"If you feel that way, please point out the lies and we will discuss them."
Ok, just point me to an objective source with no interest in playing up claims of torture. How about, say, amnesty international, an entity that exists to bring light to human rights abuses. They certainly wouldn't have any interest in overstating anything, especially in the interes of increasing donations...
Yet, amazingly, you don't see this. The facts of the governments operations aren't available to you and I, nor are they available to the people who claim to be reporting them. Any shred of honesty requires that you admit this. The fact that you like the propaganda changes nothing, it's still propaganda.
By the way, I find this lack of transparency extremely objectionable.
What you are missing, and apparently will continue to miss, is that the sources of your information have just as much stake in making things look bad as the other side has in hiding problems.
Yet for some reason you have given more credence to one side than the other.
Now why you'd ignore one set of biases in favor of another, when both are equally deplorable is beyond me, but you continue to do it, play the patsy, and swallow your food like a good little tool.
The facts exist independent of your agreement with them, and since you don;t know what the facts are, you need to stop acting like you do.
But you won't. It's impossible for people like you to ever admit that they don;t really know what's happening. The source of this arrigance is unknown to me, but it's disgusting, and you've succumbed to it.
Every time I see a post by you, it's filled with unsubstantiated speculations and assertions that border on lies, and easily reach the level of hyperbole.
No one listens to idiots like you because idiots like you are too stupid to see when you're beinbg manipulated by YOUR media and YOUR friends and YOUR politicians.
The truth is not what you claim, nor what any other individual claims because it is far more complicated, and you'll never know all the circumstances surrouding the issues.
So instead of making moronic proclamations of what my government does based on obviously biased "reporting" that you're too foolish to recognize as just another form of propaganda (your words not mine) you could instead stick to objective fact.
But then you wouldn't have anything to lie about would you?
"By moving water against the normal gradient, you will warm up water that's supposed to be cold, and cool off water that's supposed to be warm."
What do you mean "supposed to be"? Why is the assumption by greenies always that the current state is the correct one, and that any changes are detrimental?
I remember a while back the story of a backdoor that someone attempted to install into the Linux kernel that would allow anyone who knew about it root access.
It was caught because of the diligence of the maintainers, but it involved one character of difference. One character.
Do you honestly believe that the NSA doesn't have such backdoors installed in the software produced in the US? How hard would it be to slip something like that in (intentionally or otherwise)?
"I consider carrying wepons in public a danger to me"
Justify that with a better argument than "because I said so".
"IMO your right to carry a wepon in public is equivalent to your right to drive while drunk,"
So, you're equating people who carry weapons in public with drunks. Tell me how that goes over with a cop the next time you see one.
All snippiness aside, how can you equate the two rationally? In one case someone has used a substance that impairs motor function and judgement, while in the other someone is in possession of a tool. You analogy might make sense if you said "people with guns are just a dangerous as people with cars" but that's ridiculous too.
If that is really your opinion, I'd avoid sharing it anymore because it's moronic.
"The difference between me having some confidence in our legal system as it is and me not having much confidence in a posse of citizens with guns, who believe themselves to be good, honest folks, should be fairly obvious."
Yes, you've deluded yourself to believe that one will protect you, when in reality it only deters people from offending against you and punishes them after the fact.
"Isn't it just a bit amazing that I need to defend rule of law here?"
You're not defending the rule of law, stop with the straw men and stick to the point. You made the following statement
"The judgment of good, honest folks is not something I'd bet my life on."
So what ARE you relying on when you follow laws (made by people) and rely on police (who are people) and soldiers (who are people) to protect you? You made a statement the you wouldn't bet your life on their judgement, yet you are doing nothing but relying on others' judgement.
"It's a democracy of the ordinary western variety."
So, you elect representatives (who are people) to execute your will (you assume) unless your will is less popular in which case you rely on their goodwill not to use the law against you and your position.
Do you even understand how disconnected from reality your points are? Do you have any idea how silly it sounds for you to disparage "posses" while trusting POLITICIANS to protect you?
You are doing everything you claim not to be doing.
"There are no laws that would directly put me to death here,"
Way to completely miss the point. Whether there are or not, you're placing the resposibilty for your life in the hands of legislators. You are expecting them to make laws to protect you.
You are relying on their judgement, despite the fact that you appear to beleive otherwise.
"this is a democracy, I do have some influence over the laws."
Without knowing where here is, that too is essentially irrelevant. If it is truly a democracy, you're relying on the judgement of the other people in your democracy to protect you. The point is still valid.
