And hey, as long as I'm laying all my political prejudices and biases out on the table, I'll mention that I absolutely do believe fiscal conservatives, on average, have greater competence in modern economics than fiscal liberals (or whatever the proper antonym would be). The reason I remain a committed liberal in spite of this is because I think modern economics - not only the theory but the actual economic structures that drive our society - is more or less a book that fiscal conservatives wrote. It's a system that does not exist naturally but was designed according to a certain set of presumptions. A committed Christian surely has far greater knowledge of the Bible than I do, and if I lived inside the Bible, he's the first person I'd go to for advice.
I've heard is said that Marx's biggest triumph was that he established capitalism as an -ism at all. It's sort of interesting that people don't see the practice of having something you deem valuable and trading it with someone else for what he deems valuable as "unnatural". It seems to me the most natural thing in the world.
But the problem is that "value" is all too often solely conceptualized as material wealth.
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Man -- liberals need to accept that national defense isn't about lollipops and holding hands, it's about killing shit, and killing shit is basically the antithesis of egalitarianism, so get used to the fact that there are some unpleasant realities in this world and stop crying so much.
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Man -- liberals need to accept that national defense isn't about lollipops and holding hands, it's about killing shit, and killing shit is basically the antithesis of egalitarianism, so get used to the fact that there are some unpleasant realities in this world and stop crying so much.
Gee...tell me which party has more veterans in Congress?
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Man -- liberals need to accept that national defense isn't about lollipops and holding hands, it's about killing shit, and killing shit is basically the antithesis of egalitarianism, so get used to the fact that there are some unpleasant realities in this world and stop crying so much.
Gee...tell me which party has more veterans in Congress?
Which is relevant to what exactly?
I'm in favor of many different armed forces reforms w/r/t to the US standing army, but like I'll be perfectly honest -- making girls feel really welcome isn't one of them, and I think it's an absolute waste of time, energy, and political capital to pursue that goal.
But the problem is that "value" is all too often solely conceptualized as material wealth.
There's nothing inherent in either human nature or capitalism that means this has to be the case, though. It could just as well me trading you some of my cooking in exchange for you delighting me with your beautiful singing.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But the problem is that "value" is all too often solely conceptualized as material wealth.
There's nothing inherent in either human nature or capitalism that means this has to be the case, though. It could just as well me trading you some of my cooking in exchange for you delighting me with your beautiful singing.
I agree it doesn't need to be the case, but the problem is that it all too often is. As far as I'm concerned the real progressive revolution that needs to occur in business culture is broadening the focus from solely dollars and acquisitions so that it also includes things like community health in the communities that business operates in, as well as employee well-being and sustainable business practice, etc. What we get instead is cold-hearted businesses looking to cut anything they can to help please the share-holders alongside a bunch of local (aka hippie) businesses that have no idea or real interest in maximizing profit and efficiency. It's frustrating.
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Man -- liberals need to accept that national defense isn't about lollipops and holding hands, it's about killing shit, and killing shit is basically the antithesis of egalitarianism, so get used to the fact that there are some unpleasant realities in this world and stop crying so much.
Gee...tell me which party has more veterans in Congress?
Which is relevant to what exactly?
I'm in favor of many different armed forces reforms w/r/t to the US standing army, but like I'll be perfectly honest -- making girls feel really welcome isn't one of them, and I think it's an absolute waste of time, energy, and political capital to pursue that goal.
There's a vast difference between "making girls feel welcome" and "women are equal members of society, and thus have equal rights and responsibilities, and our government's makeup and rules should reflect this." Too bad Cat's not around - she'd enjoy playing with you like a mouse.
There's a vast difference between "making girls feel welcome" and "women are equal members of society, and thus have equal rights and responsibilities, and our government's makeup and rules should reflect this." Too bad Cat's not around - she'd enjoy playing with you like a mouse.
All right apologies if I'm a little impolite, but I'm calling you on it man -- all you've basically done is make snarky, condescending, and ultimately empty replies to my assertion, leaving me with a "oh man if mom were here she'd really get you in trouble" line. You know what? I respect The Cat and I'm also comfortable disagreeing with her. Try it sometime.
