There's no such thing as an ad hominem attack. There's the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, whereby the arguer attempts to say that the opposition is wrong because of some personal flaw. This is not that. It is a straight up attack on the man's character because of the things he's said. No ad hominems.
Same here. I'm a white, straight male, so I have privilege and didn't have to see a lot of things that other people did have to see and deal with. It's really tough at first to realize it and come to grips with it, but I think it's very important that people do. Glad to see you got past it as well.
You are making an argument based on hypotheticals. "Google would have" you say: well, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they don't care because they are a search engine in the business of providing useful and ad-filled search results. "If someone on the conservative Right had come up with a scatological term..." you say: again, they didn't. They could have, but they didn't. Unless you can show where there's really unfair treatment from Google, then you don't have an argument. You are just concocting a hypothetical world in which you are right. In the real world, liberals *did* turn Santorum into a scatological term and it *is* showing up on Google search results and it's showing up there because of the grassroots campaign to make it a popular search item. There's nothing unfair here on Google's part, and really nothing unfair on the part of the people who are fighting back against the truly vile garbage that spews from Santorum's mouth.
Santorum can say basically hateful things about gay people, but if the gay people fight back, they are just "fighting dirty" and "name-calling". Well, sorry if I don't have any sympathy for the bully here. Will you ask Santorum to stick to the real issues instead of being a backwards bigot? Can you do that? Or are you just going to join the bandwagon of picking on marginalized people who choose to fight back?
Economy was also improving after tax cuts. Taxes have been cut for years and years and years. The rates keep going down. The loopholes keep being created. And yet here we are, in a mess nonetheless. The last thing we need to create in this country is a class of wealthy, powerful people who think they can get all the benefits of the public and private infrastructure of this country without having to pay for any of it.
Gotta love these privileged white folks who get pissed off when someone finally calls them out on their bigotry. "It's not fair!" they say; "you are being bigoted towards *us*!" they say. Hopefully, in that process, they get just a taste of what they generally do to marginalized groups.
Republicans do that shit all the time. They are all about controlling the language of politics, with terms like "entitlements", "welfare queens", "big government", "tax and spend", "family values" (my personal favorite), "illegals", etc. They are all about name-calling and implied or explicit insulting of large swathes of people. Why does that get a pass, but when one of the marginalized fights back, all the sudden it's "bullying" and "childishness"? Isn't it childish of Santorum to say the terrible things he said about gay people? That gets a pass. You seem to want the opposition, which is marginalized and has less power than the establishment, not to get all uppity and try to fight back. They should just respectfully disagree and politely educate people. Of course, they should. How dare they be able to use the same weapons that the establishment gets to use! Look, this isn't some dinnertime argument about whether Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, it's the real world, where these powerful people get up and make laws and statements that *directly affect* the lives of millions of marginalized people, and they get away with it. You ask the marginalized people to use a much smaller arsenal, when they are already at a disadvantage. That is simply unfair and unreasonable and frankly, makes you look kind of like a bigot.
Where's your criticism of Santorum? Why are you siding with him, the bigoted asshole, against the people who did no wrong and have only chosen to fight back in kind? How do you sleep at night?
Bullying requires one entity that is more powerful than another using its power to abuse the weaker entity. Santorum, by definition, can't be bullied by gay people, at least not in this context.
Yeah, not really. I mean, they did have to plan, but they were going to other land, just like the land where they came from. They can breath the air of the ocean along the way, bask in the sun, gather resources from any islands they encounter, etc. Trans-atlantic voyages were like regular voyages, but more. Space travel isn't like that. It's not like airplanes, but more supplies and a little more savvy. It's a hugely different beast.
Water vapor has different properties, namely that its cycle is a lot shorter and is affected by day to day weather, allowing it to be modulated by shorter term phenomena as well as CO2 and methane. Creating some water out the back of a spaceship is inconsequential, since it will simply rain back out in short order. CO2 doesn't have that property.
Ugh, another human hater. We aren't doing anything different than other life forms on this planet. Unless you think life itself is a virus, then you don't have a point.
Maybe you've forgotten that we've had space technology for 60 some years and none of the amazing things you want us to believe in have come to pass and they've only become more distant the more we've learned about technology and space. The message is not pathetic; you're just an idiot.
There was no cheap pessimism before the internet, right? Nothing but unbridled optimism and credulousness, right? Get off it. You're no better than the people you're complaining about.
