Of course it's really all about control of the masses, in order to silent dissent.
Of course! Sarkozy and Conroy are plotting to destroy free speech, complete their diabolical mind-controlling machine, and take over the world with the help of all the rest of the politicians, who have only been pretended for multiple generations to be ineffectual, petty political backstabbers in order to fool the masses into believing their freedoms are safe! Why even spend the slightest bit of thought on it when it is so obviously true?
Yeah, yeah, mod me troll. I'm sure that'll teach me for being wrong.
Be honest; which situation do you think is more likely:
a) After the PSN network went down and everyone's credit card details were stolen, other hackers just started to realise how evil Sony is, or b) After the PSN network went down and everyone's credit card details were stolen, other hackers just started to realise how weak Sony's security is, how easy it would be to gain the ability to brag that they took down a large corporation's security, and how much money they could spend with pilfered credit card details.
Look me in the eyes and tell me that Google would be treated differently if their security was on par with Sony's.
The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.
Oh my god. They could develop the next Fox News! We've got to warn them!!
That is the exact opposite of what elrous0's post states.
Elrous0's post states that his mind is changed with time not necessarily with experience. Besides, even if that were true, I didn't say it was always true, just true now. If his opinions and viewpoints were ever falsifiable, they certainly are not now.
Back in those days I used to believe stuff that people told me, even when their actions completely contradicted their words. Great days.
Now you just believe what you tell yourself. When actions contradict what you tell yourself, you come up with some fanciful way to make it somehow reinforce what you tell yourself. It's terribly naive to believe that this state of affairs is somehow better, or that you're somehow wiser because of it.
As a rather immediate example, notice how you responded to me as though I had just defended the politicians involved. I gather it is because previous arguments that question your cynicism have come from young and naive people who have actually defended politicians (or whatever other party in the wrong). These arguments are easy to dismiss as a lack of worldly experience. To have an argument that is not so easy to dismiss would be, well, more difficult to defend against, and might cause the uncomfortable feeling of challenging long-held beliefs. So, you want to conclude that I am a naive pushover, and your cursory glance over my text did nothing to contradict that conclusion, so you leapt to it fallaciously (and in this case, incorrectly).
Please everyone take note. Here is a perfect example of a mind so closed, he can't see anything other than his grinding axe. He sees the world happening around him, and rather than the normal, healthy method of allowing what he sees to shape his conceptions, he allows the conceptions to shape what he sees.
Where is the evidence that this is just for show? How many other carrots have been dangled in front of the public in the past? More importantly, when has such carrot-dangling ever worked?
You see, this viewpoint comes from no rationale other than cognative dissonance. He thinks to himself that the government is evil, but reducing the TSA's funding is not an evil action. His brain either has to deal with the possibility that his conception of the government may not have entirely been true, or compensate by inventing, from no evidence, some potentially implausible scenario in which he is right, and the government is evil.
These lines of thought tend to concern me, because this is how misinformation starts and is spread. Sure, perhaps it's obvious here, but what about when it's not? A senator supports a tax hike? Oh, he must be greedy. Why is he greedy? Because we think politicians are greedy, so therefore this particular action is motivated by greed. Do we think that the tax money is needed for programs that are in the public's interest? Not typically. Why not? Is it because we have considered it, and been pursuaded out of it by evidence or reason?
Perhaps it is the fact that we've seen it 100 times before. Or have we? How many times, when a politician, government, police force, judge, or some other person in position of power (or even just someone we hate) has done something that is potentially suspect, have we simply jumped to the conclusion that they are doing the wrong thing? Exactly how much do these false impressions come to bear on conceptions, the same ones that our minds use to create other false impressions?
Think for yourself. Write down exactly the instances you remember where the conclusion was inescapable, where clear evidence was brought to light (enough to secure some kind of criminal conviction, assuming it was a crime). Then think of other instances where people in positions of power have done something evil. Bearing in mind the wide variety of interests in the public, for how many of them did their actions become inconsistent with someone with the public's interests at heart?