The Army, by its nature, is a regressive institution, and I feel if our goal is really to provide the most effective Army as possible, we have to allow it to maintain regressive policies. I actually believe we should have a segregated Army based on gender, because it would both increase efficiency while reducing the amount of abuse and suffering on the part of female soldiers. Aside from that, I really think progressives would be better served doing things like trying to cut army funding instead of trying to extend it to as many members of society as possible, or focusing on things like sexism in areas which aren't hotbeds regressive thinking because it is itself a regressive institution based on murder and physical dominance.
Now enough with the snark. Either discuss the topic with me or spare me the "I'm holding a point just outside your view, maybe if you weren't so blind and ignorant you'd see it yourself" routine.
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Man -- liberals need to accept that national defense isn't about lollipops and holding hands, it's about killing shit, and killing shit is basically the antithesis of egalitarianism, so get used to the fact that there are some unpleasant realities in this world and stop crying so much.
Defense only needs to be about "killing shit" because of aggressive warmongers who don't know anything about diplomacy, negotiation, compromise, or basically anything that involves settling differences with words.
Okay, I think we need to get back to media bias. If I split a split, I think it breaks the forums.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I cannot accept the position that one has to be an expert in a field to be qualified to hold an opinion on it. True, you cannot reasonable argue the procedures of brain surgery with a brain surgeon if you yourself are not one, but journalists aren't routinely involved in those areas of minutia.
I can hold a position on Global Warming based on published scientific accounts, because I am educated enough to follow them and dissect them. I don't call it settled science because it is not. I can hold positions on immigration without being a sociologist, on Iraq without being a diplomat, on abortion without being a woman, etc, etc.
The danger is in feeling you know more than someone else, therefore your position is correct. I'm reminded of this constantly. You were right, I am fiscally conservative, and I stake my claim on economic positions accordingly. I cannot state that everyone else is wrong, just because I know more, I have to show it. On top of that, there's a real danger of being so close to the elephant, you can't properly identify it. True fiscal conservatism (or actually, most econ in general) is devoid of human interest. It's a numbers game. You can't lose sight of that. The reverse is true. It's disingenuous to state that knowledge = liberalism = right, because if that was the case, all you need to do is educate people and we would then all agree.
You are allowed to have your opinion, but apologies if I take the word of the IPCC, American Assocation for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, Joint Science Academy, and American Meteorological Society over yours. When the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists agree on something, it should make your ears perk up because such consensus on important issues is rare. However, there is such consensus on the issue of global warming. What you seem to not realize is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, nor can there be. However, this is the closest thing you will probably find your lifetime, so take that as you will.
Same holds with gender theory. You're free to spout whatever you want against gay marriage but unless you've studied the relevant scholarship and can follow along when educated people talk about the topic, there's no reason for me to listen to you. Same goes if I tried to talk about econ; I know a little about certain things but when an expert comes along, I listen.
Or in other words; when my mom tried to figure out what sickness I had when I was little, my dad would say "when did you become a doctor?"
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
I actually found Bias fairly interesting, if not entirely persuasive.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Man -- liberals need to accept that national defense isn't about lollipops and holding hands, it's about killing shit, and killing shit is basically the antithesis of egalitarianism, so get used to the fact that there are some unpleasant realities in this world and stop crying so much.
Defense only needs to be about "killing shit" because of aggressive warmongers who don't know anything about diplomacy, negotiation, compromise, or basically anything that involves settling differences with words.
Well, duh. But the world will always have assholes, and you need a defense to kill them when they deserve it.
---
My on-topic point: bias is ok if you make it open.
I actually found Bias fairly interesting, if not entirely persuasive.
Did you feel the same way about Slander and Treason?
I did not read those, because I have a soul.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I actually found Bias fairly interesting, if not entirely persuasive.
I found it interesting for how transparent of a conservative shill Goldberg was despite his constant claims to the contrary, and how each and every complaint I could stomach to read could also be just as simply explained vis a vis the profit motive in news.
What's that Bernard? They only show really down on their luck homeless people as opposed to lifelong fuck ups in order to paint homelessness in a disingenuous, somehow liberal tinted light? Yeah moron, that's because lifelong fuck ups don't sell.
What's that Bernard? They only show tragic AIDS cases as opposed to people who were acting grossly irresponsible? Is it really "news" when unprotected sex leads to STDs? Apparently to conservatives it is, at least to hear Bernard Goldberg tell it (there's a joke about sex education that goes here).
