Disagreement with scientists, by a non-scientist, is simple ignorance.
So when I disagreed with a doctor about my baby's ability to breastfeed I was simply being ignorant? (Summary of the situation outlined in my previous post if you don't feel like looking: baby is breastfeeding for days, then doctor claims the baby cannot breastfeed. My wife and I insist she can, move her to breastfeeding only and leave the hospital in a few days. Not all this info is in previous post)
I do not have any science qualifications, it was his area of speciallity, yet he was wrong. I don't know why he would insist that something that was already happening for days could not happen, but he was plainly, obviously and demonstrably wrong.
Thanks. If you hadn't explained that I was ignorant for disagreeing with him, I might never have known.
i'd say the most likely case here is that the doctor is right, and you just THINK you know better.
I had a well respected doctor tell me and my wife that our latest baby could not breastfeed because of her age (premmy). Even though it was recorded that she had fed immediatly after birth, even though she had been breastfeeding hourly for the past several days, even though he had to have known this as it was written in her file, which he read. But his experience and statistics lead him to believe that babies of that age can't breastfeed, so that was his position.
It was quite strange to argue with him about it and have him remain unconvinced, in spite of the fact that he knew he was wrong.
Browse means: 1. to eat, nibble at, or feed on (leaves, tender shoots, or other soft vegetation).
... so a browser would be a salad fork.
Oh by the way, a couple of days ago, my wife let me know that she had "Closed the internet" a few hours previously. I opened it again as soon as I found out. Sorry, I'll try to not let it happen again.
There has to be a way to keep companies playing fair.
No limited liability corporations and no "personhood" for corporations, which are both forms of government regulation of trade? No private property held by imaginary entities, so that responsibility can always be traced to a person or group of people, whose responsibility is not diminished by acting in a group (just as with any other type of crime, eg: gang rape doesn't have a lesser penalty than rape).
I know it's not a comprehensive answer to the problems raised, just throwing a few ideas out there.
I wasn't out to impress you, I was attempting to correct what seemed to be misunderstandings of Ron Paul's policies and their effects. I don't ignore that he doesn't think government should have a marriage registry, but you haven't justified the position that the federal government should regulate marriage. As to the states imposing biblical law, I dealt with the issue by pointing out that states can and have dealt with that in their own constitutions, but even so if you want the states to be subject to that part of the US constitution I don't have a problem with that, I just think that it ought to be authorized by constitutional amendment rather than having the federal government operating outside the law. For me, the issue isn't so much any particular policy, but the rule of law.
You say you're ignoring me, but you keep replying. If you do so again, perhaps you will consider answering this question:
If you want your Federal government to do something the constitution doesn't authorize, why do you think it is better to ignore the constitution and have the feds operating illegally than to amend the constitution and have them operating legally?
I see plenty of complaints about the loss of Habeas Corpus, loss of privacy, warrantless wiretaps etc, but what I don't understand is why so many Americans seem to think that they can allow the Government to ignore the 10th amendment limiting their power and somehow still retain the protections in the rest of the bill of rights and constitution.
I don't necessarily agree with all Paul's policies, but I haven't seen any sensible arguement in favor of letting the government break the constitutional limits on its power. Sensible arguement can be made for constitutional change, even major constitutional change, but not for allowing rogue government.
From what I have seen and read, the US has the strongest tradition of liberty and the best constitution in the world, but it is possible to lose that and it would be a tragedy if you did.
Let's see, you're neither a US citizen nor have ever visited, and you want us to get rid practically all of the Federal government.
No, I would like your government to operate legally. And mine. And by the way, since your country has military installations in mine, and exports it's stupid DMCA to my country (Yes, it is our governments fault for accepting it as well) I do have a personal interest in the way your government operates. I haven't really advocated what the US laws should be, but that you should follow them. I don't see why the idea of the government obeying the constitution would be offensive to you, since there is a mechanism to change the constitution if you wish for the government to have more power.
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that the federal government not doing something would mean it didn't happen, for example public education. Hasn't public education been handled by the states for most of its history? It has here anyway.
I'm in favor of the government being subject to the rule of law, ie: the constitution. We don't have a bill of rights in my country, we are in many ways effectively owned by the government. American history has the overthrow of tyranical rule as central to your heritage. Australians historically took the path of disobedience and disregard for authority, but that path has not provided us with legal protection from our government in anything like the strength you have. Don't underestimate what you are giving up if you allow your constitution to become irrelevant.
Your federal government operates in my country, dictates laws in my country, so I will have my say, even if I don't get to vote. If you want to do something useful, keep your DMCA and export the bill of rights.