"What's a "basic human right"? What makes something qualify for that epithet? Where do they come from?"
Since you clearly know the difference, enlighten me. Answer your own questions.
As to the rest, yes I've never heard anything so ridiculous as the suggestion that you do not have the right to protect your life. I cannot imagine a single circumstance or argument that would make that staement true, or in fact, any less ridiculous.
"We can volunteer for military service, get shot and killed (and/or shoot at and kill other people) for our country (or even for some trumped up invasion of someplace half a world away, to defend our country) at age 18 (again, in USA), but we apparently can't be trusted to use alcohol appropriately until we're 21? Hm."
Well, there is certainly merit to your argument, but you overlook one crucial fact.
Soldiers are trained for a LONG time to do their job, and then closely supervised. No one enlists then gets sent to the front the next day.
So while I understand your point, the two simply are not comparable.
And you should be able to drink when 18, either you're an adult and responsible for yourself or you're not. There is no other argument necessary.
"The judgment of good, honest folks is not something I'd bet my life on."
And yet you choose to obey the laws they made, in effect relying on their judgement.
Unless your position is that your legislators aren't good honest folks which raises other problems...
You really need to examine your thought processes. Someone reading your posts would believe you were taking completely untenable, erroneous positions to be contrarian, but you appear to genuinely belive the tripe you spew.
I feel very sorry for someone like you who thinks their right to life is not a basic human right.
"Are you referring to the strength limitation (which is why you currently only see them in smaller, lighter vehicles) or something completely different?"
I thought this had been largely overcome (assumed) when I read about the Lexus hybrid SUV (RX400?) with a CVT.
"The only thing hydrogen is good for is to reduce emissions from the vehicles themselves, but you only end up pushing the pollution to power generating stations, which we'll need a lot more of if the 'hydrogen economy' takes off."
And which are signifcantly more efficient than masses of cars spewing less refined emissions, especially nuclear plants.
Essentially your post says "punish auto owners, and reward mass transit users" while completely ignoring the fact that mass transit is impractical in many places and always will be.
And who the fuck are YOU exactly? Why does your inconsistent, illogical, and factually incorrect opinion mean dick?
Oh, and we don't care what you think, we being the people who actually work in this field.
"I knew about Genie and similiar incidents. They aren't scientific studies, which is what I said didn't exist"
You're a fucking imbecile. First, I don't beleive you. Second, there's a ream of studies done on Genie, so how can you make such an absurd claim? Oh, right, you're an imbecile...
"If you believe there is no correlation between language and intelligence, or between language use and intelligence, or even between communication and intelligence, then you're not someone who needs to be talking about *anything* on this topic."
No, I beleive that when discussing language we should avoid the red herrings you are using, and instead focus on LANGUAGE. It's conveneint for your position to make claims about the indefinite measures of intelligence, BUT WE'RE NOT MEASURING INTELLIGENCE. Language IS NOT the same as intelligence (as evidenced by the fact that your posts are reasonably well written, apart from being immeasurably moronic).
And you'll notice I've never claimed they weren't related. Straw men, red herrings, do you have any valid arguments?
You're ignorant, as your posts continue to demonstrate. WHY is it always SO HARD for people like you to admit they were ignorant, and actually learn something?
Slashdot Mirror
"If you feel that way, please point out the lies and we will discuss them."
Ok, just point me to an objective source with no interest in playing up claims of torture. How about, say, amnesty international, an entity that exists to bring light to human rights abuses. They certainly wouldn't have any interest in overstating anything, especially in the interes of increasing donations...
Yet, amazingly, you don't see this. The facts of the governments operations aren't available to you and I, nor are they available to the people who claim to be reporting them. Any shred of honesty requires that you admit this. The fact that you like the propaganda changes nothing, it's still propaganda.
By the way, I find this lack of transparency extremely objectionable.
What you are missing, and apparently will continue to miss, is that the sources of your information have just as much stake in making things look bad as the other side has in hiding problems.
Yet for some reason you have given more credence to one side than the other.
Now why you'd ignore one set of biases in favor of another, when both are equally deplorable is beyond me, but you continue to do it, play the patsy, and swallow your food like a good little tool.
The facts exist independent of your agreement with them, and since you don;t know what the facts are, you need to stop acting like you do.
But you won't. It's impossible for people like you to ever admit that they don;t really know what's happening. The source of this arrigance is unknown to me, but it's disgusting, and you've succumbed to it.