Couple that with his fixation with "The Dan" and his pathetic claims that liberals were the masters of class warfare while constantly whinging on about the "New York Elite" that clandestinely control the nation's media. The book was pathetic pandering at best and I sincerely doubt the critical faculties of anyone who puts stock in what Goldberg has to say.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Science is pretty much run by consensus, especially when there is little to no evidence opposing the main assertion. Like, how we understand general relativity is sound in its basic principles. I'm sure there are like 15 scientists out there who dispute general relativity but unless they can produce significant findings to change the opinion of the relevant experts, then they're wrong for the time being.
Same with climate science; if you can produce any peer-reviewed article/study that disputes the core assertion of modern global warming theory (humans are contributing to global warming), than do so. Until then, I can feel free to ignore any noises you're making otherwise since the vast majority of the relevant scientific community disagrees and has the data to back it up.
On gay marriage: gender theory examines the underpinnings for social constructs of sex and gender, along with related topics (race theory, etc.). As for having to dispute the core assertion that gay people should be allowed to marry, I believe that the burden is upon those trying to limit the rights of others. We in the US err on the side of more rights as opposed to fewer rights; if rights are to be taken away, sound reasons to do so must exist. Thus far, I have not heard any such arguments. All I hear are slippery slope stuff ("but then what prevents people from marrying their DOGS!"), religious stuff ("God says that gays shouldn't marry.......somewhere in the Bible, I dunno where"), and stuff about marriage falling apart ("but then straight marriages will be devalued........somehow.........").
Hell, I don't even need to go into how wrong the male/female dichotomy is (intersexed individuals, anyone?) to point out the holes in those arguments.
As far as making my personal opinion on most topics, I try to read up as much as I can and if I don't know the answer to something, I try to seek out the relevant experts from both sides. When I literally can't find experts on a given topic (say, global warming) who have reasonable objections, then I know where the truth probably lies.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Contragulations, you found a mouthpiece for a conservative think-tank! That's not a substitute for a real scientist's opinion.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
ITT we find that ryuprecht gets his arguments from Orson Scott Card and Michael Crichton.
ElJeffe: You might want to check out Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?". It's essentially a point-by-point deconstruction of Bias's faulty logic and conclusions.
Celery: You're essentially arguing against integrating women and gays into the straight man's army. Are you also opposed to the integration of blacks into the military?
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Contragulations, you found a mouthpiece for a conservative think-tank! That's not a substitute for a real scientist's opinion.
I found an article that references:
The American Meteorological Society
Nature Magazine
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The American Geophysical Union
New Scientist Magazine
The Journal of Glaciology
British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences
And you did...what? Dismissed it out of hand. My point was that it's not settled. There's wildly differing opinions.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Contragulations, you found a mouthpiece for a conservative think-tank! That's not a substitute for a real scientist's opinion.
I found an article that references:
The American Meteorological Society
Nature Magazine
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The American Geophysical Union
New Scientist Magazine
The Journal of Glaciology
British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences
And you did...what? Dismissed it out of hand. My point was that it's not settled. There's wildly differing opinions.
Yes, with convenient links and direct in-context quotes from the sources which he's citing, so that you can easily fact-check them all. I mean, really, it's not like the guy is working for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil, right?
And you did...what? Dismissed it out of hand. My point was that it's not settled. There's wildly differing opinions.
Yes, with convenient links and direct in-context quotes from the sources which he's citing, so that you can easily fact-check them all. I mean, really, it's not like the guy is working for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil, right?
Exactly. Ryuprecht, context is the key. I will freely admit that I'm not a climate scientist, but I do know enough based on what I've learned that an overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists are in agreement that humans are playing at least some role in the global warming and other climate changes that have been documented over the past couple of hundred years.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Contragulations, you found a mouthpiece for a conservative think-tank! That's not a substitute for a real scientist's opinion.
I found an article that references:
The American Meteorological Society
Nature Magazine
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The American Geophysical Union
New Scientist Magazine
The Journal of Glaciology
British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences
And you did...what? Dismissed it out of hand. My point was that it's not settled. There's wildly differing opinions.
The article doesn't address much of anything. It rebutts a few Gore talking points, not global warming theory at all. Check out the IPCC report. It's available online.