You also seem to have misunderstood his stance on marriage, which is that the state should not determine who is married and who is not, that homosexuals can do what they want and call it what they want as he states about 2 minutes into this interview with
John Stossel interview which hardly seems to be setting up a theocracy.
He's talked about it, I just had to do some digging.
So he's not determined to have it unknown, but he's not bringing it to people's attention. Many people won't bother digging. There can be a difference between how a polititian intends to act and how they think their stance will affect their election chances.
So whatever Paul's ideological reason, there's no reason to believe he'll protect America's people against the telcos.
You can be sure he won't, he would leave that to the states, meaning the telcos would have 50 governments to try to bribe, rather than one.
It doesn't say anything about murder in the Constitution, either...
Hence his position on abortion. Why do you need federal laws on murder, when you have states that can form extradition agreements? (I am not a US citizen and have never visited, I don't know anything about what extradition agreements may already be in place)
FWIW, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution includes, for example, no separation of church & state except perhaps no authorization of a state church itself. If Arkansas wanted a state church, though, that would be OK, since the Constitution doesn't "specifically" prohibit it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"
Indeed you are correct. A matter already attended to when the people of Arkansas decided on their constitution.
24. Religious liberty.
All men have a natural and indefensible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship; or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, denomination or mode of worship, above any other.
If we try hard enough, I'm sure we can come up with something that you and I both agree should be done by the federal government (in our respective countries) however it is my personal conviction that this ought to be accomplished by amending the constitution rather than ignoring or reinterpreting it.
Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?
As I understand it, he has voted against any federal legislation not specifically authorised by the constitution. That is his deciding factor, rather than his personal stance on any issue. Eg: He is anti-abortion, but will not ban it at the federal level but rather leave the matter to the states.
Wild animals are only subject to the law of the jungle.
The defenition of law of the jungle at which says anything goes, or Rudyard Kiplings version which says never kill man? Either standard would give the animal no expectation of protection from death. Common sense would dictate that if animals are protected by the law of man that their protection is subject to the restrictions of that law. Man or beast, if you are in the process of killing people, lethal force may be used against you. Even if they teased you.
So what? Those people taunted the tiger, which is why it went after them instead of random zoo-goers. They should have been allowed to be killed by the tiger. The police should have stayed out of it.
And if someone taunts me, should the police stay out of it while I kill them?
In the end, the Catholics had to "adjust" how they were interpreting the scripture to make the whole "foundations of the earth" thing less literal and more figurative. They moved the fault to themselves, since clearly someone was at fault, and it can't be The Book since it's never wrong. A very clever sidestep, IMHO.
Actually, a new interpretation that they ought to have been able to accept without trouble, had they read The Book.
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space,
And hangs the earth on nothing.
I was sent to catholic school. When I was about 15, I heard in religious education that you had to take communion at least once a year to remain catholic, or be going to heaven or whatever. So I stopped taking it, counted a year, hey presto, uncatholization. Still had to go to church, but I got a great deal of satisfaction from not being catholic.
A few years ago, a priest told me that 90% of children of catholics leave the church (I guess it isn't that hard after all, maybe that's just here is Australia). Last time I heard (a few years ago) the average age of catholic priests in my state was over 60, and they had 3 priests in training. So it would seem that the catholic church as it exists today is as good as gone here.
Are you going to tell my nephew that the catholic church would rather see him not existing?
Matthew 5:45... he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
The bible predominantly speaks of children as a blessing. Given the above verse, it would not be inconsistent for the church to condemn the method but not the child. Illogical perhaps, but not inconsistent.
I'm glad my brother is not raising him as catholic (despite his mother being a practicing catholic...)
Then, unless the catholic church has changed a lot or she became catholic after they married, she is not a practicing catholic. My father is catholic and my mother is not. She had to agree that all children of the marriage would be raised as catholic or the church wouldn't condone the wedding.
That said, I am not a catholic, so it didn't work. I'm glad to be out of it.
From the summary: In the short term, the confusion, fatigue, and chaos merely hamper our ability to focus and analyze
There is much anecdotal evidence that women seem to have a hampered ability to focus and analyze. The article is not about how proficient people are at multitasking, but that multitasking is detrimental to focus and analytical function.
From TFA: Multitasking messes with the brain in several ways. At the most basic level, the mental balancing acts that it requires--the constant switching and pivoting--energize regions of the brain that specialize in visual processing and physical coordination and simultaneously appear to shortchange some of the higher areas related to memory and learning. We concentrate on the act of concentration at the expense of whatever it is that we're supposed to be concentrating on.
