Even a child can point to the sky and say, "It's blue!" Your abstractions take all meaning away from what normal people think of when they use color in daily life. What difference does it really make if the sky has no pigment? Who gives a wetslap? Only people who have defined the word color in such a way that it no longer has any useful meaning in real life.
Now I feel like I should apologize for treating you like some kind of dummy who can't see his nose in front of his face, but I hope you'll forgive me. I guess I'm trying to point out that the fact that this issue is seen in such different ways is perhaps part of the reason this issue (how to talk about science in a polarized environment) exists in the first place: many people don't see the practicality of being too scientific.
I also hope you'll forgive me for not being more clear in that last paragraph. It's late.
There's only one way to talk science to a polarized audience:
Make it about the science only. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what makes you think that it is the way you think it is.
I think the real problem with, for example, talking about Global Climate Change, is that people don't discuss it as a scientific issue, but as a moral or political idea. If you're going to discuss science, discuss the science only, and then make sure everyone knows when you change the subject to politics or religion.
should policy be set by politicians or by doctors?
There is no doubt about it: policy should be set by our elected representatives. No doubt about it. The problem lies in how the decision is made. We obviously need politicians who make better decisions, but that's their job. Doctors should definitely advise them about medical issues, and there's no doubt about that either. But keep in mind that politicians have more than medical reasons to make their decisions, so that means that they may make wise choices, even if they contradict the doctors' recommendations.
I would understand the 'Informative' and 'Insightful' mods if he had at least given us an example of a time the electoral college had acted as "ace in the hole" instead of casting votes according to the rules.
The logic behind releasing non-uniformed combatants is to create a bridge to peace, holding them only continues the to fuel a cycle of hate. The true objective of war is not the elimination of the enemy but the elimination of their reason to fight you. If you continue to hold there citizens they will continue to have a valid reason to attack you, an enemy without a valid reason for a war will not be able to garner much support
I read your post a while ago, and something about this bothered me, and it took me a while to figure out what it was:
If a nation with a free press can 'invent' an enemy and reason to go to war, then certainly a nation without a free press can invent enemies. If it's war they want, they can turn their people toward it in a nation such as Iran more easily than in a nation such as the USA, can't they?
I have seen them before. Half of them are basic hogwashed opinions being spouted as fact. It does it in a believable way which is probably why you agree with them.
Here's one from his post:
1) People who believe in myths are easily manipulated. 2) It is common that people are manipulated through fear.
If you would think about it for 5 minutes you'd see, plainly, that reality really is as I see it. All good, smart people agree with me. Those who don't are either stupid, deluded, too lazy to look at the world correctly, or some combination of the three. Some - especially the leaders/puppeteers of the stupid, deluded, and lazy - are evil, and while they may (some do, some don't) see the world mostly as it is (as I do, in case you've forgotten) they are actively deluding the public to amass power unto themselves. I don't, though. In fact, I merely accept the money and prestige that my wisdom gives me. It's not really my due, but I'll accept it.
You see, I am aware of the facts that really matter, and I am one of the few who see them correctly. I, not you, understand how truly important certain issues are, and I see to the heart of them all.
That's why reality seems to be biased in my favor: I'm the only one who truly sees it.
Most reasonable people think that they should be free from their employer's influence when they are off the clock.
Unfortunately for this guy, most reasonable employers also want to be free from their employees' negative influence when they are off the clock. He won't be the first or the last guy who gets fired for stuff he does while off the clock that impacts the employer negatively.
Ho Chi Minh was a communist, first and last. He was a founding member of the French Communist Party in 1920. He got frostbite waiting to see Lenin's body in 1924. In 1930, when he started the Vietnamese Communist Party, it was said outright that the Vietnamese Communist Party belonged to the revolutionary camp led by the Soviet Union. The overtly stated purpose was to overthrow the "counterrevolutionary camp of international capitalism and imperialism whose general staff is the League of Nations."
He was sent by the international communist party to start Communist Parties in Siam, Malaya, and Singapore. When Yugoslavia tried to shake off the Soviets in the late 40s, Ho Chi Minh was critical of Tito for putting nationalism ahead of Communism.