Edit: brainfart
That's the kind of scholarship we're looking for. Actual, hard evidence backed by the best climatologists in the world. If you can provide anything remotely as reputable as that, then you have a leg to stand on. Until you do however, you're in a house without a foundation.
We [journalists] reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as . . . we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism.
-- I hope we all get along as we go along. I expect that occasionally we will have some differences of opinion. I expect to be provocative. After more than 60 years as a journalist, I have some ideas about the state of our nation, of our world, of our culture, and I wouldn't be true to the purpose of a column if I didn't vent them here.
My hope is that you will find my commentary interesting, informative, perhaps occasionally amusing (deliberately, that is), and, at all times, fair and as unbiased as it is possible for opinion to be.
You are going to disagree with me from time to time, and I will be disappointed if you don't. That fulfills the provocative requirement of a column like this.
When the nation was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, we at CBS got a lot of mail complaining about our coverage. I was disturbed until we found out that the number of letters condemning us as being government lackeys in support of the war almost precisely balanced those condemning us as being sympathetic to the war protesters. I relaxed with the simple philosophy that if you are being shot at from both sides, you must be in the middle of the road.
Let's face this one down right now: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am a registered independent because I find that I cast my votes not on the basis of party loyalty but on the issues of the moment and my assessment of the candidates.
Basically I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but those who rabidly support those positions will be more often disappointed in my views than otherwise.
I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities -- the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.
We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased. That clearly doesn't apply when one deserts the front page for the editorial page and the columns to which opinion should be isolated.
The perceived liberalism of television reporters, I am convinced, is a product of the limited time given for any particular item. The reporter desperately tries to get all the important facts and essential viewpoints into his or her piece but, against a fast-approaching deadline, he or she must summarize in a sentence the complicated story. That is where the slippage occurs, and the summary too frequently, without intention, seems to emphasize one side or the other.
(The answer to that problem, as with much else in television news, is in more time for the dominant evening newscasts. In our ever more complicated and confusing world, those newscasts need an hour.)
Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant."
I have always suspected those fine folks at Random House of being liberals. You just can't trust anybody these days.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
ITT we find that ryuprecht gets his arguments from Orson Scott Card and Michael Crichton.
And we find that your best work is done in providing half-assed snarky comments when you have no real argument. I guess we all learned something today.
Deep down inside, I harbor the same sentiment as darthmix. I try to repress it, but--I mean, "exposure to many different people and intimate knowledge of events makes people liberal" feels obviously wrong for economic liberalism, but for 'socially liberal?' Yeah, can't quite squash it.
Science is more or less run by consensus. it's not a perfect system but what is scientifically acceptable is in the long run determined by the scientific community as a whole. it's not done as a popularity contest but by other scientists repeating similar experiments and drawing the same conclusions.
Not to say bad science doesn't sneak through sometimes but peer review is the best instrument we have for de-bunking false conclusions and poor experimentation.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Contragulations, you found a mouthpiece for a conservative think-tank! That's not a substitute for a real scientist's opinion.
I found an article that references:
The American Meteorological Society
Nature Magazine
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The American Geophysical Union
New Scientist Magazine
The Journal of Glaciology
British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences
And you did...what? Dismissed it out of hand. My point was that it's not settled. There's wildly differing opinions.
Yes, with convenient links and direct in-context quotes from the sources which he's citing, so that you can easily fact-check them all. I mean, really, it's not like the guy is working for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil, right?
So fact check them. Most list the date and publisher of the claim. I don't accept the presupposition that if anything you don't like is associated with an idea you don't agree with, you can dismiss it.
Yes, with convenient links and direct in-context quotes from the sources which he's citing, so that you can easily fact-check them all. I mean, really, it's not like the guy is working for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil, right?
So fact check them. Most list the date and publisher of the claim. I don't accept the presupposition that if anything you don't like is associated with an idea you don't agree with, you can dismiss it.
It's by a mouthpiece for Exxon-Mobil. I'm not going to waste my time with looking up all the citations he has, because 1) that would be an enormous pain in the ass and waste of time (and odds are, they're probably on Lexis-Nexis, which is a pay service which I don't have access to), and 2) if his arguments are so great and accurate, you should easily be able to find a reputable source that has the same information with citations.
This is like me posting something from DU and expecting you to take it as gospel truth until you can research every aspect of it and prove it wrong.
