He wouldn't be the first quack to sink his lifes savings into a non-functional device. Being completely broke seems like pretty good motivation to try and pull off a scam.
For instance, religion may not be considered rational by many but would it be politically viable to ignore your constituents beliefs? Rationality would dictate that it is not.
In the US, it would not. Most other places in the civilized world, ignoring religion is the standard approach.
What you're saying is that the "viable" thing for a politician to do is play into the ignorance and biases of his/her constituents. And, to a certain extent, you're right. As long as the people of a nation don't care about the real issues and would rather be lied to than disagreed with, it makes perfect sense for politicians to take them for a ride.
You should never confuse "get into college" with "get further educated". Most of the people who go to college do so because they think it will land them a better job. If they manage to actually get educated along the way, it's usually by accident.
Asking me if I'm currently living in Somalia is the equivalent of me asking you if you're currently living in North Korea. It's childish, ridiculous, and completely pointless. Unless you have something interesting to add, we're done.
Ok yeah, you're consistent; you want everyone to have everything "for free". So why lie about it? You should have just admitted that you're a communist from the start. Would have saved us a lot of time.
The decision for an already sufficiently healthy individual (good luck if you're psychotic!) to attempt to pursue health is a choice. But the only acceptable position for any functioning, rational, moral society is for its members to be healthy
You're begging the question. You don't get to restate your premise in order to support your premise. You're also speaking as if "health" were some type of possession which a society either has or doesn't have, instead of treating it like the spectrum which it obviously is. Thanks to that poor logic you've also managed to imply that every society which existed prior to the last hundred years must have been non-functioning, irrational, and immoral.
Since the rest of your response is based on the same unsupported assumption - one which I already critiqued in my previous comment - there's no point in me responding to any of it. The fact remains that you have no good reason for differentiating between government controlled healthcare and any other form of "assistance". You have no rational basis for saying that everyone should get "free" healthcare, but not "free" clothes, food, shelter, water, energy, transportation, or entertainment. The arguments you make can be equally applied to any of those categories. Is a society which is entertained not more healthy than one which is not? How about a society where everyone has clothing? Surely, if we wish to be moral, functioning, and rational, we can't have half-naked starving bored people living on the streets?
My view on the role of government has the benefit of being consistent - yours hinges solely on some rickety internal framework which you've pulled out of your ass. That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, of course, but it does mean that your argument must necessarily take the form of special pleading. If you can find a way to support your opinion without relying on logical fallacies, I'll be here, ready to listen. Until then, I have no reason to take you seriously.
Health is not the subject of choice - the only option is to be as healthy as possible and the only question is whether the resources are available to monitor and/or treat you.
Nonsense. Health is absolutely a choice. A person who smokes, drinks, and injects himself with heroin obviously places a lower value on health than does a vegan Buddhist tai-chi practitioner. A person who decides to spend $500,000 to get the absolute best doctor in the world obviously care more about his odds of survival than does a guy who will only spent $50. Life is ALL about choices, and death is a natural consequence of life. I don't need a government dictating how I live or how I'll die.
You're not explaining a logical divide - you're rationalizing a choice which you've already made. You can rationalize ANY position in a similar manner, and it would be equally useless.
If you don't like society, you're welcome to live outside of it
Ditto. You don't like the way I organize my society? Go away. Move to China. The workers paradise will take great care of all your needs.
Gee, who would expect an unbiased, independent recommendation from a doctor who works for a store, that sells drugs?
I dunno... how about the hundreds of millions of people who go to homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritionists, etc? They seem to have no problem with conflicts of interest, so why would they have an issue with this?
Why anyone would want to have the stress of worrying about health care costs is something I don't understand. Only the super-rich could have reason for wanting private health-care.
Good point. I don't want to have to worry about a mortgage, either - let's just have the government provide communal housing for free! Only the super-rich could have reason for wanting private housing.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "hot". All fires produce heat. Some produce more than others. I'm not sure anyone would claim otherwise, especially not the experts.
it's egotistical as hell to demand that YOU be the one who gets to go
You bet! So?
when if you hadn't lied they may have chosen someone more qualified
Naw, they would have chosen someone who lies better.
When you get to high-level selections like those, the decisions made are 99% political. If you want even a slim chance of making it, you'd better be damn good at sucking up, and an expert at lying your ass off and stabbing others in the back without being too blatant about it. Otherwise you may as well not apply.
This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
More people have reported being obducted by aliens. And about an equal number have had a jolly tea party with Mr. and Miss. Bigfoot.
Sometimes to understand something, you have to forget what you think you know.
Yes, giving yourself brain-damage is probably the best way to understand things. Screw those scienticians with their "Lurnings" and "Edumacation". All we need is ignorance.
