It's interesting to see the look of shock on a sales clerk's face when they ask "Can I have your phone number please?" as they begin to ring up my purchase, and I say "No." It's particularly fun when they clerk is a nice-looking woman and instead of saying "No." I'll ask, leeringly, "Can I have YOURS?".
Point: A good first step is to stop giving out seemingly inoccuous information whenever asked.
JUST SAY NO.
Has it occurred to anyone that this plays along well with all the Democrat-bashing that has ensued since Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut primaries? "See? If the Bushies don't win, the world gets alot scarier! Lamont (and the Democrats) have been painted as anti-Israel, anti-security, anti-semitic, anti-defense, pro-terrorist, etc, ever since Lieberman's loss.
This is theatre, cast, staged, and played to keep the incumbent authoritarians (can't even call them conservatives anymore, since they're really not) in power come the November elections.
Your comment helps to confirm my initial suspicion: that this "scientist" is really nothing more than a fundamentalist christian trying to back up her bible-based supposition by looking for (and then publishing) "facts" that seem to support it.
The underlying message of "natural animosity" between snakes and humans is just a little too obvious. I'd be curious to know what sort of religious (and these days political) background is. Who funds her research? Seems too much like right-wing propaganda, from yet another angle.
There was no ad hominem attack in my post. NCPA purports itself to be an objective research and analysis organization. In fact, that's not true. To show something to be a lie is not an ad hominem attack. Try to understand the difference, won't you?
Exxon has a vested interest in ensuring that the demand for its product -- oil -- stays high and, consequently, has an interest in discrediting and otherwise attacking what it perceives to be threats to that demand. The NCPA is funded, in large part, by Exxon. They are not funded to do objective research -- they are funded to produce papers that call into question the idea that global warming can (and must) be addressed, particularly by reducing the production of greenhouse gases, which are a necessary by-product of what Exxon sells.
As for basing your opinion on critiques of the movie, having seen the movie, as well as having read the critiques, in most cases I have to ask myself what movie the critics saw, because most of the critiques either blew some minor detail completely out of proportion, or criticized points that either were not brought up in the movie, or criticized the exact opposite of the argument being made in those points.
"Another problem with the left is that they ignore economics. When the economists crunch the numbers, they often find that even assuming GW is real, adaption is simply the cheaper option as compared to prevention. To put it simply, doing anything about GW that would actually make a difference could be far more expensive than it is worth. It may be easier to build some flood walls than buy a zillion solar panels, for example. I rarely find that the left is even willing to engage in this debate, probably because they are on very weak footing there."
"An Inconvenient Truth" addresses the issue of economics and adaptation. If you haven't seen the movie, please do: especially, before posting comments against it here or anywhere else.
In fact, this "adaptation" argument is lifted almost verbatim from the NCPA's white paper supposedly rebutting global warming. Get to know that acronym, folks. The National Center for Policy Analysis -- based in Dallas, TX -- the well-funded mouthpiece of Exxon/Mobile that's at the forefront of efforts to make it look like GW is a myth, or that it is a "contraversial theory" (but only a "theory" -- as though "theory" means just an idea, not yet proven. NCPA (and the members thereof, such as Sterling Bernett) always pop up on the talk show circuits whenever GW comes into media focus.
McDowell's logic is so flawed, so full of fallacies, it's hard to know where to begin. I'll give you one example: His argument that Jesus can only fall into one of three (or was it four?) catagories: liar, lunatic, or "Lord". This is an extension of false dichotomy. I'm not going to go into a long discussion about what that is and why it constitutes faulty reasoning. YOU go "study to show thyself DISproved". Suffice it to say that a) the domain of possibilities is not necessarily limited to these three points, nor is it necessarily even discreet (i.e., his arguments do not allow for overlapping possibilities.) Also, it is built upon other flawed reasoning, which makes the rational basis invalid to begin with.
