Look, you could, theoretically, form a society where you are free to murder anyone, at any time, for any reason. And many members of your society would get quite pissy if someone came along and said "hey, let's create a tax incentive for people to not kill each other!". They'd go on and on about how it's their god-given right to commit random acts of murder, and that you have no right to take away their hard-earned money based on the desire of some people to not be killed. However, if, in the end, enough people agreed with the sentiment that murder should be discouraged, they would have enough clout to change that society to reflect their desires.
That's how social values and laws work. If you think that you should have the right to endanger others by not having your children vaccinated, you need to present a solid case for WHY you should have that right. Just sitting there and yelling "IT'S MY RIGHT!!!" doesn't do anyone any good, nor does making ominous-sounding comments about the "rhetoric" and "reasons" of those who think it's a good idea. Either convince me that your right to endanger me is extremely important, or go join a society which still shares your values.
sure, we have "70% chance of showers" but what about the weather in a month? no idea at all. i think it's incredibly arrogant to think we can tell what the earth is doing when we have so little data.
Let's say I know you work a 5 day work week, with 2 weeks of vacation time per year. Now, I don't know if you're going to go to work tomorrow. I don't know how many days you'll spend at work in the next week. But I do know that in the next year, you'll spend 240 days at work, with a 5% error margin.
Unlikely. If we fail to replace our current energy-generation methods with something more practical, get ready for global warfare and a mass die-off. However, there's absolutely no reason why we can't manufacture practical replacements. As a worst-case scenario, we can let up on the safety-laws associated with nuke plants, and buy another few hundred years to develop better technology.
This is actually most definitely not true. "Organic" has a controlled legal meaning. You cannot just label anything "organic", and get away with it. That distinction belongs to "natural".
You're right - I got my hippie-terminology mixed up. My bad.
Wait... so are we playing No True Scotsman now?
Huh?
No, this would be more like a Scotsman claiming that all Chinese people are actually Scotsmen, and me saying that if they weren't born there or descended from people who were born there, then they're not really Scotsmen. And it doesn't matter if the person making the claim is a Scotsman, or the government passes a law saying that all Chinese people are Scotsmen. Laws don't change reality.
And reading over that... somehow I doubt that analogy helped:( Maybe you can explain your reasoning - give me an idea of what it is that's confusing you.
Yes, Zinc acetate, and zinc glucose are already sold as herb/mineral supplements. Which raises the question, if they could do THAT, then why not just do that? The kink is that a supplement they cannot be advertised as intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. So, they couldn't call it a cold remedy, or even imply that it will reduce cold symptoms, or cold duration. Even though it would.
Assuming you're right (which seems dubious, given what I've read on science-based-medicine and heard on the SGU), it must be an American thing. Just earlier today I read an advertisement that some twit posted at work, for some "remedy" or another, claiming to remove 20lbs of dried-up shit from your colon, thereby improving your health in every conceivable way. You see that kind of stuff here all the time, and no, it's not homeopathic.
Anyway. here's a link from an American site, showing how your quacks look at it:
They can always use language like "boosts the immune system" or "aligns your energy fields" or "energizes your epidermis", which is the kind of stuff you see all the time. That's without getting into issue of the FDA not having the resources to monitor the majority of these products. The law gets violated so often it;'s a joke.
Lastly, while I can understand the desire of money-hungry quacks to try and make a quick buck without having to jump through regulatory hoops, I hope you're not trying to suggest that cold remedies don't need to go through a proper testing program.
And I agree with you that not "every single remedy labeled as 'homeopathic' is actually a scam", I'm simply pointing out that they're incorrectly labeled:)
You were quoting the legal definition, so let me clarify that I'm not talking about the law. Legally I can now advertize Pizza as "Fresh Vegetables for sale!". Or I can sell pretty much anything I want under the label "organic", even if I made it by splashing together a bunch of industrial sludge. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's accurate. A "remedy" which violates the declared principles of homeopathy is not homeopathic regardless of what the law says, or what excuses the homeopaths themselves make. If they put "essence of Viagra" in the HPUS, that doesn't mean that a Viagra pill dissolved in a beaker would suddenly become a homeopathic remedy!
