EPTRepublican nominations - Page 66
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
| ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On September 01 2011 06:09 Signet wrote: Doesn't matter, Boehner declined Obama's request to address Congress and suggested an alternative date. This is actually hilarious drama, well played Mr Speaker. His excuse is so much BS too. The House can't rush a bill through and doesn't have enough time to set up security? It is amazing how they can say that with a straight face. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 30 2011 11:45 xDaunt wrote: I like this one better because it shows an alarmists' predictions versus what actually happened: But that's all besides the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted. I'm actually genuinely impressed by the extent to which you are in denial - at this point you're like the _embodiment_ of cognitive dissonance. Romantic and me presented you with two graphs COMPLETELY DISPROVING the idea of a "global cooling trend". It's not a matter of opinion or of interpretation, it's the most basic empirical evidence you could possibly imagine, presented in the form of a graph. The graph shows the temperatures steadily rising - including in the last twenty years. Yet somehow you STILL come up with a statement like " I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend". YES WE ARE, LOOK AT THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE WE JUST POSTED. Jesus Christ. I'm not too surprised you stopped replying to me, I guess it's harder to stay in denial when you have to address the contradicting evidence that someone presents you with. No wonder you can't even acknowledge that mankind has a hand in global warming if you're even in denial about global warming itself. Another gem from xDaunt: On August 30 2011 11:59 xDaunt wrote: What I do basically IS a form of peer review, it's not word games. Let me briefly explain how it works. In a case, an expert presents an opinion. I get to ask the expert about his opinion to make sure that I fully understand what it is and what it's based upon, including facts, methodology, axioms, theory, etc ... basically anything and everything that might be a component of the opinion. I then look at the opinion to see if there are enough holes in it such that the expert should be allowed to present his opinion in court. If there are enough holes, then the opinion is excluded from court. In fact, attorneys who do this regularly in certain fields often know nearly as much about the expert's field as the expert himself. THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEW. "Peer review" = two words, one of those being "peer". Are you an expert in any field (other than law)? NO. You are therefore NOT a peer to the scientists whose works you are trying to form an opinion of. Get this through your head and get over yourself. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On September 01 2011 00:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: My point is it shouldn't be... I thought that was obvious. Nope. Your point isn't obvious. It isn't obvious because 1) In reference to your point about benefits that 'can and should easily be eliminated', you have failed to articulate why they should be eliminated. 2) In reference to your point about benefits that are 'good ideas [that] can easily be set with a simple contract between two people', what on earth is the purpose in drawing up a legal document for virtually 100% of all marriages (you said they were good ideas, I'm sure most of the people getting married would agree with you and therefore want those same benefits to exist in their marriage) when every marriage contract is going to contain the same words? It is more efficient to codify those benefits DIRECTLY into the statute and let people who don't want those benefits to waive them, instead of the other way around. Or do you actually think it's a good idea for two engaged individuals to hire attorneys to negotiate the terms and conditions of their marriage? 3) Most of the benefits that are codified in the list I posted place burdens and duties upon 3rd parties, 3rd parties which have no obligation to either spouse who have entered into a marriage contract with each other, except as required by law, and a contract is not a law. You're clearly delusional if you think turning marriage into a contract is a good idea. Either that, or you don't know anything about contracts. 4) Complete ignorance and pretense that other countries don't exist. Let's assume you have your way, and marriage as a legal institution is abolished. So now, the next family that enters the US...isn't a family anymore, until they hire attorneys and draft up a contract. The next family that leaves the US to go another country...isn't a family anymore, until they get married in that country. Sounds nice. By nice, I mean completely fucking insane. I hope you're fucking joking. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2011/08/31/opinion/moore-romney-perry/index.html?hpt=po_bn1 | ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
On September 01 2011 00:11 Signet wrote: I don't think many modern Christian scholars would say that this rich man was condemned to Hell, but clearly the point of lines 21-24 is that Christians should give any possessions/wealth beyond what they actually need to live to the poor. A government based around biblical law (which most Republicans seem to want) wouldn't cut welfare programs in order to let the rich keep a higher percent of their income. This, I agree with. My point simply being that one shouldn't attempt to twist Christ's words. The man had obeyed all of the commandments, and asking what he still lacked, Christ, using powers beyond our mortal means, caught his weakness and asked him to overcome it. We all have weaknesses, worldly or material possessions that we cannot part with. This man was basically asked to give up what wouldn't last. His sin wasn't necessarily being rich, but being unable to part with it for the Kingdom. He loved it more than God, in a matter of speaking. The claim however in the last line of your argument, goes to the heart of what purpose government should play. No man should be forced to contribute to another man's welfare against his own will. Churches and charities receive large amounts of funds to help the poor and needy, and this is not government endorsed. To say that our government's role is to babysit an idle and lazy populace is the sad state in which we find ourselves. Agree or disagree, the issue really comes from what role we feel government should play in our lives. If you're truly conservative, or have any respect for the constitution and it's restrictions on the federal government, you would naturally also oppose such programs. