Why do so many people insist on posting circumstantial ad hominems?
For those of you who think mentioning a studies association to certain funders is insightful, or even relevant,
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."
You may not like that MS funded this study, but that's not relevant, no matter how much you want it to be.
Just because YOU can't maintain objectivity, that's no reason to assign such character failings to other researchers.
Why do so many people insist on posting circumstantial ad hominems?
For those of you who think mentioning a studies association to certain funders is insightful, or even relevant,
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."
Just because YOU can't maintain objectivity, that's no reason to assign such character failings to other researchers.
You may not like that MS funded this study, but that's not relevant, no matter how much you want it to be.
The burden is to prove that this guy is somehow dishonest.
Citing his funders IS NOT that proof, nor is it evidence. Until you can show that his funding does in fact affect his data, then you're simply making shit up.
So stop.
And all you jackass mods, what part of my post was a troll? Was it the part where I said something true and logica, or the part where you didn't what I said, despite the fact that it is true?
That the standard response around here when the subject of DNA is mentioned is
1) paranoia so extreme that it borders or mental illness 2) bring up Gattaca
And more importantly, why do these post routinely get modded insightful, when they NEVER say anything that some other paranoid Karma whore hasn't already said?
The world isn't looking to track your every fucking move, nor use your DNA to somehow subjugate you. Get over yourselves.
Why do so many people insist on posting circumstantial ad hominems?
For those of you who think mentioning a studies association to certain funders is insightful, or even relevant,
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."
Just because YOU can't maintain objectivity, that's no reason to assign such character failings to other researchers.
You may not like that MS funded this study, but that's not relevant, no matter how much you want it to be.
"I don't think that the debate isn't so much about whether video games inspire people to go on crime sprees (which is only the aspect that the CSI episode seems to address). Most of us agree that they can."
I don't and since I've actually read the research, and learned about the subject, I couldn't care less what "most of us" think.
That being said, you're wrong about that too.
The question though, is why you believe something that is demonstrably false, that is that violent video games can cause violent outbreaks. That's not true, so why do you think it's obviously true that "most of us" believe it?
"The sad part is that Apple Mac users will not be able to transcode the Tivo files for Apple iPods because of Windows DRM. I keep around an old Windows notebook just to covert Tivo files to AVIs so I can store them on my Mac Mini hooked to my HDTV. What a hassle. Tivo refuses to support Mac users and release a Tiger compatible version of their software [versiontracker.com]. Tivo is supposed to make my life easier by conforming TV to my schedule not to Hollywood's whim. Once my two Tivos die, I will never, ever give money to that stupid TV with legs and arms.
FU Tivo."
Explain please why it's Tivo's fault you bought a Mac.
Right...
Re:The children will ask themselves
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"No, that is complete fucking bullshit, and is partly responsible for the decline in public education in the US. That does not happen -- instead, the teacher must go over the same material over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, until she finally gives up, and the year is over."
You just nailed it.
I am leaving public school teaching for two primary reasons.
1) Mainstreaming. This is the worst god damned idea in the history of education, worse than corporal punishment, worse than rapping knuckles, etc. It's an incredibly bad idea, that has never been shown to help students, for the reasons you mention.
2) ESOL. This is the second worst idea in the history of teaching, namely that you can take a non-english speaker and turn them inot an english speaker simply by putting them in a room full of other english speakers. IF YOU CAN"T SPEAK ENGLISH, YOU NEED TO LEARN THAT FIRST. Why is a student in Chemistry, when they can't even converse about the weather? Give them the tools they need, or else they have NO chance.
"So, you're not teaching to smart people, you're abusing them to make your job easier. If teachers would stop that I'd be a lot happier. Just give me a fscking test and be done with it.
And no, I don't get straight A's. I get A's and A-'s on interesting subjects and C's on the rest, plain because I don't care."
Well, again we have a person who thinks that they are smart, while completely misunderstanding a simple concept. ALso, you don't get A's because you're not as smart as you think, not because of the subjects. Your excuse is epidemic amongst people like you.
Do you think that learning a subject requires the same level of mastery as teaching that subject? Of course not. So while your short sighted, selfish view of GP's point was that he was "abusing" other students, decent teachers understand that he is making the students learn the material from a different point of view.
Now add to that the fact that a teacher must often explain a subject in several different ways to different students, and you understand why teaching is the best way to learn something.
So go ahead and just take your test. The other students who actually engage themselves in assisting others will be better prepared than you.