Well... not unless they sold it as a medicine which makes you flaccid. Then it would be homeopathic; it wouldn't work.
As for your last question... I would suspect that Zinc acetate could be sold as a "naturopathic medicine" or a "health supplement" without having to go through the testing procedures required for new drugs. However, IANAL, and it would depend on the laws of your nation anyway. What holds true for Canada might not be true in the US or the UK. In any event, I can accept your reasoning on that point, while maintaining that there are alternatives (more appropriate ones, at that) to the "homeopathy" label.
Any solution which depends on the medicinal effect of the active ingredient is, by definition, not homeopathic.
Homeopathy depends on the "Law of Similars" which, essentially, boils down to "if something makes you sick in a particular way, then really small amounts of that something will make you get better". So a homeopath might "treat" radiation poisoning by exposing you to insanely small quantities of radioactive metal diluted in water. The way they determine which substance is good for what is through a "proving" - essentially exposing people to a substance, seeing what it does to them, then concluding that this substance will treat those symptoms.
Now, it's quite possible that someone out there is taking, say, an aspirin tablet, dissolving it in a bottle of water, and selling it as a "homeopathic" treatment for headaches. However, since aspirin doesn't cause headaches, and since no "proving" could ever show that it does, the "remedy" would not be homeopathic. The same goes for any other "homeopathic" dilution where the active ingredient is detectable. You might be able to call them "naturopathic", but calling them homeopathic is just false advertising.
Disbelief is the lack of belief. If you tell me you're a billionaire, I would react with disbelief. It doesn't mean I think you're a liar or that the claim is necessarily false, it means I find it unlikely and will reject your claim until sufficient evidence is provided.
Not collecting stamps may not be a hobby, but the hobby of constantly telling people about how you don't collect stamps, is still a hobby about stamps
Flawed analogy. Nobody is talking about how they don't collect stamps - they're talking about how ridiculous it is that a bunch of other people are collecting invisible stamps, and then arguing over whose stamps are better.
Also, these complaints are being made in the context of a society where a large majority of people and many prominent public figures insist that they live in a stamp-collecting nation founded on stamp-collecting values, insist on shoving stamps into every crevice of public life, and refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't collect stamps. Plus powerful groups want to teach children in public schools that evolution is wrong because it denies that the world was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful invisible stamp.
Contradicts? What is the contradiction? If I believe in a God that started the big bang then went on vacation, what of that scenario contradicts reality as you've seen it?
Nothing. And if you said "my god is this gold-plated toilet", I would have to say "yes, your god exists". Of course, I'd think you were an idiot, but your god would exist.
That's nonsense. If the area is so unstable that a frack causes an earthquake, then it's just a matter of time until they start busting out on their own. If anything, these little 2-3 magnitude earthquakes (and I mean little - at worst they'll make ripples in your beer glass) would be beneficial in those situations since they'd be releasing the energy before it could develop into a much larger quake. If there was any truth in these allegations, we'd be using fracking in all high-risk areas to help prevent future problems.
As for this brilliant piece of propaganda:
So as usual in the Corporate States of Amerika whether it turns out to be frakking or not it doesn't matter, as i'm sure by the time they get done we'll have several nice ecological messes that we the taxpayer gets to pick up the tab for while they cash out and move on to the next scam.
"We the taxpayers" benefit from lower energy prices. It doesn't matter whether we pay less now and then pay for the cleanup after, or whether we pay more now and have the companies do the cleanup after. Your economic "analysis" might fly amongst the "99%" twits, but it's complete bollocks.
That, of course, is assuming there's anything to clean up in the first place - a major premise for which you've provided zero evidence.
