Elementary school teachers may be more educated than their students, but they aren't always smarter. For instance: deer don't hunt for food, and 3x5 is the same as 5x3. Don't get me started on primary colors.
Please define the fallacy fallacy. Are you saying that it is incorrect to point out when somebody else is using incorrect logic? Granted, if you say "you used incorrect logic, therefore your conclusion is incorrect," that would be a fallacy. But if you say, "you used incorrect logic, therefore your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise," that is not a fallacy.
Before somebody can change my mind, they need to be able to present their argument to me in a logical fashion that does not depend on fallacies. Pointing out a fallacy does not disprove the original claim, but it is incumbent on the claimant to sharpen his argument. Failure to do so would result in a fallback to the null hypothesis.
That being said, I've only ever heard of "bodega" to mean a shop or store in a generic sense, or a specific taco restaurant near the museum. Where I'm from, it holds no cultural relevance. Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. The things I see held up as bodegas might be called tienda or carniceria/panaderia or mercado.
Or you could just have a relationship with anybody you are going to lend money to. But then landlords wouldn't be able to rent to strangers. The irony is that when businesses lend to each other, the still use old-fashion credit requests, with references etc.
Don't forget that "globalist" is normally used by neo-Nazis to mean "Jew." These codewords go back a long way, to before our involvement in WWII. If somebody is "globalist" they don't have the nation's interest as priority #1. That makes them not True Americans (TM), which is nearly indistinguishable from inhuman beasts. That's one of the reasons the KKK used "America First" as a slogan. The notion of Jews (and Catholics) being beholden to not-America (Israel, the Vatican), was easy to latch onto.
I have Windows 7 Pro, and still have the old blue and gray '97 look. I can't stand the flat shit. The irony is that Microsoft's own Office suite doesn't honor the window look/feel settings from the OS. Then there's Omron and Autodesk who have to roll their own shitty UIs and window managers, instead of using the standard ones.
Not sure what your point is, but you are aware there were several category 5 storms in 2005, right, not just Katrina? Also, there hasn't been a year without a hurricane since like WWI. They're not "new normal" they're just "normal." But the intensity of storms is expected to worsen as global sea temperatures rise.
?? That's not the sort of response I've come to expect from you. I understand that you are very passionate, that's why I assumed you might be willing to share your research. Rather than calling names, it would be better to try to educate. If you review my posting history, I'm fairly open minded, and very pro-environment. I did no shit talking, and I'll gladly return whatever prize it is that I have won.
I am not too lazy to perform a web search, and in fact I did one before posting. As you are no doubt aware, the problem with googling nuclear studies for anything is that it's quite challenging to tell the wheat from the chaff. There is so much spin by anti-nuclear groups, that it is really hard to tell how much of it is true. (I'm sure there's spin by pro-nuclear, but since it matches my bias, I am not as good at noticing it.) My nut-job buddy (and I call him that to his face) used to work with nuclear power, so the sources he cites tend to be very pro-nuclear.
There was an extensive study from UT last year that basically said "it depends." If you consider various aspects of costs, subsidies, availability, etc. you end up with different results. One of the biggest variables is location. Hell, in some counties, coal was still cheapest. There was an article published (UK paper, don't remember which one) just last year claiming that solar was more expensive, and probably would remain so until 2018. When Tom Murphy can't come up with a better answer than "Meh," you know it's a stickier problem than most.
I just want to re-state a point I made last time, unless we focus on reducing our energy usage, we are all fucked. The only way society makes it another 1000 years is if we seriously throttle back how much energy we use, no matter the means of production.
From a burden of proof/logic standpoint, this is an interesting situation. It's not entirely clear what the null hypothesis is. I would suspect that the null hypothesis is that they are equally "dirty" however you choose to define it. Consequently I would say both of you would need to cite sources in support of your argument.
You probably have good sources for your numbers. I'd love to see them. Me and my right-wing nutjob buddy, both agree that nuclear is probably something we should have switched to from coal a long time ago. But if there are hidden costs we're not evaluating, I'd be curious to learn. One argument I would offer is that if we had been doing nuclear all along, and pouring R&D efforts into making the technology better, a lot of the inefficiencies and extra costs could have been worked out by now. I still think wind and solar are going to be the way to go in the long run, but more importantly we need to focus on reducing energy use in the first place.
(btw, thanks on the SJW explanation the other day. I knew you would know I wasn't trolling.)
Unfortunately, in very religious communities, teenagers are encouraged to get married at an early age, lest they defile themselves, or whatever they're calling it these days. In the Assembly of God community I grew up in, there were several girls who got married right out of high school. None of them are still married to their first husbands, except the one that married a Methodist. Ironically the preacher's daughter was the... how to put it delicately... girl with the worst reputation.