Also, as an aside, don't be such a dick. You're not a teacher, and I can say with certainty your attitutude would preclude you from ever being any good at it. So judging how others do it while adding nothing but inaccurate criticism is just dumb.
As soon as you post some evidence to back up your assertions, I'll pay attention to what you say.
Until then, you're another know-it-all who likes to run his mouth, but has no idea what is really going on.
"In order for everyone to Pass, you have to teach down to the lowest common denominator to the class, meaning that 90% of the students are bored and 30% are bored off their ass and asleep."
Show me the studies, please. If they don't exist (they don't) then explain how you can make such an absurd generalization.
Where do you think all of the aid money we've been sending them for years was supposed to go?
Why do you people keep acting like you have some grand new plan, then start outlining the same plan that others have tried dozens of times before?
"If we put the money we're spending on these "miracle laptops" into building roads and water systems, I'm almost certain we'll see more results and it would magnify the impact of these machines."
If we put the money we're spending on these "miracle laptops" into building roads and water systems, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MIRACLE LAPTOPS. I don't see how that "magnifies" their impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do so many people insist on posting circumstantial ad hominems?
For those of you who think mentioning a studies association to certain funders is insightful, or even relevant,
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."
You may not like that MS funded this study, but that's not relevant, no matter how much you want it to be.
Just because YOU can't maintain objectivity, that's no reason to assign such character failings to other researchers.
Why do so many people insist on posting circumstantial ad hominems?
For those of you who think mentioning a studies association to certain funders is insightful, or even relevant,
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."
Just because YOU can't maintain objectivity, that's no reason to assign such character failings to other researchers.
You may not like that MS funded this study, but that's not relevant, no matter how much you want it to be.
NO, that's wrong.
The burden is to prove that this guy is somehow dishonest.
Citing his funders IS NOT that proof, nor is it evidence. Until you can show that his funding does in fact affect his data, then you're simply making shit up.
So stop.
And all you jackass mods, what part of my post was a troll? Was it the part where I said something true and logica, or the part where you didn't what I said, despite the fact that it is true?
That the standard response around here when the subject of DNA is mentioned is
1) paranoia so extreme that it borders or mental illness
2) bring up Gattaca
And more importantly, why do these post routinely get modded insightful, when they NEVER say anything that some other paranoid Karma whore hasn't already said?
The world isn't looking to track your every fucking move, nor use your DNA to somehow subjugate you. Get over yourselves.
Yeah, and I'm sick and tired of people like you relying on circumstantial ad hominems.
Look it up, then stop doing it.
Why do so many people insist on posting circumstantial ad hominems?
For those of you who think mentioning a studies association to certain funders is insightful, or even relevant,
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."
Just because YOU can't maintain objectivity, that's no reason to assign such character failings to other researchers.
You may not like that MS funded this study, but that's not relevant, no matter how much you want it to be.
"OT: Next time your tongue itches to say something stupid about the French, remind yourself why the Statue of Liberty is in New York, again."
Fair enough.
Although the fact that their country still exists because of The US doesn't seem to slow the French down.
So the question is why to you feel the need to stick up for the French?
Oh right, they can't fight for themselves (ZING!).
Not true.
The person who is executed is deterred.
You certainly can't make the case that a dead person will still commit crimes.
I would ask why a chemist was doing research on marine biology, but I'm sure you made that whole story up.
So you're generalizing your tendency to be biased onto other people?
Sorry, many people do research every day with the only goal to do the highest quality research possible, regardless of funder.
I think the conclusions you draw say more about you than anything else.
"english is way to easy" Not too easy?
No, you still missed the joke and
"I thought it was just good old racism"
since when are the French a "race"?
Seriously, if you plan to play the victim at least try to figure out what you're the victim of.
"I don't think that the debate isn't so much about whether video games inspire people to go on crime sprees (which is only the aspect that the CSI episode seems to address). Most of us agree that they can."
I don't and since I've actually read the research, and learned about the subject, I couldn't care less what "most of us" think.
That being said, you're wrong about that too.
The question though, is why you believe something that is demonstrably false, that is that violent video games can cause violent outbreaks. That's not true, so why do you think it's obviously true that "most of us" believe it?
My question was
Why is it Tivo's fault you bought a mac.
The correct answer is "It isn't"
Everything in your post could have been edited out.
You know, that's funny, because I liked Neuromancer and I wouldn't wipe my ass with anything by either of the author's you listed.