The most recent state of Palestine occupied almost the exact geographical area that is currently called Israel. There are hundreds of thousands of people with direct ties to the area, who are not Israeli citizens.
Um, no. The last time that Palestine existed as a sovereign state was hundreds (a thousand?) of years ago. If you're referring to the British Mandate period, "Palestine" was a British protectorate, captured from the Ottomans, which looked like this:
People who fled from (or were expelled by) Israel during the war didn't magically become Jordanian or Egyptian.
Given that Egypt and Jordan didn't technically exist at the time, this would be true. The earliest historical record we have shows that Palestine was originally a district of Syria, so I guess, if anything, they'd be Syrian. However, the area has been controlled by so many different nations that we can safely consider "Palestinians" to be an amalgamation of all the major cultures and/or nations of the region. Here's a brief overview:
There really is no rational argument that there is no such thing as a Palestinian homeland, as it necessarily implies there are no Arabs in existence who originally lived in what is now the nation of Israel.
Sure, but given that the whole region once belonged to the kingdom of Israel, you can use the same chain of logic to demand the Palestinians be expelled. It's a double-edged sword; the position you take depends entirely on where in history you decide to draw the line.
Personally I have no problem with Palestine existing as a separate state - I don't give a shit about who owned what, when - but I know that it's an unrealistic expectation so long as they are unable to reach a peaceful agreement with Israel. I tend to agree with Golda Meyer on her statement about when peace will become possible.
As an outsider, I got the impession that Obama was going to pull out of Afghanistan pretty much straight away
As an outsider, but a member of the defense community, it was glaringly obvious to me that Obama would do nothing of the sort.
Why? Because he's a reasonable man. And the "SOLDIERS HOME NOW!!" people are unreasonable idiots. His presidency has unfolded pretty much the way I figured - he followed up on Bush's success in Iraq, pulled the troops back, and then consolidated Afghanistan. McCain would have done the same. Perhaps the only thing that's set them apart is that Obama has actually tried to close down Guantanamo, though he's done it in a responsible manner by phasing it out gradually - a Republican president would have kept it going at full strength.
Still, at least he hasn't started any other futile ground wars yet, but I suppose there's always Mexico.
Well, neither did Bush, so I guess that's another thing they have in common. Obama DID engage in a bombing campaign which, at present, seems to have been not only futile but also counterproductive. I retain some hope that Libya may turn into a functional state, but the situation at the moment doesn't look too promising.
The difference between a ground war and an air war is that in a ground war, you get a say in what happens after the regime is defeated. In an air war you just leave, and the vacuum is filled by whoever has the biggest stick. If a "good guy" rises to power, it's usually pure fluke - most of the time the regime gets replace by another dictator who is as bad or worse than the guy you spent billions killing.
OK, so instead of cold, tired, scared recruits with overpowered assault rifles standing guard in the dark of night we're going to have jittery, cold, tired, scared recruits with overpowered assault rifles standing guard in the dark of night. Lovely.
The only scared recruits I've ever met were the ones on their basic-training course, and they were far more terrified that their section commander might catch them dozing off than anything some future enemy might throw at them. And we only gave them live rounds under very controlled conditions.
Also, the rifles are underpowered, the cold-weather kit is excellent, and everyone gets enough sleep to function properly for the most part. REAL sleep deprivation does happen, but it's relatively rare (though, granted, my idea of real sleep deprivation may differ greatly from yours).
Caffeine is an awesome drug. So long as your job doesn't ever consist of accurately firing a weapon or going long durations without peeing.
Eh. I once drank 20 cups of coffee in a day, then got a "marksman" score on the range. So that's not really an issue. As for long durations without peeing, that's not really an issue either - anyone in the combat arms quickly learns how to pee anywhere, any time, in any position. Unless you're on parade in front of the Queen, in which case you may be fucked.
If you had read the entire comment as a single reply, instead of trying to Fisk it, you'd have gotten the point (I hope).