Every time I see a post by you, it's filled with unsubstantiated speculations and assertions that border on lies, and easily reach the level of hyperbole.
No one listens to idiots like you because idiots like you are too stupid to see when you're beinbg manipulated by YOUR media and YOUR friends and YOUR politicians.
The truth is not what you claim, nor what any other individual claims because it is far more complicated, and you'll never know all the circumstances surrouding the issues.
So instead of making moronic proclamations of what my government does based on obviously biased "reporting" that you're too foolish to recognize as just another form of propaganda (your words not mine) you could instead stick to objective fact.
But then you wouldn't have anything to lie about would you?
"All power generating facilities are going to cause environmental damage"
Environmental changes. You can't just assume that those changes are "damage".
"By moving water against the normal gradient, you will warm up water that's supposed to be cold, and cool off water that's supposed to be warm."
What do you mean "supposed to be"? Why is the assumption by greenies always that the current state is the correct one, and that any changes are detrimental?
"I appear to be alone in my opinion."
No, there are plenty of stupid people just like you.
"All monitor manufacturers seem to do is to make bigger monitors with better resolutions."
Funny, I remember some of my monitors getting thinner and lighter too, had something to do with LCD's...
"All printer manufacturers seem to do is to print smaller dots faster."
Hmm, I also remember buying a newfangled device to fix my printouts. It seems they were all coming out in one color.
Oh wait, you're wrong.
"check the facts before calling other people liars then?"
Ok, fine, I STILL think you're lying, and what facts should I chech asshole?
YOU DIDN'T GIVE THE COUNTRY CUNT, so the only facts I had were what you gave.
Give us useful information and maybe you'll avoid being called a liar.
Even though you are.
"rational is something I certainly am not."
It was bound to happen, you actually got something right.
Now, let's generalize that to the rest of your posts.
"Who are the terrorists:"
I looked REALLY hard, and while it's possible I may have missed it, I didn't see the word terrorist used in any of the reports.
So, my question to you is what purpose can it possibly serve to cry "terrorism"? Why are you clouding the issue?
"Villianizing China... why???"
Because they act like villains?
No, that couldn't be it...
"It would kick americas butt in both a ground war and a nuclear exchange."
How many nuclear subs does CHina have, and how advanced are they?
How many nuclear subs does the US have, and how advanced are they?
Nulcear is a lose lose for both sides, but your suggestion that China has nuclear dominance is so wrong it's laughable.
The US has nuclear subs that are for all intents and purposes, undetectable. China has nothing that can compete, but they're trying.
I remember a while back the story of a backdoor that someone attempted to install into the Linux kernel that would allow anyone who knew about it root access.
It was caught because of the diligence of the maintainers, but it involved one character of difference. One character.
Do you honestly believe that the NSA doesn't have such backdoors installed in the software produced in the US? How hard would it be to slip something like that in (intentionally or otherwise)?
A statistic I heard while watching ESPN one day said that on average, there is nine minutes of action in a baseball game.
"I consider carrying wepons in public a danger to me"
Justify that with a better argument than "because I said so".
"IMO your right to carry a wepon in public is equivalent to your right to drive while drunk,"
So, you're equating people who carry weapons in public with drunks. Tell me how that goes over with a cop the next time you see one.
All snippiness aside, how can you equate the two rationally? In one case someone has used a substance that impairs motor function and judgement, while in the other someone is in possession of a tool. You analogy might make sense if you said "people with guns are just a dangerous as people with cars" but that's ridiculous too.
If that is really your opinion, I'd avoid sharing it anymore because it's moronic.
"If gas goes to $10/gallon, mass transit will be practical everywhere, because the only alternative would be staying put."
I was unaware that every type of transit device ever constructed relied on gasoline for power.
I'm off to ride my bicycle now, have a nice day.
"The difference between me having some confidence in our legal system as it is and me not having much confidence in a posse of citizens with guns, who believe themselves to be good, honest folks, should be fairly obvious."
Yes, you've deluded yourself to believe that one will protect you, when in reality it only deters people from offending against you and punishes them after the fact.
"Isn't it just a bit amazing that I need to defend rule of law here?"
You're not defending the rule of law, stop with the straw men and stick to the point. You made the following statement
"The judgment of good, honest folks is not something I'd bet my life on."
So what ARE you relying on when you follow laws (made by people) and rely on police (who are people) and soldiers (who are people) to protect you? You made a statement the you wouldn't bet your life on their judgement, yet you are doing nothing but relying on others' judgement.
"It's a democracy of the ordinary western variety."