I guess I have a problem with people who think it's best for young adults to enter into a covenant before they can fully appreciate the ramifications of it. And then, if they do get in a bad situation, they are ostracized and cursed. There are some evangelicals who still believe that divorce is adultery.
Yes, you missed it. It's not even an evangelical-only sort of thing. Tamer churches will occasionally preach on the topic as well. Paul was pretty clear. From Eph 5:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Also, from I Cor 7:
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Men frequently leave out the parts about being good to your wife and fulfilling duties to her. Typical hypocritical bullshit.
And before anybody claims that you could just choose to not have sex, this is a state in the Bible belt. The Bible is very clear on the fact that a woman has to put out for her husband (I Cor 7:5).
In Texas, where they are constantly making it harder to get birth control and abortions, it may not be as much of a choice as you'd like to believe. There's even one guy who has to pay child support for a kid that's not even his!
We lost that battle years ago. Language has moved on. There are a great number of words that don't mean what they used to. Peruse, literally, retard, cool, egregious, let, etc.
There are plenty of good restaurants in Austin with shitty parking options. It's really a pity. Even the ones away from the center of town have parking lots that are too small, or are a 1/4 mile walk in the 90 degree heat. It's just the nature of that city. Maybe they're used to the college crowds not caring?
Side note: If you consider Chipotle interchangeable with Freebirds, I envy your digestive constitution!
Ugh. This "both sides do it" false equivalency shit is getting old. Learn a new argument! I'll even settle for a different logical fallacy. Don't even get me started about "ignoring judicial rulings." Have you even been paying attention for the last seven months?!
I'm not a "poor kid," but I have described myself, proudly, as an SJW. It's not meta-ironic, it's just a literal acceptance of what the letters stand for. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why being a warrior for social justice is a bad thing. I think Jesus, MLK, and Mother Teresa would qualify as SJWs. Somehow the phrase has come to be equated with "whiny twat on the Internet that doesn't agree with my racist, homophobic, religion-intolerant worldview." Maybe I'm ignorant of some Internet history on how the abbreviation became a slur.
Actually, it's still in keeping with the metaphor. Your phone actually works better for snapshots. First of all, it is more comfortable to fit in your pocket. The ease of use means that you can ask a stranger to take a picture of you (not that people do that so much any more), and it gets uploaded to your cloud backup of choice automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
Elementary school teachers may be more educated than their students, but they aren't always smarter. For instance: deer don't hunt for food, and 3x5 is the same as 5x3. Don't get me started on primary colors.
Please define the fallacy fallacy. Are you saying that it is incorrect to point out when somebody else is using incorrect logic? Granted, if you say "you used incorrect logic, therefore your conclusion is incorrect," that would be a fallacy. But if you say, "you used incorrect logic, therefore your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise," that is not a fallacy.
Before somebody can change my mind, they need to be able to present their argument to me in a logical fashion that does not depend on fallacies. Pointing out a fallacy does not disprove the original claim, but it is incumbent on the claimant to sharpen his argument. Failure to do so would result in a fallback to the null hypothesis.
That being said, I've only ever heard of "bodega" to mean a shop or store in a generic sense, or a specific taco restaurant near the museum. Where I'm from, it holds no cultural relevance. Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. The things I see held up as bodegas might be called tienda or carniceria/panaderia or mercado.
Or you could just have a relationship with anybody you are going to lend money to. But then landlords wouldn't be able to rent to strangers. The irony is that when businesses lend to each other, the still use old-fashion credit requests, with references etc.
Don't forget that "globalist" is normally used by neo-Nazis to mean "Jew." These codewords go back a long way, to before our involvement in WWII. If somebody is "globalist" they don't have the nation's interest as priority #1. That makes them not True Americans (TM), which is nearly indistinguishable from inhuman beasts. That's one of the reasons the KKK used "America First" as a slogan. The notion of Jews (and Catholics) being beholden to not-America (Israel, the Vatican), was easy to latch onto.
gee... a switch you press with your foot or else the car slows down. Isn't that just a gas pedal?
I have Windows 7 Pro, and still have the old blue and gray '97 look. I can't stand the flat shit. The irony is that Microsoft's own Office suite doesn't honor the window look/feel settings from the OS. Then there's Omron and Autodesk who have to roll their own shitty UIs and window managers, instead of using the standard ones.
Not sure what your point is, but you are aware there were several category 5 storms in 2005, right, not just Katrina? Also, there hasn't been a year without a hurricane since like WWI. They're not "new normal" they're just "normal." But the intensity of storms is expected to worsen as global sea temperatures rise.
The "silent majority" is neither. Never has been.