Yes, with convenient links and direct in-context quotes from the sources which he's citing, so that you can easily fact-check them all. I mean, really, it's not like the guy is working for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil, right?
So fact check them. Most list the date and publisher of the claim. I don't accept the presupposition that if anything you don't like is associated with an idea you don't agree with, you can dismiss it.
It's by a mouthpiece for Exxon-Mobil. I'm not going to waste my time with looking up all the citations he has, because 1) that would be an enormous pain in the ass and waste of time (and odds are, they're probably on Lexis-Nexis, which is a pay service which I don't have access to), and 2) if his arguments are so great and accurate, you should easily be able to find a reputable source that has the same information with citations.
This is like me posting something from DU and expecting you to take it as gospel truth until you can research every aspect of it and prove it wrong.
The research addresses global warming. The linked article uses it as "proof" GW isn't happening. The actual article says exactly the opposite- that warming is increasing winter temperatures BUT, due to local weather, decreasing summer tempatures, with a net increase in glacier mass.
Its worth noting this is only happening on ONE side of the range; mountains elsewhere in Asia are losing their glaciers as predicted.
2. On target. Not surprising consider Gore is a politician and not a scientist.
3/4. Can't find the specific report linked, but every IPCC report I HAVE seen predicts an increase in severe weather, including tornadoes and hurricanes. They do add cautions about the increase in wind sheer, but the overall effect is expected to be an increase. The referenced May 1 paper from Chris Landsea does not even MENTION global warming. It does state that the 2000s have been the most-active decade for hurricanes in the US since the 40s..and we're only in 2007. A good chunk of this is just natural up/downs in climate.
If before the climate warms you have an "active" decade of 15 storms and a "slow" decade of 6, and after it warms you have an "active" decade of 20 storms and a "slow" decade of 12...I'd still call that a problem, hmm?
5. Correct. Sorta. The report only applies to the north Africa deserts. Elsewhere they are still growing.
In short: areas of the Greenland sheet are shrinking, others are growing because of warming temperatures. Areas that are EXTREMELY cold tend to be deserts, so warming up slightly allows more precipitation, which increases the amount of ice. The result is a small net gain in Greenland and a larger net LOSS in Antarctica.
7. Mistates AGAIN. The IPCC actually expects a loss of Antarctic ice.
So out of 7 "cites" we have...one accurate reference, one that twists the truth a bit, and the remaining 5 are just plain incorrect.
The research addresses global warming. The linked article uses it as "proof" GW isn't happening. The actual article says exactly the opposite- that warming is increasing winter temperatures BUT, due to local weather, decreasing summer tempatures, with a net increase in glacier mass.
Its worth noting this is only happening on ONE side of the range; mountains elsewhere in Asia are losing their glaciers as predicted.
2. On target. Not surprising consider Gore is a politician and not a scientist.
3/4. Can't find the specific report linked, but every IPCC report I HAVE seen predicts an increase in severe weather, including tornadoes and hurricanes. They do add cautions about the increase in wind sheer, but the overall effect is expected to be an increase. The referenced May 1 paper from Chris Landsea does not even MENTION global warming. It does state that the 2000s have been the most-active decade for hurricanes in the US since the 40s..and we're only in 2007. A good chunk of this is just natural up/downs in climate.
If before the climate warms you have an "active" decade of 15 storms and a "slow" decade of 6, and after it warms you have an "active" decade of 20 storms and a "slow" decade of 12...I'd still call that a problem, hmm?
5. Correct. Sorta. The report only applies to the north Africa deserts. Elsewhere they are still growing.
In short: areas of the Greenland sheet are shrinking, others are growing because of warming temperatures. Areas that are EXTREMELY cold tend to be deserts, so warming up slightly allows more precipitation, which increases the amount of ice. The result is a small net gain in Greenland and a larger net LOSS in Antarctica.
7. Mistates AGAIN. The IPCC actually expects a loss of Antarctic ice.
So out of 7 "cites" we have...one accurate reference, one that twists the truth a bit, and the remaining 5 are just plain incorrect.
This is not good evidence.
Now, if we have to do this with every cockamamie homeless-guy-shouting-on-a-street-corner ryuprecht brings up, it's gonna be a giant waste of time.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
ITT we find that ryuprecht gets his arguments from Orson Scott Card and Michael Crichton.