I'm not saying that people in positions of power are saints, or even that they're not as corrupt as we assume them to be, just that, for the sake of integrity of information, it pays to know exactly how sure of the conclusion to be. If you place too much confidence in a conclusion that it is sketchy, you risk reinforcing it and spreading it, until it becomes misinformation.
Remember: this is not about fighting some enemy, this is about controlling you. If this "enemy" is gone, another will be invented.
Well, I think you picked a great imaginary enemy. The government's never going anywhere, and they don't have the resources to defend themselves against slander from the various conspiracy theorists out there, so they're an absolutely perfect scapegoat.
That's good, because he's not a troll. He's posting his opinion, as valid as any I have seen here. His delivery is arguably offensive (which would justify a flamebait mod), but it's far from the most offensive +5 post I've seen here. He should not be modded down.
Remember mods, you can't have a real discussion without an opposing side!
Oh? I heard of a different Pray that protects your stuff. The Christians use it, I think, and it is 100% effective at preventing the theft of objects that God does not want stolen.
We're sick of you encouraging the erosion of our liberties, the corruption of our government, and the persecution of true music/movie lovers everywhere. Go fuck your respective selves. You sit there, confident in your position outside the law's grasp, feeding off the misery of others for your own benefit. You make me sick. You're the scum-suckers of society, and you have the unabashed nerve to claim that you're actually being wronged! What is totally, completely wrong is that you guys exist in the first place.
OK, that takes care of the pirates. Where are the **AA? I'm not too fond of them either.
I think you get the pattern. Where does socialism come in? I could be wrong, seeing as I don't usually keep track of other countries' economies, but I believe socialism comes in at number 36 with Cuba. Let's just say that socialism isn't at the forefront of life expectancy.
Is that your clever way of saying, "Oh but we've never had capitalism because THE GOVERNMENT"?
Not the GP, but I can say unequivocally that no, that is definitely not what he is saying. He's saying that capitalism promises short working hours and lifespans considerably longer than our current 80+ years, as much as socialism promises us summer homes on Mars.
Capitalism promises (more or less) a functioning society that progresses more efficiently than socialism. If you want to show that capitalism doesn't work, then that's what you need to show.
I don't think it's up to the antiponents of a hypothesis to decide that no falsification conditions exist. I had a search for falsification conditions, and I found this:
The hypothesis can be falsified by converting one organism/species into another, producing a functional cell membrane from inorganic material, producing a living organism from inorganic material, or producing DNA RNA and functional protein, all in the same reaction chamber; utilizing the normative conditions that exist, or have existed, on the surface of the planet, the ocean shores, the ocean depths, or at a reasonable depth into the lithosphere. The hypothesis can also be falsified by producing a functional cell membrane or native protein from inorganic, abiotic substrate, within the limits allowed by naturally occurring conditions, in vitro.
Of course, this is just one website's take. Pick apart as you will. Another part of interest:
The hypothesis predicts that any and all organisms will have their forms perfectly matched to their function...
It would seem to me that any prediction would be assailable as a falsification criterion. If a theory predicts something that is untrue, then a simple modus tollens inference tells us that the theory has problems (in fact, this is the meat of science, isn't it?). So, if we came up with a living creature whose form contained features that lacked (or hindered) function, then that should disprove intelligent design.
The example that I thought of specifically was the tendency for human beings to sneeze when exposed to bright light. I can't cite a source for this, but my doctor told me this had been shown to be true. Noone has found a function for this reflex. If intelligent design is true, then this reflex would have a function that is relevant to us now. If such a function exists, then it is likely that we would have discovered it by now, but we have not. Therefore, it is likely that intelligent design is false.
Upon review of the Objections and the expert reports submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the Objections are without merit. In particular, the Court finds that the CQ-56 replacement computer is a reasonable replacement for the original computers at issue in this case. Although there are differences between the CQ-56 and various computers for which it is offered as a replacement, the CQ-56 meets or exceeds nearly all of the specifications of the original computers. In addition, it comes with an advanced operating system, new warranty and other programs. To the extent that it does not have various peripherals, the Court finds that they can be easily and inexpensively added.
That's the decision in a nutshell. If you're going to debate, it helps to listen to what the other side is saying.