What you're calling "evidence" is completely useless because it can have any number of causes. It can be a result of mental illness. It could be the result of a delusion. It could be due to the numerous problems with human hardware and wetware which cause countless issues with our perceptions. It could be a lie. It could be a simple mistake. As long as it's not verifiable or repeatable, it can not be considered valid evidence. It might be ok to accept it as evidence of a mundane claim (my eyes are brown), but it certainly is not acceptable as evidence in the case of extraordinary claims (I have 5 eyes).
The problem with accepting the kind of "evidence" you're talking about is that you end up having to accept every crazy claim in existence, or you end up having to pick and choose between them based on your own "feelings" or some irrational criteria which you pull out of your ass. There is no practical difference between the claim "I saw god heal someone" and "I saw bigfoot drinking beer in my garage". The rational decision is to reject both, because neither person has presented any evidence. Under your definition of "evidence", you have no basis for rejecting either.
And while I'm at it, I may as well correct your misconceptions about science:
Most of the militant atheists I have read don't understand what constitutes valid evidence either. Not least because it's not an issue that can be decided scientifically, but they think it is. How could it be? Science is based on evidence, and if you feed in different definitions of what counts as evidence (foundationalism, coherentism, reformed epistemology, infinitism...) then you get different versions of science (that agree on almost everything), not information on whether your definition was "right" or not.
No, you don't get different versions of science, you get different systems entirely. And guess what - we can look of the output of those different systems, and see how they line up with reality. We can judge which ones are more effective at producing tangible products, or predicting future events. For instance, you can look at alchemy and compare it to chemistry, and see which one gets you carbon fiber composites to make wings for your aircraft. Or you can look at meteorology and prayer, and see which one gets you more accurate information about tomorrow's weather.
We know the scientific model we have is the best tool for analyzing the universe around us because it works. It delivers the goods. No other system of analysis has ever come close. Maybe we'll find a better way at some point in the future, but if we do, it will be through science. It certainly won't be through some numbnut talking about his feelings and subjective experiences.
And where, exactly, did I claim ANYTHING which falls into the structure you just defined? Did I claim all religious people are crazy? Did I claim all people who hear voices are crazy? Did I claim all crazy people hear voices? Did I claim all people who use invalid "evidence" are either religious or crazy?
The answer to all of the above is a clear and unambiguous "NO".
I'm quite familiar with logical fallacies, thanks - your misapplication of them is not my fault. Try to read what I write, instead of what you'd like to see.
I guarantee that in no case will you find an argument that is sufficient to demonstrate any of these are not "evidence", by definition and by what "evidence" simply means. If you can't differentiate between the notions of "evidence", "convincing evidence", and "proof", you have no business discussing much of anything.
I agree, which is why you should probably stop. By your reasoning, I could fart and claim it's evidence of the existence of god. If that sounds logical to you, there is something very wrong with your thought process.
Does the creator of a cellular automata world need to interfere with it? It did already by creating it, yet there is no way for such a world to witness any indication of an external entity, and when such thing happen they have no way of proving it's external and not coming from some previously unearthed rules.
I guess you didn't understand me, so I'll repeat what I said: a god who does not interfere is irrelevant, and indistinguishable from no god at all. If your "creator" has absolutely no influence on your "cellular automata", then he is irrelevant to their lives, and for all intents and purposes does not exist. Arguing about him becomes an exercise in intellectual (I use the word loosely) masturbation.
Me: crazy people who hear voices. You: blah blah blah, affirming the consequent.
By dismissing the very concept, you're denying the existence of mental illness. Either rethink your reply, or just stop while you're not too far behind.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like any other social restriction.
Look, you could, theoretically, form a society where you are free to murder anyone, at any time, for any reason. And many members of your society would get quite pissy if someone came along and said "hey, let's create a tax incentive for people to not kill each other!". They'd go on and on about how it's their god-given right to commit random acts of murder, and that you have no right to take away their hard-earned money based on the desire of some people to not be killed. However, if, in the end, enough people agreed with the sentiment that murder should be discouraged, they would have enough clout to change that society to reflect their desires.