How about we stop being snooty about having RAW brainpower and START repecting what people can control, meaning, HOW HARD THEY WORK, and HOW HARD THEY TRY
Yes, I agree - let's fire Stephen Hawking, and fill his position with a hard-working banjo-player with a 65 IQ.
and HOW WELL THEY LISTEN TO THE WISDOM OF OTHERS.
Yeah, there's enough "wisdom" being passed around out there that I'd be hesitant to hire anyone who listens to any of it. I like people who can think critically and come to rational conclusions which aren't based on "the wisdom of others".
It's not meant to be taken seriously. The only difference between my comment and his it that I was intentionally being silly, whereas he was actually trying to be serious.
Of course, I'd be a lot happier if people like him really did move, instead of clogging up the intertubes with pointless bitching about how their horrible nation doesn't let them do anything. Unfortunately it's not likely to happen. So I figure mocking them is the next best thing. If the only response they get is laughter and mockery, maybe they'll go mutter to themselves in a corner and let the rest of us have productive discussions.
The Peraves Monotracer is a Swiss-built cabin motorcycle which is not only practical, it has to be one of the coolest vehicles ever produced (video in German).
Yeah. I dunno about you, but I'm not driving anything that looks like Humpty-Dumpty.
In corridor shooters such as Bad Company, the AI is atrocious and completely incapable of achieving anything. You are not the hero because you are so great but because everyone else is so crap.
So what you're saying is that it's an accurate representation of the Middle East conflicts?:)
If it was scored the way actual embedded journalist reports are evaluated, it would be about not capturing atrocities.
Well, yeah. Nobody back home wants to see images of the Taliban executing women, or AQI blowing up kids. That stuff doesn't sell - people would rather go apeshit about American soldiers kicking a puppy, or *gasp* swearing at someone. You gotta film what sells.
Given your commenting history and the fact that - in your first comment to me - you've chosen to resort to personal attacks in lieu of a rational argument, I was debating whether to bother responding at all. I'm quite certain about what it is that you would do with pearls. Still, I suppose I can at least give you a couple links. Here you go:
Those two pages document what I've said, and give you a starting point for further research, should you be so inclined. Don't expect any more until you change your attitude and demonstrate the ability to learn.
Holy horse-shit batman, +5 Informative?!?!?!?! You may have missed the Arab Spring, revolutions carried out by predominantly educated Arabs trying to live a middle class life.
Just out of curiosity, were those educated Arabs also the ones burning down the Israeli Embassy?
I had high hopes for the "Arab Spring" because it did seem to be largely motivated by secularists and intelectuals. I am far less optimistic today.
This will come as news to... pretty much anyone who knows more than what they hear on right wing talk radio. Despite what you may believe, Islam is no more a "political system" than is say Christianity.
lol. Yes, Christianity is a political system. If you don't realize this, your history teachers have failed you completely. The main difference is that, today, Christianity generally acts on politics as an outside influence, while Islam is very much THE political system in many Islamic nations.
The fact that most of Israel's neighbours are fucked up countries as well (although Jordan doesn't seem bad imho and we can hopefully see positive things developing in Egypt) doesn't plead in any way that Israel is a democratic country. It'd be like comparing the US to Mexico and conclude that the US doesn't seem to have a lot of gun fights
Actually, that analogy speaks against your point, rather than for it. Human behaviour is a spectrum. If you ask a Mexican whether the US has a lot of gun violence, the answer would be quite different than if you had asked a Canadian. If the Mexican government were criticizing the US for having excessive gun violence, and demanding that they do something about it, we'd laugh at their hypocrisy. We can only really judge the behaviour of a given state as it relates to other states. So it's perfectly valid to point out that Israel is largely democratic, and provides more freedom for it's Arab citizens than any Arab state. It's ridiculous for us to take Arab states seriously when they complain about human-rights violations.
We CAN criticize certain Israeli policies, but we do so because we hold ourselves to a higher standard and expect them to do better; we don't need to legitimize states who are worse than Israel by pretending that theyâ(TM)ve suddenly started to care about human rights or the plight of Palestinians. And it's important to realize that no state exists in a vacuum - the behaviour of it's neighbours is a massive factor in the policies which Israel adopts. It's asinine to expect the same standards from a nation surrounded by hostile states as we do from one which has a good relationship with it's neighbours, and has had no serious threats for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
He wouldn't be the first quack to sink his lifes savings into a non-functional device. Being completely broke seems like pretty good motivation to try and pull off a scam.
For instance, religion may not be considered rational by many but would it be politically viable to ignore your constituents beliefs? Rationality would dictate that it is not.
In the US, it would not. Most other places in the civilized world, ignoring religion is the standard approach.