So women could indeed be better at multitasking but still have equivalent detrimental effects. Or perhaps women are better at multitasking through practice rather than innate ability. If they are better at multitasking, can they safely drive while using a mobile for example? I suspect not. It would be interesting to know if women who have demonstrated the ability to focus and analyse (perhaps some are reading this?) are also multitaskers or if they have the focus and analytical ability as a result of not multitasking.
...as it has proved to be a very effective incentive to create works...
Without anything to compare that to, on what do you base that assumption?
Well, you got me thinking... the books on my bookshelves. While many of them, it would seem to me, were written to disseminate information and ideas, it seems unlikely that many of the authors could afford to spend the time researching and writing if they had no reasonable expectation of being paid. Some of them would probably have been written anyway, but not all. Before copyright, most authors needed to have a patron to support them. In a world without the printing press this was probably a very good way to enable written works to be created. With the invention of the printing press, sale of mass produced books had the potential to provide recompense to the author without the need for patronage, taking control of the spread of ideas out of the hands of those rich enough to be a patron and putting it in the hands of anyone who thought their material would sell.
The sole legitimate concern of copyright, and patents is the control of plagiarism.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but "legitimate" means according to law or lawful. It is already established in law that that copyright is not a natural right in the UK or USA."In both countries, the courts found that copyright is a limited right created by the legislature under statutes and subject to the conditions and terms the legislature sees fit to impose." That is to say, the legitimate concern of copyright and patents is whatever the lawful government (deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed) say it is.
The right to use and copy, with proper attribution, should not be infringed.
Using and copying ideas is fundamental to human nature, being the way all learning happens, and this should be recognised more widely. However I see nothing wrong if a society decides to restrain themselves temporarily from this right in order to provide a mechanism of incentive with the goal of producing a greater abundance of works available to be used and copied. Whether it is any longer the best way to encourage production of works is debatable, and indeed my challenge to ShieldW0lf was to describe a better way. That copyright has been extended way beyond the point of being beneficial to society seems obvious and I agree with you on that.
When you give undue authority to people, they invariably crave more.
Or, "people invariably crave more". Abolishing copyright will not change human nature. Greed was around long before copyright laws and does not invalidate the concept of copyright.
The written purpose of the 2nd amendment is the maintenence of the militia. On what basis do you argue that a militia should not have access to assault rifles?
It's not about "legitimate sporting purpose", self defense,criminals or anything else other than the arming of a citizen's military force. Naturally, if you are part of a well armed militia, self defense etc become issues that do not require debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagreement with scientists, by a non-scientist, is simple ignorance.
So when I disagreed with a doctor about my baby's ability to breastfeed I was simply being ignorant? (Summary of the situation outlined in my previous post if you don't feel like looking: baby is breastfeeding for days, then doctor claims the baby cannot breastfeed. My wife and I insist she can, move her to breastfeeding only and leave the hospital in a few days. Not all this info is in previous post)
I do not have any science qualifications, it was his area of speciallity, yet he was wrong. I don't know why he would insist that something that was already happening for days could not happen, but he was plainly, obviously and demonstrably wrong.
Thanks. If you hadn't explained that I was ignorant for disagreeing with him, I might never have known.
i'd say the most likely case here is that the doctor is right, and you just THINK you know better.
I had a well respected doctor tell me and my wife that our latest baby could not breastfeed because of her age (premmy). Even though it was recorded that she had fed immediatly after birth, even though she had been breastfeeding hourly for the past several days, even though he had to have known this as it was written in her file, which he read. But his experience and statistics lead him to believe that babies of that age can't breastfeed, so that was his position.
It was quite strange to argue with him about it and have him remain unconvinced, in spite of the fact that he knew he was wrong.
Browse means: 1. to eat, nibble at, or feed on (leaves, tender shoots, or other soft vegetation).
... so a browser would be a salad fork.
Oh by the way, a couple of days ago, my wife let me know that she had "Closed the internet" a few hours previously. I opened it again as soon as I found out. Sorry, I'll try to not let it happen again.
There has to be a way to keep companies playing fair.
No limited liability corporations and no "personhood" for corporations, which are both forms of government regulation of trade? No private property held by imaginary entities, so that responsibility can always be traced to a person or group of people, whose responsibility is not diminished by acting in a group (just as with any other type of crime, eg: gang rape doesn't have a lesser penalty than rape).
I know it's not a comprehensive answer to the problems raised, just throwing a few ideas out there.