That's how social values and laws work. If you think that you should have the right to endanger others by not having your children vaccinated, you need to present a solid case for WHY you should have that right. Just sitting there and yelling "IT'S MY RIGHT!!!" doesn't do anyone any good, nor does making ominous-sounding comments about the "rhetoric" and "reasons" of those who think it's a good idea. Either convince me that your right to endanger me is extremely important, or go join a society which still shares your values.
sure, we have "70% chance of showers" but what about the weather in a month? no idea at all. i think it's incredibly arrogant to think we can tell what the earth is doing when we have so little data.
Let's say I know you work a 5 day work week, with 2 weeks of vacation time per year. Now, I don't know if you're going to go to work tomorrow. I don't know how many days you'll spend at work in the next week. But I do know that in the next year, you'll spend 240 days at work, with a 5% error margin.
Unlikely. If we fail to replace our current energy-generation methods with something more practical, get ready for global warfare and a mass die-off. However, there's absolutely no reason why we can't manufacture practical replacements. As a worst-case scenario, we can let up on the safety-laws associated with nuke plants, and buy another few hundred years to develop better technology.
On the other hand, next time you get caught masturbating in public, you've got a pretty sweet excuse ...
This is actually most definitely not true. "Organic" has a controlled legal meaning. You cannot just label anything "organic", and get away with it. That distinction belongs to "natural".
You're right - I got my hippie-terminology mixed up. My bad.
Wait... so are we playing No True Scotsman now?
Huh?
No, this would be more like a Scotsman claiming that all Chinese people are actually Scotsmen, and me saying that if they weren't born there or descended from people who were born there, then they're not really Scotsmen. And it doesn't matter if the person making the claim is a Scotsman, or the government passes a law saying that all Chinese people are Scotsmen. Laws don't change reality.
And reading over that ... somehow I doubt that analogy helped :( Maybe you can explain your reasoning - give me an idea of what it is that's confusing you.
Yes, Zinc acetate, and zinc glucose are already sold as herb/mineral supplements. Which raises the question, if they could do THAT, then why not just do that? The kink is that a supplement they cannot be advertised as intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. So, they couldn't call it a cold remedy, or even imply that it will reduce cold symptoms, or cold duration. Even though it would.
Assuming you're right (which seems dubious, given what I've read on science-based-medicine and heard on the SGU), it must be an American thing. Just earlier today I read an advertisement that some twit posted at work, for some "remedy" or another, claiming to remove 20lbs of dried-up shit from your colon, thereby improving your health in every conceivable way. You see that kind of stuff here all the time, and no, it's not homeopathic.
Anyway. here's a link from an American site, showing how your quacks look at it:
http://www.naturessunshine.com/content/us/Misc/Legal.pdf
They can always use language like "boosts the immune system" or "aligns your energy fields" or "energizes your epidermis", which is the kind of stuff you see all the time. That's without getting into issue of the FDA not having the resources to monitor the majority of these products. The law gets violated so often it;'s a joke.
Lastly, while I can understand the desire of money-hungry quacks to try and make a quick buck without having to jump through regulatory hoops, I hope you're not trying to suggest that cold remedies don't need to go through a proper testing program.
And I agree with you that not "every single remedy labeled as 'homeopathic' is actually a scam", I'm simply pointing out that they're incorrectly labeled :)
You were quoting the legal definition, so let me clarify that I'm not talking about the law. Legally I can now advertize Pizza as "Fresh Vegetables for sale!". Or I can sell pretty much anything I want under the label "organic", even if I made it by splashing together a bunch of industrial sludge. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's accurate. A "remedy" which violates the declared principles of homeopathy is not homeopathic regardless of what the law says, or what excuses the homeopaths themselves make. If they put "essence of Viagra" in the HPUS, that doesn't mean that a Viagra pill dissolved in a beaker would suddenly become a homeopathic remedy!