And we find that you're best work is done in providing half-assed snarky comments when you have no real argument. I guess we all learned something today.
Your "consensus" comment is a favorite argument from Crichton - a man who is so thinskinned about criticism, he named a child molester in his most recent novel after one. His arguments against global warming have been debunked over and over (I personally like RealClimate's deconstruction of his arguments .)
As for gay marriage, you used Card's argument about gay marriage as your trump card the last time it came up - the rather odious argument that it's okay that gays are prevented from marrying, since you can't marry someone of the same sex yourself. And as I remember, that didn't go so well for you.
See, the problem isn't just that you crib your arguments. You crib shitty, played out arguments that have been debunked over and over again, then act shocked when everyone refuses to take you seriously. Why should I give anything more than a half-assed response to your overplayed, unoriginal arguments that wish they were half-assed?
Deep down inside, I harbor the same sentiment as darthmix. I try to repress it, but--I mean, "exposure to many different people and intimate knowledge of events makes people liberal" feels obviously wrong for economic liberalism, but for 'socially liberal?' Yeah, can't quite squash it.
I deleted my original post for off-topic.
One thing I've found in talking with some of my liberal friends is that the deeper they delve into an issue, the more emotional attachment they have to it. That may be part of the "feels" that you mentioned. A lot of liberal issues are more emotional based, I would go so far as to say liberalism is, frequently, a more human approach to issues, which makes the emotional argument make a lot of sense. There are some arguments I have stronger emotions for than I do purely logical arguments.
I guess I'm just saying that people shouldn't presuppose that closeness to an issue, or liberalism within an issue, is the de facto correct one. At times I'm ashamed of other conservatives who refuse to see the human cost of certain decisions. Liberals should at times look past that cost for reasons similar.
Yes, with convenient links and direct in-context quotes from the sources which he's citing, so that you can easily fact-check them all. I mean, really, it's not like the guy is working for a group funded by Exxon-Mobil, right?
So fact check them. Most list the date and publisher of the claim. I don't accept the presupposition that if anything you don't like is associated with an idea you don't agree with, you can dismiss it.
It's by a mouthpiece for Exxon-Mobil. I'm not going to waste my time with looking up all the citations he has, because 1) that would be an enormous pain in the ass and waste of time (and odds are, they're probably on Lexis-Nexis, which is a pay service which I don't have access to), and 2) if his arguments are so great and accurate, you should easily be able to find a reputable source that has the same information with citations.
This is like me posting something from DU and expecting you to take it as gospel truth until you can research every aspect of it and prove it wrong.
Ryuprecht let us assume that Mr. Gore and the various climatologists are indeed wrong, a rather large assumption to make considering. The increase in global temperature is not impacted at all by man and we are simply stuck between a rock and a hard place along nature's cycals. Could you explain to me what there is to gain by not having a more efficient industry, not becoming less dependent upon foreign countries for fuel, and overall becoming less polluted? Why sustainability shouldn't be something that is automatically tied in to new designs and the thought processes designers use in their approach to new products? What is there to gain by continuing business as usual and risking the chance that Gore and all those scientists are right? Why should the government not be supporting changes in industrial paradigms that will ensure competitiveness with foreign companies already taking sustainability seriously?
Posts
Gee...tell me which party has more veterans in Congress?
I'm in favor of many different armed forces reforms w/r/t to the US standing army, but like I'll be perfectly honest -- making girls feel really welcome isn't one of them, and I think it's an absolute waste of time, energy, and political capital to pursue that goal.
There's nothing inherent in either human nature or capitalism that means this has to be the case, though. It could just as well me trading you some of my cooking in exchange for you delighting me with your beautiful singing.
There's a vast difference between "making girls feel welcome" and "women are equal members of society, and thus have equal rights and responsibilities, and our government's makeup and rules should reflect this." Too bad Cat's not around - she'd enjoy playing with you like a mouse.
The Army, by its nature, is a regressive institution, and I feel if our goal is really to provide the most effective Army as possible, we have to allow it to maintain regressive policies. I actually believe we should have a segregated Army based on gender, because it would both increase efficiency while reducing the amount of abuse and suffering on the part of female soldiers. Aside from that, I really think progressives would be better served doing things like trying to cut army funding instead of trying to extend it to as many members of society as possible, or focusing on things like sexism in areas which aren't hotbeds regressive thinking because it is itself a regressive institution based on murder and physical dominance.