Dude, it isn't cheap easy pessimism. Travelling around the planet, like we've done for thousands of years, but faster isn't nearly as big a deal as going into space, where everything is hostile to human life and there is no deserted jungle island out there that you can survive on if your plane crashes. The problems of space travel are considerably larger than anything we've faced before and will take considerably more resources and a concerted, well-thought out planning step. We can't just throw some men on a boat and have them survive when they arrive and along the way. We have to plan every detail, plan for every conceivable error and failure step and build very precise machinery using the best technology of the day. Sure, we can do it, but it'll be extremely expensive, very dangerous and unlikely to yield anything more useful than bragging rights.
This is a dumb argument. I, as a straight man, could get married and "harm" the American taxpayer in just the same way. There's no reason why an entire class of people should be denied these benefits along your line of argument. There's nothing about gay people marrying that makes their harm any worse than the harm done by straight people marrying.
The reason you didn't hear about it is because we didn't really know about it until a few decades ago. It also got a lot of press with the massive 97/98 El Nino (that's when most people first heard of it) and also in 83/84, the last big El Nino before 97/98. It was first noticed in the late 1900s, though, so it's hardly new even in the scientific world. Now that we have much better measuring and modelling techniques, we can do more useful things with the knowledge of ENSO than we could in the past.
NAO is only relevant for the eastern US and western Europe. The AO (Arctic Oscillation) is more relevant for the entire northern hemisphere and it indeed has been extremely positive (warm phase) this year in correlation with a strong polar vortex in both the troposphere and stratosphere. The vortex in the troposphere, at least, has weakened a bit of late, allowing the colder temperatures we've seen in the last week or two. Still not enough to really bring a true winter to the eastern US, but better than what we saw in December.
This is why we don't listen to the mainstream media for scientific matters.
Also, last winter wasn't that cold and wet, except in the eastern US (and there, mostly just cold, not so much wet) where all the major media markets are, and so people think we actually had some ground-breakingly cold winter last year when in fact it really wasn't that bad, even for the areas that experienced it.
It is actually having quite an effect. The thing is that the areas where there a lot of people who pay attention to this stuff: the US and Europe, La Ninas tend to produce warm and dry conditions in the winter. Of course, other things are going on, such as a massive stratospheric polar vortex, fed by a recent uptick in solar activity and other internal factors (potentially fall snowcover patterns, if you can believe that).
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing as an ad hominem attack. There's the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, whereby the arguer attempts to say that the opposition is wrong because of some personal flaw. This is not that. It is a straight up attack on the man's character because of the things he's said. No ad hominems.
Same here. I'm a white, straight male, so I have privilege and didn't have to see a lot of things that other people did have to see and deal with. It's really tough at first to realize it and come to grips with it, but I think it's very important that people do. Glad to see you got past it as well.
You are making an argument based on hypotheticals. "Google would have" you say: well, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they don't care because they are a search engine in the business of providing useful and ad-filled search results. "If someone on the conservative Right had come up with a scatological term..." you say: again, they didn't. They could have, but they didn't. Unless you can show where there's really unfair treatment from Google, then you don't have an argument. You are just concocting a hypothetical world in which you are right. In the real world, liberals *did* turn Santorum into a scatological term and it *is* showing up on Google search results and it's showing up there because of the grassroots campaign to make it a popular search item. There's nothing unfair here on Google's part, and really nothing unfair on the part of the people who are fighting back against the truly vile garbage that spews from Santorum's mouth.
lol
Santorum can say basically hateful things about gay people, but if the gay people fight back, they are just "fighting dirty" and "name-calling". Well, sorry if I don't have any sympathy for the bully here. Will you ask Santorum to stick to the real issues instead of being a backwards bigot? Can you do that? Or are you just going to join the bandwagon of picking on marginalized people who choose to fight back?
Santorum wants to make it illegal for gay people to have sex with other gay people. How does that fit into your apologetics?
Etymological fallacy.
Economy was also improving after tax cuts. Taxes have been cut for years and years and years. The rates keep going down. The loopholes keep being created. And yet here we are, in a mess nonetheless. The last thing we need to create in this country is a class of wealthy, powerful people who think they can get all the benefits of the public and private infrastructure of this country without having to pay for any of it.
Gotta love these privileged white folks who get pissed off when someone finally calls them out on their bigotry. "It's not fair!" they say; "you are being bigoted towards *us*!" they say. Hopefully, in that process, they get just a taste of what they generally do to marginalized groups.