Primarily because I'm not a sheep who insists sci-fi authors are good when they aren't, such as the two you listed.
"Was it "piracy" when people videotaped hit TV shows in the 70s, 80s and 90s and then passed the tape around to family and friends? I don't think so."
Despite what you "think" you're wrong, it was piracy.
I would be interested to hear your reasoning on why it was not, however.
"The sad part is that Apple Mac users will not be able to transcode the Tivo files for Apple iPods because of Windows DRM. I keep around an old Windows notebook just to covert Tivo files to AVIs so I can store them on my Mac Mini hooked to my HDTV. What a hassle. Tivo refuses to support Mac users and release a Tiger compatible version of their software [versiontracker.com]. Tivo is supposed to make my life easier by conforming TV to my schedule not to Hollywood's whim. Once my two Tivos die, I will never, ever give money to that stupid TV with legs and arms.
FU Tivo."
Explain please why it's Tivo's fault you bought a Mac.
Right...
"No, that is complete fucking bullshit, and is partly responsible for the decline in public education in the US. That does not happen -- instead, the teacher must go over the same material over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, until she finally gives up, and the year is over."
You just nailed it.
I am leaving public school teaching for two primary reasons.
1) Mainstreaming. This is the worst god damned idea in the history of education, worse than corporal punishment, worse than rapping knuckles, etc. It's an incredibly bad idea, that has never been shown to help students, for the reasons you mention.
2) ESOL. This is the second worst idea in the history of teaching, namely that you can take a non-english speaker and turn them inot an english speaker simply by putting them in a room full of other english speakers. IF YOU CAN"T SPEAK ENGLISH, YOU NEED TO LEARN THAT FIRST. Why is a student in Chemistry, when they can't even converse about the weather? Give them the tools they need, or else they have NO chance.
"So, you're not teaching to smart people, you're abusing them to make your job easier. If teachers would stop that I'd be a lot happier. Just give me a fscking test and be done with it.
And no, I don't get straight A's. I get A's and A-'s on interesting subjects and C's on the rest, plain because I don't care."
Well, again we have a person who thinks that they are smart, while completely misunderstanding a simple concept. ALso, you don't get A's because you're not as smart as you think, not because of the subjects. Your excuse is epidemic amongst people like you.
Do you think that learning a subject requires the same level of mastery as teaching that subject? Of course not. So while your short sighted, selfish view of GP's point was that he was "abusing" other students, decent teachers understand that he is making the students learn the material from a different point of view.
Now add to that the fact that a teacher must often explain a subject in several different ways to different students, and you understand why teaching is the best way to learn something.
So go ahead and just take your test. The other students who actually engage themselves in assisting others will be better prepared than you.
Also, as an aside, don't be such a dick. You're not a teacher, and I can say with certainty your attitutude would preclude you from ever being any good at it. So judging how others do it while adding nothing but inaccurate criticism is just dumb.
I love this.
If you were really as smart as you think you are, you'd realize that IQ is not, nor has it ever been, an accurate measure of "intelligence".
And then, as if that wasn't bad enough, you blame schools for your failures.
Well, I scored 167, so I guess that means I can completely ignore you, because you're not smart enough to discuss this topic with me.
As soon as you post some evidence to back up your assertions, I'll pay attention to what you say.
Until then, you're another know-it-all who likes to run his mouth, but has no idea what is really going on.
"In order for everyone to Pass, you have to teach down to the lowest common denominator to the class, meaning that 90% of the students are bored and 30% are bored off their ass and asleep."
Show me the studies, please. If they don't exist (they don't) then explain how you can make such an absurd generalization.
Oh, right, you're just making things up.
You didn't read the part where I wrote "administrate" did you?
In a business environment, if it takes longer to set up and administrate than a Windows machine in the same circumstance would, then it's not ready.
Where do you think all of the aid money we've been sending them for years was supposed to go?
Why do you people keep acting like you have some grand new plan, then start outlining the same plan that others have tried dozens of times before?
"If we put the money we're spending on these "miracle laptops" into building roads and water systems, I'm almost certain we'll see more results and it would magnify the impact of these machines."
If we put the money we're spending on these "miracle laptops" into building roads and water systems, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MIRACLE LAPTOPS. I don't see how that "magnifies" their impact.
No.
The only way these laptops can be sold for $100 dollars is to take advantage of economy of scale, in this case a million at a time.
Even so, I recall reading that they are still losing money.