What you're saying is that the "viable" thing for a politician to do is play into the ignorance and biases of his/her constituents. And, to a certain extent, you're right. As long as the people of a nation don't care about the real issues and would rather be lied to than disagreed with, it makes perfect sense for politicians to take them for a ride.
You get the government you deserve.
You should never confuse "get into college" with "get further educated". Most of the people who go to college do so because they think it will land them a better job. If they manage to actually get educated along the way, it's usually by accident.
Also you may want to quote you own evidence that he should quote his own evidence. And quote some evidence that it's fair play.
Either that, or try to understand the whole "burden of proof" thing.
Asking me if I'm currently living in Somalia is the equivalent of me asking you if you're currently living in North Korea. It's childish, ridiculous, and completely pointless. Unless you have something interesting to add, we're done.
Ok yeah, you're consistent; you want everyone to have everything "for free". So why lie about it? You should have just admitted that you're a communist from the start. Would have saved us a lot of time.
The decision for an already sufficiently healthy individual (good luck if you're psychotic!) to attempt to pursue health is a choice. But the only acceptable position for any functioning, rational, moral society is for its members to be healthy
You're begging the question. You don't get to restate your premise in order to support your premise. You're also speaking as if "health" were some type of possession which a society either has or doesn't have, instead of treating it like the spectrum which it obviously is. Thanks to that poor logic you've also managed to imply that every society which existed prior to the last hundred years must have been non-functioning, irrational, and immoral.
Since the rest of your response is based on the same unsupported assumption - one which I already critiqued in my previous comment - there's no point in me responding to any of it. The fact remains that you have no good reason for differentiating between government controlled healthcare and any other form of "assistance". You have no rational basis for saying that everyone should get "free" healthcare, but not "free" clothes, food, shelter, water, energy, transportation, or entertainment. The arguments you make can be equally applied to any of those categories. Is a society which is entertained not more healthy than one which is not? How about a society where everyone has clothing? Surely, if we wish to be moral, functioning, and rational, we can't have half-naked starving bored people living on the streets?
My view on the role of government has the benefit of being consistent - yours hinges solely on some rickety internal framework which you've pulled out of your ass. That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, of course, but it does mean that your argument must necessarily take the form of special pleading. If you can find a way to support your opinion without relying on logical fallacies, I'll be here, ready to listen. Until then, I have no reason to take you seriously.
Health is not the subject of choice - the only option is to be as healthy as possible and the only question is whether the resources are available to monitor and/or treat you.
Nonsense. Health is absolutely a choice. A person who smokes, drinks, and injects himself with heroin obviously places a lower value on health than does a vegan Buddhist tai-chi practitioner. A person who decides to spend $500,000 to get the absolute best doctor in the world obviously care more about his odds of survival than does a guy who will only spent $50. Life is ALL about choices, and death is a natural consequence of life. I don't need a government dictating how I live or how I'll die.
You're not explaining a logical divide - you're rationalizing a choice which you've already made. You can rationalize ANY position in a similar manner, and it would be equally useless.
If you don't like society, you're welcome to live outside of it
Ditto. You don't like the way I organize my society? Go away. Move to China. The workers paradise will take great care of all your needs.
Gee, who would expect an unbiased, independent recommendation from a doctor who works for a store, that sells drugs?
I dunno ... how about the hundreds of millions of people who go to homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritionists, etc? They seem to have no problem with conflicts of interest, so why would they have an issue with this?
The basis was bullshit, like in so many other "medicine systems" in other cultures.
FTFY
Why anyone would want to have the stress of worrying about health care costs is something I don't understand. Only the super-rich could have reason for wanting private health-care.
Good point. I don't want to have to worry about a mortgage, either - let's just have the government provide communal housing for free! Only the super-rich could have reason for wanting private housing.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "hot". All fires produce heat. Some produce more than others. I'm not sure anyone would claim otherwise, especially not the experts.
it's egotistical as hell to demand that YOU be the one who gets to go
You bet! So?
when if you hadn't lied they may have chosen someone more qualified
Naw, they would have chosen someone who lies better.
When you get to high-level selections like those, the decisions made are 99% political. If you want even a slim chance of making it, you'd better be damn good at sucking up, and an expert at lying your ass off and stabbing others in the back without being too blatant about it. Otherwise you may as well not apply.
This doesn't account for the accounts made by actual survivors of this phenomenon. There have been people who have survived the experience and could offer no explanation at all.
More people have reported being obducted by aliens. And about an equal number have had a jolly tea party with Mr. and Miss. Bigfoot.
Sometimes to understand something, you have to forget what you think you know.
Yes, giving yourself brain-damage is probably the best way to understand things. Screw those scienticians with their "Lurnings" and "Edumacation". All we need is ignorance.
