Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 07:57:46 am
Quote
quadibloc: I am quite puzzled. Even if she is rescued unharmed, why would execution be too much?

Personally, I don't think execution for the psychos would be too much, considering what they did and what they were planning. I was thinking more of what the Cerereans would do. Based on recent events with Bert and Earnie, I think that since they didn't actually do more than kidnap her, then they, or probably the girl in this case, might show leniency. I was shocked that Bert and Earnie didn't just space the bastards, because they stole their claim and were clearly going to let them freeze to death on an asteroid, but Bert and Earnie let them work off the damage.

J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 08:08:31 am
His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways  our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good,

My last post on this entire forum was 2 (TWO) DAYS AGO, what kind of consistently anglo-saxon non-sense Have I been promoting  :-\

I don't say it's nonsense. There's something to it, it has evolved and it works well enough to maintain itself. That's better than I can claim for ideas people come up with that they think ought to work.

Quote
Whatever is new and innovative must be connected to old roots, those truly vital roots which must be carefully selected from among those which have merely happened to survive.
Bela Bartok

So, you have set off this other guy to the point he keeps going after you. Are you the troll or is he the troll? Well, the first one who doesn't enjoy it and stops responding is the one who is refusing to be trolled.

Quote
I'm not even a freaking American, I'm African and I find it kind of mad that from one post I get this whole psychoanalyst nonsense ... are you sure you aren't confusing me with some one else  :-\

Sorry about that. It looks to me like you are taking this stand, and maybe your point is something different which I confused with this. If you want to say what your central point is, (if you do have a central point more than a whole lot of related points that are hard to say simply, which is OK too) then I'll try to read carefully. Or if you'd rather just accept that sometimes communication is hard and let it go, that's your choice.

J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 08:12:34 am

He does tend to get confused on people a great deal, like confusing the top UW government official with George W. Bush, who BTW hasn't been in office for over 2 years.

Are you sure that wasn't me? I wrote about Bush instead of the UW top guy once.

Quote
As for "insane," by dictionary definition is NOT a measurement of mental health (or lack thereof).  It's a LEGAL term reserved for those adults unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions or decisions and CAN NOT be trusted with any authority over anything, including their own affairs.

Yes, but in common use, people say somebody is insane when they don't understand him.

J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 08:15:04 am
Quote
J Thomas: So for example, somebody here recently said that the Lancet study of Iraqi casualties was done with bad methods and should be ignored. There was a lot of propaganda claiming that, because it gave results that were politically inconvenient. The methods they claimed to use were in fact exactly the approved methods for that sort of problem.

With all due respect, I'm not at all certain that you know that much about the Lancet studies. The cluster method is not in doubt. The objectivity of the data collectors is. The Lancet is an anti-US, anti-war publication that admitted that their "studies" were timed to come out just before the US elections. George Soros, the famous anti-American and world class criminal funded half of the 2006 study.

The Lancet results indicated about 500 people died every day from violent causes, a very difficult figure to believe, as the morgue data showed an order of magnitude less, and the rabid press, who clung eagerly to every reported civilian death in Iraq, could not come close to corroborating the Lancet body count with their own. The Lancet also claimed to observe death certificates in about 90% of the death claims made in the households. This is also a bizarre figure, as the total number of deaths estimated in the 2006 study is 500,000 greater than the number of death certificates issued in Iraq during the time period they examined. No other survey -- some of which used the same methodology -- came within a quarter of their estimate. Their results on the forms they turned in are unverifiable. It comes down to trusting the data they provide, an extremely dubious proposition because of their known bias. Furthermore, the peer reviews could only examine the methodology the Lancet claimed to have used and crunch the numbers the Lancet gave them to crunch without having a chance to examine the critical source data, the houses the data collectors claimed to have visited, and the claim that their sample was taken randomly in each neighborhood.

A similar thing occurred with Michael Mann's now totally discredited "Hockey Stick" graph. There were many peer reviews that "confirmed" his data. The only problem: they took his word for his source data and ran the data according to his mathematics, both of which were grievously flawed. That's not much of a peer review.

I disagree and I don't want to argue with you about it now.