I wasn't out to impress you, I was attempting to correct what seemed to be misunderstandings of Ron Paul's policies and their effects. I don't ignore that he doesn't think government should have a marriage registry, but you haven't justified the position that the federal government should regulate marriage. As to the states imposing biblical law, I dealt with the issue by pointing out that states can and have dealt with that in their own constitutions, but even so if you want the states to be subject to that part of the US constitution I don't have a problem with that, I just think that it ought to be authorized by constitutional amendment rather than having the federal government operating outside the law. For me, the issue isn't so much any particular policy, but the rule of law.
You say you're ignoring me, but you keep replying. If you do so again, perhaps you will consider answering this question:
If you want your Federal government to do something the constitution doesn't authorize, why do you think it is better to ignore the constitution and have the feds operating illegally than to amend the constitution and have them operating legally?
I see plenty of complaints about the loss of Habeas Corpus, loss of privacy, warrantless wiretaps etc, but what I don't understand is why so many Americans seem to think that they can allow the Government to ignore the 10th amendment limiting their power and somehow still retain the protections in the rest of the bill of rights and constitution.
I don't necessarily agree with all Paul's policies, but I haven't seen any sensible arguement in favor of letting the government break the constitutional limits on its power. Sensible arguement can be made for constitutional change, even major constitutional change, but not for allowing rogue government.
From what I have seen and read, the US has the strongest tradition of liberty and the best constitution in the world, but it is possible to lose that and it would be a tragedy if you did.
Let's see, you're neither a US citizen nor have ever visited, and you want us to get rid practically all of the Federal government.
No, I would like your government to operate legally. And mine. And by the way, since your country has military installations in mine, and exports it's stupid DMCA to my country (Yes, it is our governments fault for accepting it as well) I do have a personal interest in the way your government operates. I haven't really advocated what the US laws should be, but that you should follow them. I don't see why the idea of the government obeying the constitution would be offensive to you, since there is a mechanism to change the constitution if you wish for the government to have more power.
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that the federal government not doing something would mean it didn't happen, for example public education. Hasn't public education been handled by the states for most of its history? It has here anyway.
I'm in favor of the government being subject to the rule of law, ie: the constitution. We don't have a bill of rights in my country, we are in many ways effectively owned by the government. American history has the overthrow of tyranical rule as central to your heritage. Australians historically took the path of disobedience and disregard for authority, but that path has not provided us with legal protection from our government in anything like the strength you have. Don't underestimate what you are giving up if you allow your constitution to become irrelevant.
Your federal government operates in my country, dictates laws in my country, so I will have my say, even if I don't get to vote. If you want to do something useful, keep your DMCA and export the bill of rights.
You also seem to have misunderstood his stance on marriage, which is that the state should not determine who is married and who is not, that homosexuals can do what they want and call it what they want as he states about 2 minutes into this interview with John Stossel interview which hardly seems to be setting up a theocracy.
Does anyone else think that our privacy outweighs the convenience that realtime navigation and itinerary interactivity could potentially provide?
Yes, Ron Paul does. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/privacy-and-personal-liberty/
He's talked about it, I just had to do some digging.
So he's not determined to have it unknown, but he's not bringing it to people's attention. Many people won't bother digging. There can be a difference between how a polititian intends to act and how they think their stance will affect their election chances.
You can be sure he won't, he would leave that to the states, meaning the telcos would have 50 governments to try to bribe, rather than one.
It doesn't say anything about murder in the Constitution, either...
Hence his position on abortion. Why do you need federal laws on murder, when you have states that can form extradition agreements? (I am not a US citizen and have never visited, I don't know anything about what extradition agreements may already be in place)
FWIW, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution includes, for example, no separation of church & state except perhaps no authorization of a state church itself. If Arkansas wanted a state church, though, that would be OK, since the Constitution doesn't "specifically" prohibit it. Indeed you are correct. A matter already attended to when the people of Arkansas decided on their constitution. If we try hard enough, I'm sure we can come up with something that you and I both agree should be done by the federal government (in our respective countries) however it is my personal conviction that this ought to be accomplished by amending the constitution rather than ignoring or reinterpreting it.
Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?
As I understand it, he has voted against any federal legislation not specifically authorised by the constitution. That is his deciding factor, rather than his personal stance on any issue. Eg: He is anti-abortion, but will not ban it at the federal level but rather leave the matter to the states.
The "issues" list on his web site doesn't even have gun control as a bullet point; that's how low-priority it is.
Or how much he would like to avoid talking about it pre-election.
Wild animals are only subject to the law of the jungle.
The defenition of law of the jungle at which says anything goes, or Rudyard Kiplings version which says never kill man? Either standard would give the animal no expectation of protection from death. Common sense would dictate that if animals are protected by the law of man that their protection is subject to the restrictions of that law. Man or beast, if you are in the process of killing people, lethal force may be used against you. Even if they teased you.