Well ... not unless they sold it as a medicine which makes you flaccid. Then it would be homeopathic; it wouldn't work.
As for your last question ... I would suspect that Zinc acetate could be sold as a "naturopathic medicine" or a "health supplement" without having to go through the testing procedures required for new drugs. However, IANAL, and it would depend on the laws of your nation anyway. What holds true for Canada might not be true in the US or the UK. In any event, I can accept your reasoning on that point, while maintaining that there are alternatives (more appropriate ones, at that) to the "homeopathy" label.
Any solution which depends on the medicinal effect of the active ingredient is, by definition, not homeopathic.
Homeopathy depends on the "Law of Similars" which, essentially, boils down to "if something makes you sick in a particular way, then really small amounts of that something will make you get better". So a homeopath might "treat" radiation poisoning by exposing you to insanely small quantities of radioactive metal diluted in water. The way they determine which substance is good for what is through a "proving" - essentially exposing people to a substance, seeing what it does to them, then concluding that this substance will treat those symptoms.
Now, it's quite possible that someone out there is taking, say, an aspirin tablet, dissolving it in a bottle of water, and selling it as a "homeopathic" treatment for headaches. However, since aspirin doesn't cause headaches, and since no "proving" could ever show that it does, the "remedy" would not be homeopathic. The same goes for any other "homeopathic" dilution where the active ingredient is detectable. You might be able to call them "naturopathic", but calling them homeopathic is just false advertising.
I wish you'd stop using the word "remedy". The phrase "homeopathic confidence scam" would be far more descriptive and factual.
Disbelief is the lack of belief. If you tell me you're a billionaire, I would react with disbelief. It doesn't mean I think you're a liar or that the claim is necessarily false, it means I find it unlikely and will reject your claim until sufficient evidence is provided.
Not collecting stamps may not be a hobby, but the hobby of constantly telling people about how you don't collect stamps, is still a hobby about stamps
Flawed analogy. Nobody is talking about how they don't collect stamps - they're talking about how ridiculous it is that a bunch of other people are collecting invisible stamps, and then arguing over whose stamps are better.
Also, these complaints are being made in the context of a society where a large majority of people and many prominent public figures insist that they live in a stamp-collecting nation founded on stamp-collecting values, insist on shoving stamps into every crevice of public life, and refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't collect stamps. Plus powerful groups want to teach children in public schools that evolution is wrong because it denies that the world was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful invisible stamp.
Hope that clears things up :D
Contradicts? What is the contradiction? If I believe in a God that started the big bang then went on vacation, what of that scenario contradicts reality as you've seen it?
Nothing. And if you said "my god is this gold-plated toilet", I would have to say "yes, your god exists". Of course, I'd think you were an idiot, but your god would exist.
That's nonsense. If the area is so unstable that a frack causes an earthquake, then it's just a matter of time until they start busting out on their own. If anything, these little 2-3 magnitude earthquakes (and I mean little - at worst they'll make ripples in your beer glass) would be beneficial in those situations since they'd be releasing the energy before it could develop into a much larger quake. If there was any truth in these allegations, we'd be using fracking in all high-risk areas to help prevent future problems.
As for this brilliant piece of propaganda:
So as usual in the Corporate States of Amerika whether it turns out to be frakking or not it doesn't matter, as i'm sure by the time they get done we'll have several nice ecological messes that we the taxpayer gets to pick up the tab for while they cash out and move on to the next scam.
"We the taxpayers" benefit from lower energy prices. It doesn't matter whether we pay less now and then pay for the cleanup after, or whether we pay more now and have the companies do the cleanup after. Your economic "analysis" might fly amongst the "99%" twits, but it's complete bollocks.
That, of course, is assuming there's anything to clean up in the first place - a major premise for which you've provided zero evidence.