Holt on April 29, 2011, 08:54:29 am
Hang on. Is one of these fools now claiming that the Lancet, the worlds foremost and oldest peer reviewed journal of medical science is biased?
To be honest I'm more likely to trust them then any anarchist.

Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 09:28:20 am
Quote
Commissar Holt: Hang on. Is one of these fools clear-thinking individuals now claiming that the Lancet, the worlds foremost formerly reputable and oldest peer reviewed journal of medical science is biased?

FIFY. Sadly, yes. The editors themselves blew their last wad of respectability when they admitted the results were timed to influence elections. The left's vile corruption and politicization of science continues. DDT, Global Warming, anti-war driven faked surveys -- where will it end?

Quote
Commissar Holt: To be honest I'm more likely to trust them then any anarchist.

I'm not surprised.

Holt on April 29, 2011, 09:39:09 am
So? It's a journal of MEDICAL SCIENCE not a political rag. Everything non-medical is not worth thinking about when it comes to the Lancet. You don't get it because you want to hear some editorial about the current political climate, you get it because you want to keep up to date on new medical breakthroughs.

The fact is though that they still have more credibility than you ever will.

Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 10:19:42 am
Quote
Commissar Holt: The fact is though that they still have more credibility than you ever will.

It doesn't bother me at all if you say that. It's true, in a way, and the reverse is also true. I'm just one person. The Lancet is an international publication that was once universally respected. Among the left, it still is, or at least, since it's on the left's side, they continue to support it. To the informed rest of us, when it decided that politics was more important than science, it lost its credibility for both. This sort of thing nowadays is fairly common; the Lancet is hardly the first Scientific publication to abandon its principles. It's just a sad thing to see. The mental illness that is the left corrupts everything it touches.

This is not to say that the Lancet has lost all of it's value, but now on certain subjects, it's shown that it can't be trusted.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 10:22:49 am by Aardvark »

Holt on April 29, 2011, 10:45:28 am
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fucking herping while you derp

J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 10:59:08 am
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE frack DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fracking herping while you derp

There's a saying that your'e entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But in reality, people choose their own facts too. Any time scientists get results that people don't want to believe in, they blame the scientists and say the scientists did it wrong. Any time.

You'd think the ozone depletion stuff would be pretty clear by now, wouldn't you? But people still deny it. They come up with any way they can to interpret it as not happening, even now, when the politics have moved on.

One of the basic approaches to denying science is to claim that the scientists themselves have political opinions or political goals. Notice this example -- the claim is that the Lancet editors timed the release of an article for political reasons, and this is evidence that the article itself is no good. The underlying argument goes like this:  The scientists who did the research aren't "our kind of people". So they're liars, they got the wrong results on purpose. If they were our kind of people they would have published the truth, the truth that helps us and not published things that make us look bad.

Of course nothing you can can possibly get through against this sort of reasoning. Because if you argue against it, you are showing that you also are not "our kind of people" and so you are the enemy, who will make up any kind of lie or fallacy to try to sway them or worse to sway third parties who don't know better.

So don't argue unless it's fun to argue. And it's seldom fun to argue with people who are debating in bad faith.

Rorschach on April 29, 2011, 11:11:12 am
I don't any label confirmation nonsense or nor I feel the need to respond to a clown behind his computer calling me ''a Authoritarian Conservative normative'' monster or whatever ... I come to comment about the comic, all else is BS especially if it is on sanctimonious tone.
You're confusing people I think. All I claimed is that you fail  Sartre's tests for "acting in good faith."

sams on April 29, 2011, 11:45:37 am
if you'd rather just accept that sometimes communication is hard and let it go, that's your choice.


I will simply let it go, better this way.

Aardvark on April 29, 2011, 11:50:55 am
Quote
J Thomas: There's a saying that your'e entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But in reality, people choose their own facts too. Any time scientists get results that people don't want to believe in, they blame the scientists and say the scientists did it wrong. Any time.

Any time? It all depends on whose ox is being gored? The truth is nothing but what you believe? You are so cynical. There are facts and there are assertions and there are lies. Facts are not variables. Honest people will agree on a set of facts and argue from there. Dishonest people will not. It's as simple as that.

Quote
J Thomas: One of the basic approaches to denying science is to claim that the scientists themselves have political opinions or political goals.