Republicans do that shit all the time. They are all about controlling the language of politics, with terms like "entitlements", "welfare queens", "big government", "tax and spend", "family values" (my personal favorite), "illegals", etc. They are all about name-calling and implied or explicit insulting of large swathes of people. Why does that get a pass, but when one of the marginalized fights back, all the sudden it's "bullying" and "childishness"? Isn't it childish of Santorum to say the terrible things he said about gay people? That gets a pass. You seem to want the opposition, which is marginalized and has less power than the establishment, not to get all uppity and try to fight back. They should just respectfully disagree and politely educate people. Of course, they should. How dare they be able to use the same weapons that the establishment gets to use! Look, this isn't some dinnertime argument about whether Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, it's the real world, where these powerful people get up and make laws and statements that *directly affect* the lives of millions of marginalized people, and they get away with it. You ask the marginalized people to use a much smaller arsenal, when they are already at a disadvantage. That is simply unfair and unreasonable and frankly, makes you look kind of like a bigot.
Where's your criticism of Santorum? Why are you siding with him, the bigoted asshole, against the people who did no wrong and have only chosen to fight back in kind? How do you sleep at night?
Bullying requires one entity that is more powerful than another using its power to abuse the weaker entity. Santorum, by definition, can't be bullied by gay people, at least not in this context.
Yeah, not really. I mean, they did have to plan, but they were going to other land, just like the land where they came from. They can breath the air of the ocean along the way, bask in the sun, gather resources from any islands they encounter, etc. Trans-atlantic voyages were like regular voyages, but more. Space travel isn't like that. It's not like airplanes, but more supplies and a little more savvy. It's a hugely different beast.
Yeah, I see, I was supposed to respond to the GP. Well, pretend that's what I did and maybe you'll feel better.
Water vapor has different properties, namely that its cycle is a lot shorter and is affected by day to day weather, allowing it to be modulated by shorter term phenomena as well as CO2 and methane. Creating some water out the back of a spaceship is inconsequential, since it will simply rain back out in short order. CO2 doesn't have that property.
Ugh, another human hater. We aren't doing anything different than other life forms on this planet. Unless you think life itself is a virus, then you don't have a point.
Maybe you've forgotten that we've had space technology for 60 some years and none of the amazing things you want us to believe in have come to pass and they've only become more distant the more we've learned about technology and space. The message is not pathetic; you're just an idiot.
There was no cheap pessimism before the internet, right? Nothing but unbridled optimism and credulousness, right? Get off it. You're no better than the people you're complaining about.
Dude, it isn't cheap easy pessimism. Travelling around the planet, like we've done for thousands of years, but faster isn't nearly as big a deal as going into space, where everything is hostile to human life and there is no deserted jungle island out there that you can survive on if your plane crashes. The problems of space travel are considerably larger than anything we've faced before and will take considerably more resources and a concerted, well-thought out planning step. We can't just throw some men on a boat and have them survive when they arrive and along the way. We have to plan every detail, plan for every conceivable error and failure step and build very precise machinery using the best technology of the day. Sure, we can do it, but it'll be extremely expensive, very dangerous and unlikely to yield anything more useful than bragging rights.
Perhaps you've never looked at Chrome's memory usage...
You say this as if people who aren't religious don't have values. What a fucking dick.
This is a dumb argument. I, as a straight man, could get married and "harm" the American taxpayer in just the same way. There's no reason why an entire class of people should be denied these benefits along your line of argument. There's nothing about gay people marrying that makes their harm any worse than the harm done by straight people marrying.
The reason you didn't hear about it is because we didn't really know about it until a few decades ago. It also got a lot of press with the massive 97/98 El Nino (that's when most people first heard of it) and also in 83/84, the last big El Nino before 97/98. It was first noticed in the late 1900s, though, so it's hardly new even in the scientific world. Now that we have much better measuring and modelling techniques, we can do more useful things with the knowledge of ENSO than we could in the past.
NAO is only relevant for the eastern US and western Europe. The AO (Arctic Oscillation) is more relevant for the entire northern hemisphere and it indeed has been extremely positive (warm phase) this year in correlation with a strong polar vortex in both the troposphere and stratosphere. The vortex in the troposphere, at least, has weakened a bit of late, allowing the colder temperatures we've seen in the last week or two. Still not enough to really bring a true winter to the eastern US, but better than what we saw in December.
This is why we don't listen to the mainstream media for scientific matters.
Also, last winter wasn't that cold and wet, except in the eastern US (and there, mostly just cold, not so much wet) where all the major media markets are, and so people think we actually had some ground-breakingly cold winter last year when in fact it really wasn't that bad, even for the areas that experienced it.
It is actually having quite an effect. The thing is that the areas where there a lot of people who pay attention to this stuff: the US and Europe, La Ninas tend to produce warm and dry conditions in the winter. Of course, other things are going on, such as a massive stratospheric polar vortex, fed by a recent uptick in solar activity and other internal factors (potentially fall snowcover patterns, if you can believe that).