Now enough with the snark. Either discuss the topic with me or spare me the "I'm holding a point just outside your view, maybe if you weren't so blind and ignorant you'd see it yourself" routine.
I didn't know science was now run by consensus. That's how you run a fucked up meeting in a big company, not how you decide facts. This is what I mean by "not settled science" (btw, "settled science" was Al Gore's assertion, not mine):
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
I see these things often enough to make me think that I can't just go with one side or another. At best case, I can say (and the same goes with everyone) "it looks like there might be a problem, and that worries us, but we don't know what the cause is, how bad it is, or if it's really a big deal."
With Gay Marriage, we're talking about a social construct. I'm not sure what gender theory has to do with it, as as I understand it, gender theory examines it AS a construct of society, it does not set the social context. I'm sure that some of it has relevance in background information, but I don't know enough of the work done in this area. In either case, should you choose to use this information in a debate, you should actually use the information, not just state than expert has determined this and all other ideas are moot.
Well, duh. But the world will always have assholes, and you need a defense to kill them when they deserve it.
---
My on-topic point: bias is ok if you make it open.
I did not read those, because I have a soul.
What's that Bernard? They only show really down on their luck homeless people as opposed to lifelong fuck ups in order to paint homelessness in a disingenuous, somehow liberal tinted light? Yeah moron, that's because lifelong fuck ups don't sell.
What's that Bernard? They only show tragic AIDS cases as opposed to people who were acting grossly irresponsible? Is it really "news" when unprotected sex leads to STDs? Apparently to conservatives it is, at least to hear Bernard Goldberg tell it (there's a joke about sex education that goes here).
Couple that with his fixation with "The Dan" and his pathetic claims that liberals were the masters of class warfare while constantly whinging on about the "New York Elite" that clandestinely control the nation's media. The book was pathetic pandering at best and I sincerely doubt the critical faculties of anyone who puts stock in what Goldberg has to say.
Science is pretty much run by consensus, especially when there is little to no evidence opposing the main assertion. Like, how we understand general relativity is sound in its basic principles. I'm sure there are like 15 scientists out there who dispute general relativity but unless they can produce significant findings to change the opinion of the relevant experts, then they're wrong for the time being.
Same with climate science; if you can produce any peer-reviewed article/study that disputes the core assertion of modern global warming theory (humans are contributing to global warming), than do so. Until then, I can feel free to ignore any noises you're making otherwise since the vast majority of the relevant scientific community disagrees and has the data to back it up.
On gay marriage: gender theory examines the underpinnings for social constructs of sex and gender, along with related topics (race theory, etc.). As for having to dispute the core assertion that gay people should be allowed to marry, I believe that the burden is upon those trying to limit the rights of others. We in the US err on the side of more rights as opposed to fewer rights; if rights are to be taken away, sound reasons to do so must exist. Thus far, I have not heard any such arguments. All I hear are slippery slope stuff ("but then what prevents people from marrying their DOGS!"), religious stuff ("God says that gays shouldn't marry.......somewhere in the Bible, I dunno where"), and stuff about marriage falling apart ("but then straight marriages will be devalued........somehow.........").
Hell, I don't even need to go into how wrong the male/female dichotomy is (intersexed individuals, anyone?) to point out the holes in those arguments.
As far as making my personal opinion on most topics, I try to read up as much as I can and if I don't know the answer to something, I try to seek out the relevant experts from both sides. When I literally can't find experts on a given topic (say, global warming) who have reasonable objections, then I know where the truth probably lies.
Contragulations, you found a mouthpiece for a conservative think-tank! That's not a substitute for a real scientist's opinion.
ITT we find that ryuprecht gets his arguments from Orson Scott Card and Michael Crichton.
Celery: You're essentially arguing against integrating women and gays into the straight man's army. Are you also opposed to the integration of blacks into the military?
I found an article that references:
The American Meteorological Society
Nature Magazine
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The American Geophysical Union
New Scientist Magazine
The Journal of Glaciology
British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences
And you did...what? Dismissed it out of hand. My point was that it's not settled. There's wildly differing opinions.