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd, I don't feel sold. I don't owe Google or its advertisers anything. No slave traders are knocking on my door.
Perhaps you were searching for a less alarmist term?
It's spelled S O N Y.
Of course! Sarkozy and Conroy are plotting to destroy free speech, complete their diabolical mind-controlling machine, and take over the world with the help of all the rest of the politicians, who have only been pretended for multiple generations to be ineffectual, petty political backstabbers in order to fool the masses into believing their freedoms are safe! Why even spend the slightest bit of thought on it when it is so obviously true?
Yeah, yeah, mod me troll. I'm sure that'll teach me for being wrong.
Pfft. Duke Nukem Forever just went gold. If you think it's cold wherever you are, you should see hell right now.
Be honest; which situation do you think is more likely:
a) After the PSN network went down and everyone's credit card details were stolen, other hackers just started to realise how evil Sony is, or
b) After the PSN network went down and everyone's credit card details were stolen, other hackers just started to realise how weak Sony's security is, how easy it would be to gain the ability to brag that they took down a large corporation's security, and how much money they could spend with pilfered credit card details.
Look me in the eyes and tell me that Google would be treated differently if their security was on par with Sony's.
Oh my god. They could develop the next Fox News! We've got to warn them!!
Right, because nobody with good customer service ever had bad security.
Yeah, but I wouldn't put a great deal of stock into it. Remember, the wheel was simply a rock with the edges ground down.
Elrous0's post states that his mind is changed with time not necessarily with experience. Besides, even if that were true, I didn't say it was always true, just true now. If his opinions and viewpoints were ever falsifiable, they certainly are not now.
Now you just believe what you tell yourself. When actions contradict what you tell yourself, you come up with some fanciful way to make it somehow reinforce what you tell yourself. It's terribly naive to believe that this state of affairs is somehow better, or that you're somehow wiser because of it.
As a rather immediate example, notice how you responded to me as though I had just defended the politicians involved. I gather it is because previous arguments that question your cynicism have come from young and naive people who have actually defended politicians (or whatever other party in the wrong). These arguments are easy to dismiss as a lack of worldly experience. To have an argument that is not so easy to dismiss would be, well, more difficult to defend against, and might cause the uncomfortable feeling of challenging long-held beliefs. So, you want to conclude that I am a naive pushover, and your cursory glance over my text did nothing to contradict that conclusion, so you leapt to it fallaciously (and in this case, incorrectly).
Please everyone take note. Here is a perfect example of a mind so closed, he can't see anything other than his grinding axe. He sees the world happening around him, and rather than the normal, healthy method of allowing what he sees to shape his conceptions, he allows the conceptions to shape what he sees.
Where is the evidence that this is just for show? How many other carrots have been dangled in front of the public in the past? More importantly, when has such carrot-dangling ever worked?
You see, this viewpoint comes from no rationale other than cognative dissonance. He thinks to himself that the government is evil, but reducing the TSA's funding is not an evil action. His brain either has to deal with the possibility that his conception of the government may not have entirely been true, or compensate by inventing, from no evidence, some potentially implausible scenario in which he is right, and the government is evil.
These lines of thought tend to concern me, because this is how misinformation starts and is spread. Sure, perhaps it's obvious here, but what about when it's not? A senator supports a tax hike? Oh, he must be greedy. Why is he greedy? Because we think politicians are greedy, so therefore this particular action is motivated by greed. Do we think that the tax money is needed for programs that are in the public's interest? Not typically. Why not? Is it because we have considered it, and been pursuaded out of it by evidence or reason?
Perhaps it is the fact that we've seen it 100 times before. Or have we? How many times, when a politician, government, police force, judge, or some other person in position of power (or even just someone we hate) has done something that is potentially suspect, have we simply jumped to the conclusion that they are doing the wrong thing? Exactly how much do these false impressions come to bear on conceptions, the same ones that our minds use to create other false impressions?