If he ever stated that he was going to be (or willing to be) the buddy of the USA, then he did so the same way the communists have done it in other countries: as a lie, or as a convenient truce before they carried out their true purpose: enslavement in the name of brotherhood.
In 1930, Ho Chi Minh succesfully started an insurrection in northern Vietnam. He immediately started murdering (sorry, executing, as you can't murder someone if you're a communist) officials and landlords.
Maybe he did mean all that stuff from Lenin. That may make him one shade less bad. But to say that he was a nationalist first denies the vast majority of every action he ever performed his whole life.
Now, suppose I am wrong. Suppose the US and Ho Chi Minh could have been friends. Then that would have been the one and only time in history that a communist leader truly wanted what was best for his country and was committed to a moral and honest rule, without resorting to endless bloodshed, forced impoverishment, and truly amazing propaganda in order to maintain the rule of the party leaders over their 'equal' 'brothers.'
But people who bring up Cubans trying to leave Cuba seem to conveniently forget the never ending tidal wave of illegal economic migrants from supposedly "free" countries like Mexico and the rest of Latin America, who far outnumber the Cuban migrants. People from poor countries will try to get into rich countries. There's nothing interesting or controversial about that.
One important difference is that the Mexican government is actively facilitating flight from its country to the USA. Cuba is trying to stop it. Mexicans are indeed "free"-er than Cubans: free to leave.
Another important difference is that it is much easier to get from Mexico to the USA than it is from Cuba to the USA.
What many in the US cannot understand is that most Cubans genuinely like Fidel.
Every Cuban I've ever talked to about Castro and the communist government of Cuba is filled with hatred. These people are not happy with anything about their country's government. Mexicans don't have such hatred in their speech about their president. They admit the Mexican government is corrupt, but they don't talk like Cubans do about government. I figure if it were just economic 'pull' from the US that brought Cubans here then we wouldn't have this huge disparity.
(Let me acknowledge here that my poll is far from scientific. In fact since every Cuban I've spoken to has been living in the USA voluntarily, I'd guess we wouldn't find too many that want to be in Cuba)
It *would* have become a free, democratic nation if we hadn't originally spruned Castro's overtures of friendship.
First of all, it irks me that it is somehow impossible in this world to become a free, democratic nation without the USA's friendship. Then I hear about how we need to stay the smeg out of everyone's business.
But as to your assertion of Castro's non-communist beginnings, check this out. It's the first one I could find.
Google suggests this might contain a counterpoint, but I can't access it.
If you have anything to back up your assertion, let us know.
I remember reading something about this in Skousen's The Naked Communist, but as I don't own that one I can't tell you what exactly it says.
People say the same thing about Ho Chi Minh, that he was just out to unite the country, and if we'd just been nice to him we'd all be friends and float around like angels, but I don't buy it.
Did he mention to you that he's also trying to annex the oil-rich part of a neighboring country right now?
Could I get a link for that please? I've been thinking for a long time that if there's a South American version of the Sudetenland, they should watch out.
Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.
There is another position, the anarcho-socialists. They want things to be anarchist in the sense of pure self-governance: no government, but people would govern themselves in small communes. It sounds good, but I don't think it will happen while regular men and women inhabit the Earth.
I think he's implying that the groups' desire for "peace and justice" is secondary to what they really want: communism or anarchy, with or without peace or justice.
Slashdot Mirror
MS Internet Explorer came pre-installed on a couple of OS9 and OSX machines I've had.
Now I feel like I should apologize for treating you like some kind of dummy who can't see his nose in front of his face, but I hope you'll forgive me. I guess I'm trying to point out that the fact that this issue is seen in such different ways is perhaps part of the reason this issue (how to talk about science in a polarized environment) exists in the first place: many people don't see the practicality of being too scientific.
I also hope you'll forgive me for not being more clear in that last paragraph. It's late.
Make it about the science only. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what makes you think that it is the way you think it is.
I think the real problem with, for example, talking about Global Climate Change, is that people don't discuss it as a scientific issue, but as a moral or political idea. If you're going to discuss science, discuss the science only, and then make sure everyone knows when you change the subject to politics or religion.
But some countries with UHC do see their citizens' medical records. Do you have any doubt that the USA under UHC would be such a country?