The most recent state of Palestine occupied almost the exact geographical area that is currently called Israel. There are hundreds of thousands of people with direct ties to the area, who are not Israeli citizens.
Um, no. The last time that Palestine existed as a sovereign state was hundreds (a thousand?) of years ago. If you're referring to the British Mandate period, "Palestine" was a British protectorate, captured from the Ottomans, which looked like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png
You know when, earlier, I use the phrase "intellectual masturbation"? Strike out the word "intellectual".
I'll leave you to it.
So Israel should give the West Bank to Jordan?
That you have not yet been modded "troll" is an insult to all intelligent, rational readers of slashdot.
People who fled from (or were expelled by) Israel during the war didn't magically become Jordanian or Egyptian.
Given that Egypt and Jordan didn't technically exist at the time, this would be true. The earliest historical record we have shows that Palestine was originally a district of Syria, so I guess, if anything, they'd be Syrian. However, the area has been controlled by so many different nations that we can safely consider "Palestinians" to be an amalgamation of all the major cultures and/or nations of the region. Here's a brief overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Overview
There really is no rational argument that there is no such thing as a Palestinian homeland, as it necessarily implies there are no Arabs in existence who originally lived in what is now the nation of Israel.
Sure, but given that the whole region once belonged to the kingdom of Israel, you can use the same chain of logic to demand the Palestinians be expelled. It's a double-edged sword; the position you take depends entirely on where in history you decide to draw the line.
Personally I have no problem with Palestine existing as a separate state - I don't give a shit about who owned what, when - but I know that it's an unrealistic expectation so long as they are unable to reach a peaceful agreement with Israel. I tend to agree with Golda Meyer on her statement about when peace will become possible.
As an outsider, I got the impession that Obama was going to pull out of Afghanistan pretty much straight away
As an outsider, but a member of the defense community, it was glaringly obvious to me that Obama would do nothing of the sort.
Why? Because he's a reasonable man. And the "SOLDIERS HOME NOW!!" people are unreasonable idiots. His presidency has unfolded pretty much the way I figured - he followed up on Bush's success in Iraq, pulled the troops back, and then consolidated Afghanistan. McCain would have done the same. Perhaps the only thing that's set them apart is that Obama has actually tried to close down Guantanamo, though he's done it in a responsible manner by phasing it out gradually - a Republican president would have kept it going at full strength.
Still, at least he hasn't started any other futile ground wars yet, but I suppose there's always Mexico.
Well, neither did Bush, so I guess that's another thing they have in common. Obama DID engage in a bombing campaign which, at present, seems to have been not only futile but also counterproductive. I retain some hope that Libya may turn into a functional state, but the situation at the moment doesn't look too promising.
The difference between a ground war and an air war is that in a ground war, you get a say in what happens after the regime is defeated. In an air war you just leave, and the vacuum is filled by whoever has the biggest stick. If a "good guy" rises to power, it's usually pure fluke - most of the time the regime gets replace by another dictator who is as bad or worse than the guy you spent billions killing.
OK, so instead of cold, tired, scared recruits with overpowered assault rifles standing guard in the dark of night we're going to have jittery, cold, tired, scared recruits with overpowered assault rifles standing guard in the dark of night. Lovely.
The only scared recruits I've ever met were the ones on their basic-training course, and they were far more terrified that their section commander might catch them dozing off than anything some future enemy might throw at them. And we only gave them live rounds under very controlled conditions.
Also, the rifles are underpowered, the cold-weather kit is excellent, and everyone gets enough sleep to function properly for the most part. REAL sleep deprivation does happen, but it's relatively rare (though, granted, my idea of real sleep deprivation may differ greatly from yours).
Caffeine is an awesome drug. So long as your job doesn't ever consist of accurately firing a weapon or going long durations without peeing.