So what? Those people taunted the tiger, which is why it went after them instead of random zoo-goers. They should have been allowed to be killed by the tiger. The police should have stayed out of it.
And if someone taunts me, should the police stay out of it while I kill them?
It's available new. You seem to have missed this seller at the bottom of the list.
Could well be out of print and selling old stocks though.
"Programmers at Work" available at amazon
In the end, the Catholics had to "adjust" how they were interpreting the scripture to make the whole "foundations of the earth" thing less literal and more figurative. They moved the fault to themselves, since clearly someone was at fault, and it can't be The Book since it's never wrong. A very clever sidestep, IMHO.
Actually, a new interpretation that they ought to have been able to accept without trouble, had they read The Book.
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing.
I was sent to catholic school. When I was about 15, I heard in religious education that you had to take communion at least once a year to remain catholic, or be going to heaven or whatever. So I stopped taking it, counted a year, hey presto, uncatholization. Still had to go to church, but I got a great deal of satisfaction from not being catholic.
A few years ago, a priest told me that 90% of children of catholics leave the church (I guess it isn't that hard after all, maybe that's just here is Australia). Last time I heard (a few years ago) the average age of catholic priests in my state was over 60, and they had 3 priests in training. So it would seem that the catholic church as it exists today is as good as gone here.
I'm not familiar with any bible verses that promote wife beating, could you point me to one? or more?
Are you going to tell my nephew that the catholic church would rather see him not existing?
... he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Matthew 5:45
The bible predominantly speaks of children as a blessing. Given the above verse, it would not be inconsistent for the church to condemn the method but not the child. Illogical perhaps, but not inconsistent.
I'm glad my brother is not raising him as catholic (despite his mother being a practicing catholic...)
Then, unless the catholic church has changed a lot or she became catholic after they married, she is not a practicing catholic. My father is catholic and my mother is not. She had to agree that all children of the marriage would be raised as catholic or the church wouldn't condone the wedding.
That said, I am not a catholic, so it didn't work. I'm glad to be out of it.
As I understand it, the courts don't aim to make them "not a monopoly", they aim to prevent them abusing that position to prevent competition.
Can you think of anything in Windows that couldn't be figured out by someone who has been trained on Linux?
:)
Why do people use this?
I've got anecdotal evidence only sorry. Google gives 27,700 results for "multitasking men women study".
From the summary: In the short term, the confusion, fatigue, and chaos merely hamper our ability to focus and analyze
There is much anecdotal evidence that women seem to have a hampered ability to focus and analyze. The article is not about how proficient people are at multitasking, but that multitasking is detrimental to focus and analytical function.
From TFA: Multitasking messes with the brain in several ways. At the most basic level, the mental balancing acts that it requires--the constant switching and pivoting--energize regions of the brain that specialize in visual processing and physical coordination and simultaneously appear to shortchange some of the higher areas related to memory and learning. We concentrate on the act of concentration at the expense of whatever it is that we're supposed to be concentrating on.
So women could indeed be better at multitasking but still have equivalent detrimental effects. Or perhaps women are better at multitasking through practice rather than innate ability. If they are better at multitasking, can they safely drive while using a mobile for example? I suspect not. It would be interesting to know if women who have demonstrated the ability to focus and analyse (perhaps some are reading this?) are also multitaskers or if they have the focus and analytical ability as a result of not multitasking.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but "legitimate" means according to law or lawful. It is already established in law that that copyright is not a natural right in the UK or USA. "In both countries, the courts found that copyright is a limited right created by the legislature under statutes and subject to the conditions and terms the legislature sees fit to impose." That is to say, the legitimate concern of copyright and patents is whatever the lawful government (deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed) say it is. Using and copying ideas is fundamental to human nature, being the way all learning happens, and this should be recognised more widely. However I see nothing wrong if a society decides to restrain themselves temporarily from this right in order to provide a mechanism of incentive with the goal of producing a greater abundance of works available to be used and copied. Whether it is any longer the best way to encourage production of works is debatable, and indeed my challenge to ShieldW0lf was to describe a better way. That copyright has been extended way beyond the point of being beneficial to society seems obvious and I agree with you on that. Or, "people invariably crave more". Abolishing copyright will not change human nature. Greed was around long before copyright laws and does not invalidate the concept of copyright.
The written purpose of the 2nd amendment is the maintenence of the militia. On what basis do you argue that a militia should not have access to assault rifles?
It's not about "legitimate sporting purpose", self defense,criminals or anything else other than the arming of a citizen's military force. Naturally, if you are part of a well armed militia, self defense etc become issues that do not require debate.