?? That's not the sort of response I've come to expect from you. I understand that you are very passionate, that's why I assumed you might be willing to share your research. Rather than calling names, it would be better to try to educate. If you review my posting history, I'm fairly open minded, and very pro-environment. I did no shit talking, and I'll gladly return whatever prize it is that I have won.
I am not too lazy to perform a web search, and in fact I did one before posting. As you are no doubt aware, the problem with googling nuclear studies for anything is that it's quite challenging to tell the wheat from the chaff. There is so much spin by anti-nuclear groups, that it is really hard to tell how much of it is true. (I'm sure there's spin by pro-nuclear, but since it matches my bias, I am not as good at noticing it.) My nut-job buddy (and I call him that to his face) used to work with nuclear power, so the sources he cites tend to be very pro-nuclear.
There was an extensive study from UT last year that basically said "it depends." If you consider various aspects of costs, subsidies, availability, etc. you end up with different results. One of the biggest variables is location. Hell, in some counties, coal was still cheapest. There was an article published (UK paper, don't remember which one) just last year claiming that solar was more expensive, and probably would remain so until 2018. When Tom Murphy can't come up with a better answer than "Meh," you know it's a stickier problem than most.
I just want to re-state a point I made last time, unless we focus on reducing our energy usage, we are all fucked. The only way society makes it another 1000 years is if we seriously throttle back how much energy we use, no matter the means of production.
From a burden of proof/logic standpoint, this is an interesting situation. It's not entirely clear what the null hypothesis is. I would suspect that the null hypothesis is that they are equally "dirty" however you choose to define it. Consequently I would say both of you would need to cite sources in support of your argument.
(btw, thanks on the SJW explanation the other day. I knew you would know I wasn't trolling.)
Unfortunately, in very religious communities, teenagers are encouraged to get married at an early age, lest they defile themselves, or whatever they're calling it these days. In the Assembly of God community I grew up in, there were several girls who got married right out of high school. None of them are still married to their first husbands, except the one that married a Methodist. Ironically the preacher's daughter was the ... how to put it delicately ... girl with the worst reputation.
I guess I have a problem with people who think it's best for young adults to enter into a covenant before they can fully appreciate the ramifications of it. And then, if they do get in a bad situation, they are ostracized and cursed. There are some evangelicals who still believe that divorce is adultery.
Mine too, buddy. She nearly laughed out loud during a sermon on the topic.
Yes, you missed it. It's not even an evangelical-only sort of thing. Tamer churches will occasionally preach on the topic as well. Paul was pretty clear. From Eph 5:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Also, from I Cor 7:
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Men frequently leave out the parts about being good to your wife and fulfilling duties to her. Typical hypocritical bullshit.
I miss that game. It was the first game with a level editor I ever played.
And before anybody claims that you could just choose to not have sex, this is a state in the Bible belt. The Bible is very clear on the fact that a woman has to put out for her husband (I Cor 7:5).
In Texas, where they are constantly making it harder to get birth control and abortions, it may not be as much of a choice as you'd like to believe. There's even one guy who has to pay child support for a kid that's not even his!
We lost that battle years ago. Language has moved on. There are a great number of words that don't mean what they used to. Peruse, literally, retard, cool, egregious, let, etc.
There are plenty of good restaurants in Austin with shitty parking options. It's really a pity. Even the ones away from the center of town have parking lots that are too small, or are a 1/4 mile walk in the 90 degree heat. It's just the nature of that city. Maybe they're used to the college crowds not caring?
Side note: If you consider Chipotle interchangeable with Freebirds, I envy your digestive constitution!
I bet Obama would gladly take one for the team, if it meant getting the orange buffoon out of power.
Ugh. This "both sides do it" false equivalency shit is getting old. Learn a new argument! I'll even settle for a different logical fallacy. Don't even get me started about "ignoring judicial rulings." Have you even been paying attention for the last seven months?!
WTF? You're a troll, but the other guy is at a 4? Who are they giving mod points to these days?!
these people who clean their toilets and make their sandwiches
Hope it's not the same dude, or that at least he knows to wash his hands between the two tasks.
I'm not a "poor kid," but I have described myself, proudly, as an SJW. It's not meta-ironic, it's just a literal acceptance of what the letters stand for. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why being a warrior for social justice is a bad thing. I think Jesus, MLK, and Mother Teresa would qualify as SJWs. Somehow the phrase has come to be equated with "whiny twat on the Internet that doesn't agree with my racist, homophobic, religion-intolerant worldview." Maybe I'm ignorant of some Internet history on how the abbreviation became a slur.
Actually, it's still in keeping with the metaphor. Your phone actually works better for snapshots. First of all, it is more comfortable to fit in your pocket. The ease of use means that you can ask a stranger to take a picture of you (not that people do that so much any more), and it gets uploaded to your cloud backup of choice automatically.