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 01 2011 08:26 Whitewing wrote: Interesting opinion article from CNN.com on why Romney can't possibly get the tea party vote over Rick Perry: http://www.cnn.com/2011/08/31/opinion/moore-romney-perry/index.html?hpt=po_bn1 A lot of hyperbole in this article, but damn did I find it funny. I don't think Obama has much to worry about if Perry beats Romney personally. Perry is great for a primary but in a general election there isn't a chance in fucking hell he can win any moderates, or even moderate republicans. He is too crazy and the second he gets questions about his goals to ban gay marraige and get rid of social programs people rely on juxtaposed to Obamas responses, it won't even be close. On top of that the idiot would probably pick somebody like Palin or Bachman for his VP. That is an insta-loss. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 01 2011 06:36 kwizach wrote: I'm actually genuinely impressed by the extent to which you are in denial - at this point you're like the _embodiment_ of cognitive dissonance. Romantic and me presented you with two graphs COMPLETELY DISPROVING the idea of a "global cooling trend". It's not a matter of opinion or of interpretation, it's the most basic empirical evidence you could possibly imagine, presented in the form of a graph. The graph shows the temperatures steadily rising - including in the last twenty years. Yet somehow you STILL come up with a statement like " I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend". YES WE ARE, LOOK AT THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE WE JUST POSTED. Jesus Christ. I'm not too surprised you stopped replying to me, I guess it's harder to stay in denial when you have to address the contradicting evidence that someone presents you with. No wonder you can't even acknowledge than mankind has a hand in global warming if you're even in denial about global warming itself. Another gem from xDaunt: THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEW. "Peer review" = two words, one of those being "peer". Are you an expert in any field (other than law)? NO. You are therefore NOT a peer to the scientists whose works you are trying to form an opinion of. Get this through your head and get over yourself. Why exactly are you dredging this up again from 2-3 days ago and why exactly are you incapable of even accurately stating what I said (the peer review thing being one obvious example)? Yet, you still expect me to reply to you? Even worse, neither you nor Romantic were even engaging me on the point that I was actually trying make: that making economic policy based upon what the global warming scientists are telling is stupid. Instead, you dragged the whole conversation into the mud. I really have better things to do, and I would rather keep this thread more on point in terms of discussing the republican candidates. In short, I'm through with you. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On September 01 2011 08:57 koreasilver wrote: Your understanding of "peer review" is the funniest thing I have ever seen. Yeah, this is funnier than it has right to be. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 01 2011 08:57 koreasilver wrote: Your understanding of "peer review" is the funniest thing I have ever seen. You might as well just pick up a kindergarten child to review astrophysics papers. Another failure in reading comprehension. I said that what I do is a "form of peer review." I didn't say that what I do is "peer review." Moreover, I described what I do, not what academics/scientists do when conducting actual peer review. Last I checked, actual peer review isn't too different from what I described, other than the fact that peer review has more "objective" goals in mind, whereas I am generally looking to undermine the opinion. The underlying principles of each process are still the same. EDIT: FFS, I can't believe that I have to add this to appease all the literalist trolls out there. What I do is obviously not actual peer review because as I am not a "peer" of the people whose opinions I am reviewing. HOWEVER, what I do essentially is indistinguishable in form, which is the whole point that I was trying to make -- apparently too poorly for many readers to grasp. | ||
|
jace32
33 Posts
On September 01 2011 09:18 xDaunt wrote: Another failure in reading comprehension. I said that what I do is a "form of peer review." I didn't say that what I do is "peer review." Moreover, I described what I do, not what academics/scientists do when conducting actual peer review. Last I checked, actual peer review isn't too different from what I described, other than the fact that peer review has more "objective" goals in mind, whereas I am generally looking to undermine the opinion. The underlying principles of each process are still the same. LOL please stop, it hurts. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 01 2011 08:32 dOofuS wrote: The claim however in the last line of your argument, goes to the heart of what purpose government should play. No man should be forced to contribute to another man's welfare against his own will. Churches and charities receive large amounts of funds to help the poor and needy, and this is not government endorsed. To say that our government's role is to babysit an idle and lazy populace is the sad state in which we find ourselves. Agree or disagree, the issue really comes from what role we feel government should play in our lives. If you're truly conservative, or have any respect for the constitution and it's restrictions on the federal government, you would naturally also oppose such programs. Oh I definitely agree that you can be both Christian and libertarian, even anarchist. I have issues with the ones who are all for enacting biblical laws when they can tell others how to live (ie, recognition of marriage for hetero couples but not gays, restrictions on abortion, teaching creationism in public schools) but the moment it comes to helping the poor or protecting the environment, suddenly big government is a bad thing (I mean, when the government is telling a woman she has to take her fetus through childbirth, we're way past the point of "small gov't"). In fact I think that passage in Matthew is a pretty decent analogy for that. And yes, I think the people who use the Bible to justify welfare and environmentalism while believing the government should recognize gay marriage and allow abortion are being just as inconsistent. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 01 2011 09:18 xDaunt wrote: Another failure in reading comprehension. I said that what I do is a "form of peer review." I didn't say that what I do is "peer review." Moreover, I described what I do, not what academics/scientists do when conducting actual peer review. Last I checked, actual peer review isn't too different from what I described, other than the fact that peer review has more "objective" goals in mind, whereas I am generally looking to undermine the opinion. The underlying principles of each process are still the same. EDIT: FFS, I can't believe that I have to add this to appease all the literalist trolls out there. What I do is obviously not actual peer review because as I am not a "peer" of the people whose opinions I am reviewing. HOWEVER, what I do essentially is indistinguishable in form, which is the whole point that I was trying to make -- apparently too poorly for many readers to grasp. The only issues with scientific papers which you have expertise to undermine are those of basic reasoning, and even that is shaky without knowing the science behind the data. I don't know for certain about climate science, but for biology at least, not knowing the methodology that is used in some practical detail hinders your ability to give worthwhile opinion as to the conclusions of that paper. Both you and the peer reviewer are skeptical observers, yes. The resemblance ends there. There is a huge difference between a lawyer trying to show up a paper and a scientist who likely has knowledge of that specific field, and in many cases years, if not more than a decade of personally working with that exact same technique and is intimately aware of the kind of shenanigans that can and cannot be pulled with this kind of data. Do not attempt to equate the two. PS: Ever wonder why the "Discovery Institute" uses more lawyers than scientists to "challenge" the Theory of Evolution and why every single "flaw in Darwinism" they find says more about their inability to comprehend papers than any real problem? | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On September 01 2011 12:24 hummingbird23 wrote: The only issues with scientific papers which you have expertise to undermine are those of basic reasoning, and even that is shaky without knowing the science behind the data. I don't know for certain about climate science, but for biology at least, not knowing the methodology that is used in some practical detail hinders your ability to give worthwhile opinion as to the conclusions of that paper. Both you and the peer reviewer are skeptical observers, yes. The resemblance ends there. There is a huge difference between a lawyer trying to show up a paper and a scientist who likely has knowledge of that specific field, and in many cases years, if not more than a decade of personally working with that exact same technique and is intimately aware of the kind of shenanigans that can and cannot be pulled with this kind of data. Do not attempt to equate the two. PS: Ever wonder why the "Discovery Institute" uses more lawyers than scientists to "challenge" the Theory of Evolution and why every single "flaw in Darwinism" they find says more about their inability to comprehend papers than any real problem? First off... Welcome to TL!  Hope you have a great stay.Secondly xdaunt is partially correct in saying that people took his single statement way too seriously. What he was trying to say was that he is not some idiot who doesn't think critically. Your points and the others raised are accurate and I have myself stated similar sentiments earlier in the thread. The thing is it actually has nothing to do with what he was saying. He will never be convinced and hence can be accurately labelled a denialist. No point arguing further. Your point about the Discovery Institute is enlightening though  PS. I suggest a wander over to the ABL, Random Pics and Whitera thread for some shits and giggles. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
Fair enough, I'll back off daunt's statement. | ||
|
liepzig
Singapore45 Posts
On September 01 2011 09:18 xDaunt wrote: Another failure in reading comprehension. I said that what I do is a "form of peer review." I didn't say that what I do is "peer review." Moreover, I described what I do, not what academics/scientists do when conducting actual peer review. Last I checked, actual peer review isn't too different from what I described, other than the fact that peer review has more "objective" goals in mind, whereas I am generally looking to undermine the opinion. The underlying principles of each process are still the same. EDIT: FFS, I can't believe that I have to add this to appease all the literalist trolls out there. What I do is obviously not actual peer review because as I am not a "peer" of the people whose opinions I am reviewing. HOWEVER, what I do essentially is indistinguishable in form, which is the whole point that I was trying to make -- apparently too poorly for many readers to grasp. LOL that's because your "point" is weak and fallacious. All you have been saying is that you are smarter than 1) actual scientists and 2) the rest of the TL community. Go spout your nonsense somewhere else. You can show us your "peer review" when you've got your pHd | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/2w7i8mt.gif)