Think for yourself. Write down exactly the instances you remember where the conclusion was inescapable, where clear evidence was brought to light (enough to secure some kind of criminal conviction, assuming it was a crime). Then think of other instances where people in positions of power have done something evil. Bearing in mind the wide variety of interests in the public, for how many of them did their actions become inconsistent with someone with the public's interests at heart?
I'm not saying that people in positions of power are saints, or even that they're not as corrupt as we assume them to be, just that, for the sake of integrity of information, it pays to know exactly how sure of the conclusion to be. If you place too much confidence in a conclusion that it is sketchy, you risk reinforcing it and spreading it, until it becomes misinformation.
Thank you for your time.
Well, I think you picked a great imaginary enemy. The government's never going anywhere, and they don't have the resources to defend themselves against slander from the various conspiracy theorists out there, so they're an absolutely perfect scapegoat.
That's good, because he's not a troll. He's posting his opinion, as valid as any I have seen here. His delivery is arguably offensive (which would justify a flamebait mod), but it's far from the most offensive +5 post I've seen here. He should not be modded down.
Remember mods, you can't have a real discussion without an opposing side!
Oh? I heard of a different Pray that protects your stuff. The Christians use it, I think, and it is 100% effective at preventing the theft of objects that God does not want stolen.
How is this distinct from, say, video games portraying soldiers in real conflicts? Or even fake conflicts? I there a distinction at all?
A content one, obviously. Good for them.
We're sick of you encouraging the erosion of our liberties, the corruption of our government, and the persecution of true music/movie lovers everywhere. Go fuck your respective selves. You sit there, confident in your position outside the law's grasp, feeding off the misery of others for your own benefit. You make me sick. You're the scum-suckers of society, and you have the unabashed nerve to claim that you're actually being wronged! What is totally, completely wrong is that you guys exist in the first place.
OK, that takes care of the pirates. Where are the **AA? I'm not too fond of them either.
OK, let's consider life expectancy at birth (source: Wikipedia. Who's number one? Who cares? All I want to know: capitalist, socialist, or other.
1: Capitalist
2: Very, very capitalist
3: Capitalist
4: Capitalist
5. Capitalist
6: Capitalist
7. Capitalist
8. Capitalist
9. Capitalist
10. Socialist? No, actually, I'm pretty sure it's capitalist.
I think you get the pattern. Where does socialism come in? I could be wrong, seeing as I don't usually keep track of other countries' economies, but I believe socialism comes in at number 36 with Cuba. Let's just say that socialism isn't at the forefront of life expectancy.
Viva la reason!
But we have 80+ years! How much more do you expect before you're content not to call capitalism a failure? Do we need to be living indefinitely?
Not the GP, but I can say unequivocally that no, that is definitely not what he is saying. He's saying that capitalism promises short working hours and lifespans considerably longer than our current 80+ years, as much as socialism promises us summer homes on Mars.
Capitalism promises (more or less) a functioning society that progresses more efficiently than socialism. If you want to show that capitalism doesn't work, then that's what you need to show.
I don't think it's up to the antiponents of a hypothesis to decide that no falsification conditions exist. I had a search for falsification conditions, and I found this:
Of course, this is just one website's take. Pick apart as you will. Another part of interest:
It would seem to me that any prediction would be assailable as a falsification criterion. If a theory predicts something that is untrue, then a simple modus tollens inference tells us that the theory has problems (in fact, this is the meat of science, isn't it?). So, if we came up with a living creature whose form contained features that lacked (or hindered) function, then that should disprove intelligent design.
The example that I thought of specifically was the tendency for human beings to sneeze when exposed to bright light. I can't cite a source for this, but my doctor told me this had been shown to be true. Noone has found a function for this reflex. If intelligent design is true, then this reflex would have a function that is relevant to us now. If such a function exists, then it is likely that we would have discovered it by now, but we have not. Therefore, it is likely that intelligent design is false.
Get out! ;-)
Through these extra-stylish rose-tinted glasses. Get a pair free with every purchase of Vamosi's book!
Me personally, I like to think that people will say "Meh", walk away, and not give it a second thought.
Yeah, yeah, I know, wishful thinking. Sigh.
That's the decision in a nutshell. If you're going to debate, it helps to listen to what the other side is saying.