So, you elect representatives (who are people) to execute your will (you assume) unless your will is less popular in which case you rely on their goodwill not to use the law against you and your position.
Do you even understand how disconnected from reality your points are? Do you have any idea how silly it sounds for you to disparage "posses" while trusting POLITICIANS to protect you?
You are doing everything you claim not to be doing.
"There are no laws that would directly put me to death here,"
Way to completely miss the point. Whether there are or not, you're placing the resposibilty for your life in the hands of legislators. You are expecting them to make laws to protect you.
You are relying on their judgement, despite the fact that you appear to beleive otherwise.
"this is a democracy, I do have some influence over the laws."
Without knowing where here is, that too is essentially irrelevant. If it is truly a democracy, you're relying on the judgement of the other people in your democracy to protect you. The point is still valid.
"What's a "basic human right"? What makes something qualify for that epithet? Where do they come from?"
Since you clearly know the difference, enlighten me. Answer your own questions.
As to the rest, yes I've never heard anything so ridiculous as the suggestion that you do not have the right to protect your life. I cannot imagine a single circumstance or argument that would make that staement true, or in fact, any less ridiculous.
"We can volunteer for military service, get shot and killed (and/or shoot at and kill other people) for our country (or even for some trumped up invasion of someplace half a world away, to defend our country) at age 18 (again, in USA), but we apparently can't be trusted to use alcohol appropriately until we're 21? Hm."
Well, there is certainly merit to your argument, but you overlook one crucial fact.
Soldiers are trained for a LONG time to do their job, and then closely supervised. No one enlists then gets sent to the front the next day.
So while I understand your point, the two simply are not comparable.
And you should be able to drink when 18, either you're an adult and responsible for yourself or you're not. There is no other argument necessary.
"The trouble with "true" freedom in the libertarian sense is that I sacrifice my safety for someone elses freedom."
Do I need to trot out that tired old quote about sacrificing freedom for safety (security)?
Or do you just agree that you deserve neither?
"The judgment of good, honest folks is not something I'd bet my life on."
And yet you choose to obey the laws they made, in effect relying on their judgement.
Unless your position is that your legislators aren't good honest folks which raises other problems...
You really need to examine your thought processes. Someone reading your posts would believe you were taking completely untenable, erroneous positions to be contrarian, but you appear to genuinely belive the tripe you spew.
I feel very sorry for someone like you who thinks their right to life is not a basic human right.
"An ability to defend yourself is often desirable, but that doesn't make it a "basic human right."
So you're saying the ability to protect your life isn't a basic human right?
Wow. Just wow. That's the most ridiculous statment I've ever seen anyone make.
"Are you referring to the strength limitation (which is why you currently only see them in smaller, lighter vehicles) or something completely different?"
I thought this had been largely overcome (assumed) when I read about the Lexus hybrid SUV (RX400?) with a CVT.
"The only thing hydrogen is good for is to reduce emissions from the vehicles themselves, but you only end up pushing the pollution to power generating stations, which we'll need a lot more of if the 'hydrogen economy' takes off."
And which are signifcantly more efficient than masses of cars spewing less refined emissions, especially nuclear plants.
Essentially your post says "punish auto owners, and reward mass transit users" while completely ignoring the fact that mass transit is impractical in many places and always will be.
"I don't consider them to be usefull."
And who the fuck are YOU exactly? Why does your inconsistent, illogical, and factually incorrect opinion mean dick?
Oh, and we don't care what you think, we being the people who actually work in this field.
"I knew about Genie and similiar incidents. They aren't scientific studies, which is what I said didn't exist"
You're a fucking imbecile. First, I don't beleive you. Second, there's a ream of studies done on Genie, so how can you make such an absurd claim? Oh, right, you're an imbecile...
"If you believe there is no correlation between language and intelligence, or between language use and intelligence, or even between communication and intelligence, then you're not someone who needs to be talking about *anything* on this topic."
No, I beleive that when discussing language we should avoid the red herrings you are using, and instead focus on LANGUAGE. It's conveneint for your position to make claims about the indefinite measures of intelligence, BUT WE'RE NOT MEASURING INTELLIGENCE. Language IS NOT the same as intelligence (as evidenced by the fact that your posts are reasonably well written, apart from being immeasurably moronic).
And you'll notice I've never claimed they weren't related. Straw men, red herrings, do you have any valid arguments?
You're ignorant, as your posts continue to demonstrate. WHY is it always SO HARD for people like you to admit they were ignorant, and actually learn something?