush's answer was to invade and never prove anything.
In other words, this is not a unique situation. The premise of using unjust methods of prosecution and punishments are never the result of a just party or someone seeking real justice. To believe that is possible requires a mental disorder.
Now to this one, which is a funny one.
Yes he has, he's also fired artillery, mortar shells and bullets into Turkey killing Turkish civilians in their own homes. This is why I'm suspicious of your one-sidedness as you're either brutally uninformed on the issue or intentionally presenting a very biased case.
I'm not one sided, I said we need to fact find. Bombing Turkey when Turkey is allowing unfettered access routes to rebels is a logical military action is it not? Turkey is also being used to ship military gear in to Syria, and holds rebel training camps. If you do not see this as a viable military target given those circumstances, then you had best start petitioning against drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and every other place that the US has been and is hitting for the same purpose.
I read, and have read, countless reports on Syria as well as other countries in the Middle East. Never have I seen a report that Syria attacked the UN, let alone intentionally attacked them. Unlike you, I did try to Goog
In fairness, I never made a claim as to any percentage or marker for this case. I agree it's not high, but to deny it happens ignores how children are being raised in high poverty and crime areas like Detroit.
Hmm, which leisure-time activity is more constructive for an unsupervised teen: (a) playing violent video games without "s.petry-approved moral instruction" - the horrors, or (b) boosting a car for quick cash for meth, then unprotected sex with the girlfriend.
False analogy. It's not like a person only has those two choices, so picking two extremes is an irrational method of attempting to prove your point.
People who say that games are violent have no experience with real violence. People who say that games are addictive have no experience with real addiction..
Yet another fallacy based on a false assumption. You have no idea what my experiences are, and I have no desire to expand on them since they are irrelevant to the points I made. Further you have no idea what anyone else' experiences are, regarding violence, who make similar claims to myself. I will give you a hint however, which is that many of us are military veterans.
To your last statement regarding addiction, why would you refute scientific evidence to support your opinion? That is a rhetorical question, no need to answer. It's not like you have presented anything resembling a rational point previously so I have no expectation that you will do so in response.
If you can't come up with sound logic for your position, please don't bother to reply. It becomes tedious pointing out flawed and fallacy ridden arguments.
The first "Depends" is that if parents are supervising, and teaching morals I agree. If nobody is around to teach morals, then I believe that games can have a desensitizing effect on more natural morals.
After reading what I just wrote, I think it important that I point out that the majority of the responsibility of raising the child is with the parents and not a video game maker. The video games play a role, but are not of course the ultimate issue.
The second "depends" is that games are not designed for learning. More often than not, games are designed to induce psychological addiction similar to gambling (not the same mind you, but games can use similar tactics to lure people in). Here is a reference.
While one may conceivably argue that WoW, or Team Fortress are not "violent", in that would not be true.
As with most things dealing with psychology, there is no absolute formula to make a claim that "games are not harmful". At the same time there is no absolute formula to make the claim "games are harmful". While you may not have been impacted, a child in a parent absent environment playing GTA may be impacted.
You don't know where she is, you speculate where she is. Even if she told you she was in the parking lot you would not "know" she was not on the road. If you guess that she should have gotten to the store at 2:00 PM, and you text at 2:05 are you sure she is at the store? Not until the act and waiting for the response, and even then it's not "fact" unless your GPS and Spycam rig shows here to be there.
Passing _any_ law, criminal or civil requires clear definitions of not just the crime, but the victim and perpetrator. Adding invisible goblins does not make anyone safer, it makes the law less clear. It makes it easy to rope in perpetrators by convenience, and not perpetrators that actually did something wrong or had bad intent.
Now if you texted something a few minutes after she left, something along the lines of "your mom just called and said she hated you, then committed suicide on the phone" and that was fabricated with the intent of distracting your wife, we already have laws to cover that. It's called abuse.
I did not misread, I gave separate analogies. Changing their comment from "brought" to "bought" would not make any difference on why their analogy is wrong.
Are you assumed to know via esp, osmosis, telepathic link, etc... that your wife is not pulled over to respond to your text? In a parking lot ready to leave? Just stopped at a red light so has a minimum of 30 seconds to see/respond to texts? I'll give you that you would know your wife has voice to text, but not whether or not you "know" she is using it.
You simply can not know without evidence, and a no law will change that fact.