Eh. I once drank 20 cups of coffee in a day, then got a "marksman" score on the range. So that's not really an issue. As for long durations without peeing, that's not really an issue either - anyone in the combat arms quickly learns how to pee anywhere, any time, in any position. Unless you're on parade in front of the Queen, in which case you may be fucked.
If you had read the entire comment as a single reply, instead of trying to Fisk it, you'd have gotten the point (I hope).
What you're calling "evidence" is completely useless because it can have any number of causes. It can be a result of mental illness. It could be the result of a delusion. It could be due to the numerous problems with human hardware and wetware which cause countless issues with our perceptions. It could be a lie. It could be a simple mistake. As long as it's not verifiable or repeatable, it can not be considered valid evidence. It might be ok to accept it as evidence of a mundane claim (my eyes are brown), but it certainly is not acceptable as evidence in the case of extraordinary claims (I have 5 eyes).
The problem with accepting the kind of "evidence" you're talking about is that you end up having to accept every crazy claim in existence, or you end up having to pick and choose between them based on your own "feelings" or some irrational criteria which you pull out of your ass. There is no practical difference between the claim "I saw god heal someone" and "I saw bigfoot drinking beer in my garage". The rational decision is to reject both, because neither person has presented any evidence. Under your definition of "evidence", you have no basis for rejecting either.
And while I'm at it, I may as well correct your misconceptions about science:
Most of the militant atheists I have read don't understand what constitutes valid evidence either. Not least because it's not an issue that can be decided scientifically, but they think it is. How could it be? Science is based on evidence, and if you feed in different definitions of what counts as evidence (foundationalism, coherentism, reformed epistemology, infinitism...) then you get different versions of science (that agree on almost everything), not information on whether your definition was "right" or not.
No, you don't get different versions of science, you get different systems entirely. And guess what - we can look of the output of those different systems, and see how they line up with reality. We can judge which ones are more effective at producing tangible products, or predicting future events. For instance, you can look at alchemy and compare it to chemistry, and see which one gets you carbon fiber composites to make wings for your aircraft. Or you can look at meteorology and prayer, and see which one gets you more accurate information about tomorrow's weather.
We know the scientific model we have is the best tool for analyzing the universe around us because it works. It delivers the goods. No other system of analysis has ever come close. Maybe we'll find a better way at some point in the future, but if we do, it will be through science. It certainly won't be through some numbnut talking about his feelings and subjective experiences.
*facepalm*
And where, exactly, did I claim ANYTHING which falls into the structure you just defined? Did I claim all religious people are crazy? Did I claim all people who hear voices are crazy? Did I claim all crazy people hear voices? Did I claim all people who use invalid "evidence" are either religious or crazy?
The answer to all of the above is a clear and unambiguous "NO".
I'm quite familiar with logical fallacies, thanks - your misapplication of them is not my fault. Try to read what I write, instead of what you'd like to see.
I guarantee that in no case will you find an argument that is sufficient to demonstrate any of these are not "evidence", by definition and by what "evidence" simply means. If you can't differentiate between the notions of "evidence", "convincing evidence", and "proof", you have no business discussing much of anything.
I agree, which is why you should probably stop. By your reasoning, I could fart and claim it's evidence of the existence of god. If that sounds logical to you, there is something very wrong with your thought process.
Does the creator of a cellular automata world need to interfere with it? It did already by creating it, yet there is no way for such a world to witness any indication of an external entity, and when such thing happen they have no way of proving it's external and not coming from some previously unearthed rules.
I guess you didn't understand me, so I'll repeat what I said: a god who does not interfere is irrelevant, and indistinguishable from no god at all. If your "creator" has absolutely no influence on your "cellular automata", then he is irrelevant to their lives, and for all intents and purposes does not exist. Arguing about him becomes an exercise in intellectual (I use the word loosely) masturbation.
Me: crazy people who hear voices.
You: blah blah blah, affirming the consequent.
By dismissing the very concept, you're denying the existence of mental illness. Either rethink your reply, or just stop while you're not too far behind.