I would understand the 'Informative' and 'Insightful' mods if he had at least given us an example of a time the electoral college had acted as "ace in the hole" instead of casting votes according to the rules.
I'm more worried about all the DHMO in the water! There's way more than a few parts per trillion!
I have not read "The Prince."
If a nation with a free press can 'invent' an enemy and reason to go to war, then certainly a nation without a free press can invent enemies. If it's war they want, they can turn their people toward it in a nation such as Iran more easily than in a nation such as the USA, can't they?
No. He's okay with what he said. USA is the money capital of Mexico. Wendover, NV is the lottery ticket capital of Utah. And so on.
If you would think about it for 5 minutes you'd see, plainly, that reality really is as I see it. All good, smart people agree with me. Those who don't are either stupid, deluded, too lazy to look at the world correctly, or some combination of the three. Some - especially the leaders/puppeteers of the stupid, deluded, and lazy - are evil, and while they may (some do, some don't) see the world mostly as it is (as I do, in case you've forgotten) they are actively deluding the public to amass power unto themselves. I don't, though. In fact, I merely accept the money and prestige that my wisdom gives me. It's not really my due, but I'll accept it.
You see, I am aware of the facts that really matter, and I am one of the few who see them correctly. I, not you, understand how truly important certain issues are, and I see to the heart of them all.
That's why reality seems to be biased in my favor: I'm the only one who truly sees it.
He was sent by the international communist party to start Communist Parties in Siam, Malaya, and Singapore. When Yugoslavia tried to shake off the Soviets in the late 40s, Ho Chi Minh was critical of Tito for putting nationalism ahead of Communism.
If he ever stated that he was going to be (or willing to be) the buddy of the USA, then he did so the same way the communists have done it in other countries: as a lie, or as a convenient truce before they carried out their true purpose: enslavement in the name of brotherhood.
In 1930, Ho Chi Minh succesfully started an insurrection in northern Vietnam. He immediately started murdering (sorry, executing, as you can't murder someone if you're a communist) officials and landlords.
Maybe he did mean all that stuff from Lenin. That may make him one shade less bad. But to say that he was a nationalist first denies the vast majority of every action he ever performed his whole life.
Now, suppose I am wrong. Suppose the US and Ho Chi Minh could have been friends. Then that would have been the one and only time in history that a communist leader truly wanted what was best for his country and was committed to a moral and honest rule, without resorting to endless bloodshed, forced impoverishment, and truly amazing propaganda in order to maintain the rule of the party leaders over their 'equal' 'brothers.'
Thank you.
Another important difference is that it is much easier to get from Mexico to the USA than it is from Cuba to the USA. Every Cuban I've ever talked to about Castro and the communist government of Cuba is filled with hatred. These people are not happy with anything about their country's government. Mexicans don't have such hatred in their speech about their president. They admit the Mexican government is corrupt, but they don't talk like Cubans do about government. I figure if it were just economic 'pull' from the US that brought Cubans here then we wouldn't have this huge disparity.
(Let me acknowledge here that my poll is far from scientific. In fact since every Cuban I've spoken to has been living in the USA voluntarily, I'd guess we wouldn't find too many that want to be in Cuba)
INSPECTOR: How do like life in Id?
PEASANT: I can't complain.
INSPECTOR: Why not?
PEASANT: It's forbidden.
But as to your assertion of Castro's non-communist beginnings, check this out. It's the first one I could find. Google suggests this might contain a counterpoint, but I can't access it.
If you have anything to back up your assertion, let us know.
I remember reading something about this in Skousen's The Naked Communist, but as I don't own that one I can't tell you what exactly it says.
People say the same thing about Ho Chi Minh, that he was just out to unite the country, and if we'd just been nice to him we'd all be friends and float around like angels, but I don't buy it.
I take it you've never seen Al Gore.
There is another position, the anarcho-socialists. They want things to be anarchist in the sense of pure self-governance: no government, but people would govern themselves in small communes. It sounds good, but I don't think it will happen while regular men and women inhabit the Earth.
But do you drive faster than you would without the game?
I think he's implying that the groups' desire for "peace and justice" is secondary to what they really want: communism or anarchy, with or without peace or justice.