How about we stop being snooty about having RAW brainpower and START repecting what people can control, meaning, HOW HARD THEY WORK, and HOW HARD THEY TRY
Yes, I agree - let's fire Stephen Hawking, and fill his position with a hard-working banjo-player with a 65 IQ.
and HOW WELL THEY LISTEN TO THE WISDOM OF OTHERS.
Yeah, there's enough "wisdom" being passed around out there that I'd be hesitant to hire anyone who listens to any of it. I like people who can think critically and come to rational conclusions which aren't based on "the wisdom of others".
How in the name of fuck does that help?
It's not meant to be taken seriously. The only difference between my comment and his it that I was intentionally being silly, whereas he was actually trying to be serious.
Of course, I'd be a lot happier if people like him really did move, instead of clogging up the intertubes with pointless bitching about how their horrible nation doesn't let them do anything. Unfortunately it's not likely to happen. So I figure mocking them is the next best thing. If the only response they get is laughter and mockery, maybe they'll go mutter to themselves in a corner and let the rest of us have productive discussions.
The Peraves Monotracer is a Swiss-built cabin motorcycle which is not only practical, it has to be one of the coolest vehicles ever produced (video in German).
Yeah. I dunno about you, but I'm not driving anything that looks like Humpty-Dumpty.
You have no rights!
Move to Saudi Arabia. They'll give you all the rights you can buy.
Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.
When you get to Saudi Arabia, learn to fact-check.
In corridor shooters such as Bad Company, the AI is atrocious and completely incapable of achieving anything. You are not the hero because you are so great but because everyone else is so crap.
So what you're saying is that it's an accurate representation of the Middle East conflicts? :)
If it was scored the way actual embedded journalist reports are evaluated, it would be about not capturing atrocities.
Well, yeah. Nobody back home wants to see images of the Taliban executing women, or AQI blowing up kids. That stuff doesn't sell - people would rather go apeshit about American soldiers kicking a puppy, or *gasp* swearing at someone. You gotta film what sells.
lol. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Come back when you grow up a bit, kid.
Given your commenting history and the fact that - in your first comment to me - you've chosen to resort to personal attacks in lieu of a rational argument, I was debating whether to bother responding at all. I'm quite certain about what it is that you would do with pearls. Still, I suppose I can at least give you a couple links. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Partition_between_Israel.2C_Jordan_and_Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Context_and_content
Those two pages document what I've said, and give you a starting point for further research, should you be so inclined. Don't expect any more until you change your attitude and demonstrate the ability to learn.
Holy horse-shit batman, +5 Informative?!?!?!?! You may have missed the Arab Spring, revolutions carried out by predominantly educated Arabs trying to live a middle class life.
Just out of curiosity, were those educated Arabs also the ones burning down the Israeli Embassy?
I had high hopes for the "Arab Spring" because it did seem to be largely motivated by secularists and intelectuals. I am far less optimistic today.
This will come as news to... pretty much anyone who knows more than what they hear on right wing talk radio. Despite what you may believe, Islam is no more a "political system" than is say Christianity.
lol. Yes, Christianity is a political system. If you don't realize this, your history teachers have failed you completely. The main difference is that, today, Christianity generally acts on politics as an outside influence, while Islam is very much THE political system in many Islamic nations.
The fact that most of Israel's neighbours are fucked up countries as well (although Jordan doesn't seem bad imho and we can hopefully see positive things developing in Egypt) doesn't plead in any way that Israel is a democratic country. It'd be like comparing the US to Mexico and conclude that the US doesn't seem to have a lot of gun fights
Actually, that analogy speaks against your point, rather than for it. Human behaviour is a spectrum. If you ask a Mexican whether the US has a lot of gun violence, the answer would be quite different than if you had asked a Canadian. If the Mexican government were criticizing the US for having excessive gun violence, and demanding that they do something about it, we'd laugh at their hypocrisy. We can only really judge the behaviour of a given state as it relates to other states. So it's perfectly valid to point out that Israel is largely democratic, and provides more freedom for it's Arab citizens than any Arab state. It's ridiculous for us to take Arab states seriously when they complain about human-rights violations.
We CAN criticize certain Israeli policies, but we do so because we hold ourselves to a higher standard and expect them to do better; we don't need to legitimize states who are worse than Israel by pretending that theyâ(TM)ve suddenly started to care about human rights or the plight of Palestinians. And it's important to realize that no state exists in a vacuum - the behaviour of it's neighbours is a massive factor in the policies which Israel adopts. It's asinine to expect the same standards from a nation surrounded by hostile states as we do from one which has a good relationship with it's neighbours, and has had no serious threats for decades.