Going back to first-sememster symbolig logic (which I HIGHLY recommend all you christian apologists take BEFORE reading McDowell's comic book) you can prove any assertion made within a system that has a contradiction between any two (or more) of its axioms. Again, if you don't know that means, then either go learn, or stop trying to argue "logically". It's ok to say "I just believe it because I want to." Reason need not have anything to do with it, unless you're trying to convince someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting to see the look of shock on a sales clerk's face when they ask "Can I have your phone number please?" as they begin to ring up my purchase, and I say "No." It's particularly fun when they clerk is a nice-looking woman and instead of saying "No." I'll ask, leeringly, "Can I have YOURS?". Point: A good first step is to stop giving out seemingly inoccuous information whenever asked. JUST SAY NO.
Has it occurred to anyone that this plays along well with all the Democrat-bashing that has ensued since Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut primaries? "See? If the Bushies don't win, the world gets alot scarier! Lamont (and the Democrats) have been painted as anti-Israel, anti-security, anti-semitic, anti-defense, pro-terrorist, etc, ever since Lieberman's loss.
This is theatre, cast, staged, and played to keep the incumbent authoritarians (can't even call them conservatives anymore, since they're really not) in power come the November elections.
Your comment helps to confirm my initial suspicion: that this "scientist" is really nothing more than a fundamentalist christian trying to back up her bible-based supposition by looking for (and then publishing) "facts" that seem to support it. The underlying message of "natural animosity" between snakes and humans is just a little too obvious. I'd be curious to know what sort of religious (and these days political) background is. Who funds her research? Seems too much like right-wing propaganda, from yet another angle.
Well, for those of us below the Arctic Circle, 70 isn't all that hot.
There was no ad hominem attack in my post. NCPA purports itself to be an objective research and analysis organization. In fact, that's not true. To show something to be a lie is not an ad hominem attack. Try to understand the difference, won't you?
Exxon has a vested interest in ensuring that the demand for its product -- oil -- stays high and, consequently, has an interest in discrediting and otherwise attacking what it perceives to be threats to that demand. The NCPA is funded, in large part, by Exxon. They are not funded to do objective research -- they are funded to produce papers that call into question the idea that global warming can (and must) be addressed, particularly by reducing the production of greenhouse gases, which are a necessary by-product of what Exxon sells.
As for basing your opinion on critiques of the movie, having seen the movie, as well as having read the critiques, in most cases I have to ask myself what movie the critics saw, because most of the critiques either blew some minor detail completely out of proportion, or criticized points that either were not brought up in the movie, or criticized the exact opposite of the argument being made in those points.
"An Inconvenient Truth" addresses the issue of economics and adaptation. If you haven't seen the movie, please do: especially, before posting comments against it here or anywhere else.
In fact, this "adaptation" argument is lifted almost verbatim from the NCPA's white paper supposedly rebutting global warming. Get to know that acronym, folks. The National Center for Policy Analysis -- based in Dallas, TX -- the well-funded mouthpiece of Exxon/Mobile that's at the forefront of efforts to make it look like GW is a myth, or that it is a "contraversial theory" (but only a "theory" -- as though "theory" means just an idea, not yet proven. NCPA (and the members thereof, such as Sterling Bernett) always pop up on the talk show circuits whenever GW comes into media focus.
McDowell's logic is so flawed, so full of fallacies, it's hard to know where to begin. I'll give you one example: His argument that Jesus can only fall into one of three (or was it four?) catagories: liar, lunatic, or "Lord". This is an extension of false dichotomy. I'm not going to go into a long discussion about what that is and why it constitutes faulty reasoning. YOU go "study to show thyself DISproved". Suffice it to say that a) the domain of possibilities is not necessarily limited to these three points, nor is it necessarily even discreet (i.e., his arguments do not allow for overlapping possibilities.) Also, it is built upon other flawed reasoning, which makes the rational basis invalid to begin with. Going back to first-sememster symbolig logic (which I HIGHLY recommend all you christian apologists take BEFORE reading McDowell's comic book) you can prove any assertion made within a system that has a contradiction between any two (or more) of its axioms. Again, if you don't know that means, then either go learn, or stop trying to argue "logically". It's ok to say "I just believe it because I want to." Reason need not have anything to do with it, unless you're trying to convince someone else.
It isn't just you. It's rubbish.
That os SOOO low-tech, dude.