If it's true, it's true. If it's not, it's not. It is simply a fact that many scientists nowadays do have political opinions that override their science. The global warming fiasco is proof of this. Whether or not one comes down on one side of the issue or the other, at least one group of scientists is making up their facts.

Quote
J Thomas: Notice this example -- the claim is that the Lancet editors timed the release of an article for political reasons, and this is evidence that the article itself is no good. The underlying argument goes like this:  The scientists who did the research aren't "our kind of people". So they're liars, they got the wrong results on purpose. If they were our kind of people they would have published the truth, the truth that helps us and not published things that make us look bad.

Ahem. It isn't a claim, it's a verifiable fact that the Lancet admitted that they timed the release to come before the elections, and yes, it shows something of their politics and their lack of impartiality that they sought to influence US elections. That was hardly the only argument I made, however. You conveniently ignored the rest of the facts I presented to concentrate on one isolated piece of it and then pretended that it was the whole of the argument. That is a straw man, and it is disingenuous. However, if that's all you have, and you cannot offer any counter arguments to the rest of my arguments, then I can safely say that I have won the argument. And if you do offer counter arguments to what I've presented, then you admit that DID have other arguments and thus invalidate the straw man you've just set up. Either way, you lose. Thanks for playing!

Quote
J Thomas: So don't argue unless it's fun to argue. And it's seldom fun to argue with people who are debating in bad faith.

And we agree, although, I suspect, for different reasons. From what I've seen, Commissar Holt is a lefty whose hobby -- or whatever it is -- is to blast the US for any fault, real or imagined, but at least he has a sense of humor. Occasionally you have a point, but too often you remind me of a block of cheese left out too long: inflexible, crusty and unappetizing.

Tucci78 on April 29, 2011, 11:52:20 am
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE frack DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fracking herping while you derp

I've only been reading the current medical periodicals for about thirty-five years now, and even in that brief period I've personally read a helluva lot of stuff that was presented with deliberate duplicity (not to mention a little bit of honest error), and it's been in The Lancet and JAMA and the BMJ and The New England Journal of Medicine and all over the rest of the "gold standard" peer-reviewed plenum.  

I've found that people without proximal professional familiarity with what goes on in the publication of medical journals tend to vest a whole boatload more faith - and it's surely faith, as in "shake that rattle, dance the dance, carve out some guy's beating heart, and we get rain for our crops!" religious faith - in what appears in the glossy pages between the colorful pharmaceuticals advertisements than do those of us in the sawbones racket, many of whom have participated in clinical research, integrated the data derived therefrom, and written up the results.

With this understanding, permit me to observe that it is erroneous to assert that medical journals are not influenced by political chicanery, and that it is insane for a person appraised of this fact to keep on insisting that the contents of these periodicals should be received as if they were ex cathedra infallible.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:55:06 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Holt on April 29, 2011, 12:05:42 pm
It's a medical journal.

WHY THE frack DO YOU READ A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR POLITICS?!

Stop fracking herping while you derp

There's a saying that your'e entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But in reality, people choose their own facts too. Any time scientists get results that people don't want to believe in, they blame the scientists and say the scientists did it wrong. Any time.

You'd think the ozone depletion stuff would be pretty clear by now, wouldn't you? But people still deny it. They come up with any way they can to interpret it as not happening, even now, when the politics have moved on.

One of the basic approaches to denying science is to claim that the scientists themselves have political opinions or political goals. Notice this example -- the claim is that the Lancet editors timed the release of an article for political reasons, and this is evidence that the article itself is no good. The underlying argument goes like this:  The scientists who did the research aren't "our kind of people". So they're liars, they got the wrong results on purpose. If they were our kind of people they would have published the truth, the truth that helps us and not published things that make us look bad.

Of course nothing you can can possibly get through against this sort of reasoning. Because if you argue against it, you are showing that you also are not "our kind of people" and so you are the enemy, who will make up any kind of lie or fallacy to try to sway them or worse to sway third parties who don't know better.

So don't argue unless it's fun to argue. And it's seldom fun to argue with people who are debating in bad faith.


And this is the humanity I love...honestly it's like I'm a battered wife or something.