Exactly. Ryuprecht, context is the key. I will freely admit that I'm not a climate scientist, but I do know enough based on what I've learned that an overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists are in agreement that humans are playing at least some role in the global warming and other climate changes that have been documented over the past couple of hundred years.
The article doesn't address much of anything. It rebutts a few Gore talking points, not global warming theory at all. Check out the IPCC report. It's available online.
Edit: brainfart
That's the kind of scholarship we're looking for. Actual, hard evidence backed by the best climatologists in the world. If you can provide anything remotely as reputable as that, then you have a leg to stand on. Until you do however, you're in a house without a foundation.
This was an op-ed piece walter cronkite did for the salt lake city tribune in 2003
And we find that your best work is done in providing half-assed snarky comments when you have no real argument. I guess we all learned something today.
Are you and AngelHedgie the same person?
I deleted my original post for off-topic.
Not to say bad science doesn't sneak through sometimes but peer review is the best instrument we have for de-bunking false conclusions and poor experimentation.
So fact check them. Most list the date and publisher of the claim. I don't accept the presupposition that if anything you don't like is associated with an idea you don't agree with, you can dismiss it.
This is like me posting something from DU and expecting you to take it as gospel truth until you can research every aspect of it and prove it wrong.
It is effectively rebutted by the IPCC report.
1.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0824-himalayas.html
The research addresses global warming. The linked article uses it as "proof" GW isn't happening. The actual article says exactly the opposite- that warming is increasing winter temperatures BUT, due to local weather, decreasing summer tempatures, with a net increase in glacier mass.
Its worth noting this is only happening on ONE side of the range; mountains elsewhere in Asia are losing their glaciers as predicted.
2. On target. Not surprising consider Gore is a politician and not a scientist.
3/4. Can't find the specific report linked, but every IPCC report I HAVE seen predicts an increase in severe weather, including tornadoes and hurricanes. They do add cautions about the increase in wind sheer, but the overall effect is expected to be an increase. The referenced May 1 paper from Chris Landsea does not even MENTION global warming. It does state that the 2000s have been the most-active decade for hurricanes in the US since the 40s..and we're only in 2007. A good chunk of this is just natural up/downs in climate.
If before the climate warms you have an "active" decade of 15 storms and a "slow" decade of 6, and after it warms you have an "active" decade of 20 storms and a "slow" decade of 12...I'd still call that a problem, hmm?
5. Correct. Sorta. The report only applies to the north Africa deserts. Elsewhere they are still growing.
6. Again, a misstated reference.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001
In short: areas of the Greenland sheet are shrinking, others are growing because of warming temperatures. Areas that are EXTREMELY cold tend to be deserts, so warming up slightly allows more precipitation, which increases the amount of ice. The result is a small net gain in Greenland and a larger net LOSS in Antarctica.
7. Mistates AGAIN. The IPCC actually expects a loss of Antarctic ice.
So out of 7 "cites" we have...one accurate reference, one that twists the truth a bit, and the remaining 5 are just plain incorrect.
This is not good evidence.
Your "consensus" comment is a favorite argument from Crichton - a man who is so thinskinned about criticism, he named a child molester in his most recent novel after one. His arguments against global warming have been debunked over and over (I personally like RealClimate's deconstruction of his arguments .)
As for gay marriage, you used Card's argument about gay marriage as your trump card the last time it came up - the rather odious argument that it's okay that gays are prevented from marrying, since you can't marry someone of the same sex yourself. And as I remember, that didn't go so well for you.
See, the problem isn't just that you crib your arguments. You crib shitty, played out arguments that have been debunked over and over again, then act shocked when everyone refuses to take you seriously. Why should I give anything more than a half-assed response to your overplayed, unoriginal arguments that wish they were half-assed?
One thing I've found in talking with some of my liberal friends is that the deeper they delve into an issue, the more emotional attachment they have to it. That may be part of the "feels" that you mentioned. A lot of liberal issues are more emotional based, I would go so far as to say liberalism is, frequently, a more human approach to issues, which makes the emotional argument make a lot of sense. There are some arguments I have stronger emotions for than I do purely logical arguments.
I guess I'm just saying that people shouldn't presuppose that closeness to an issue, or liberalism within an issue, is the de facto correct one. At times I'm ashamed of other conservatives who refuse to see the human cost of certain decisions. Liberals should at times look past that cost for reasons similar.
DU?