Jump to content

taks

Members
  • Posts

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by taks

  1. And media outlets like Fox News are BUILT upon partisan fear mongering.

    actually, all media is built upon that concept. not so much "partisan," just fear mongering. news about puppies doesn't sell, unless they are really cute puppies, or someone is eating them.

     

    taks

  2. ARI - Rogers needs to suffer that loss in his first playuoff game. But, hey, a GB vs MIN 2nd round match up? EPIC.

    assuming wisenhunt doesn't pull all his starters in the first quarter, rodgers may get his chance, though i'm uncertain of AZ's chances.

     

    quite frankly, i totally disagree with such a move even though the game didn't mean anything. a team must play to win, always, and simply getting play time in for the 2nd/3rd string players or attempting to avoid injury (of the stars) is not sufficient excuse to dump a game in my book, particularly when fans are paying to see the stars. now GB is going into the playoffs against the very team they embarrassed last week, which gives them an edge. furthermore, AZ is going into the game after a pounding which likely had at least some demoralizing effect.

     

    taks

  3. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It's equally likely that some other influence is causing both the depression and the difficulty sleeping.

    or the depression is causing the difficulty sleeping.

     

    i don't sleep much, nor well when i do, and to my knowledge, i've never been clinically depressed.

     

    taks

  4. I guess to someone who hates the short hours of winter and counts the days until late Spring, 7 minutes more light is a lot? I never really notice until mid-Feb....

    i think you tend to notice more when you have something you have to do every day right at sunset in the winter. late december time-frame it's dark, then suddenly in january it's light, only a few weeks later.

     

    in the mountains it's really noticeable because the sun actually "sets" much earlier due to the peaks, so the transition from sunlight through sunset to dark can be rather rapid.

     

    taks

  5. ya know, the problem with the correlation argument has been known for decades, yet people like mkreku continue to trot it out as evidence of something. do people like this really accept everything that supports their belief this uncritically? it takes 2 seconds to find the data on google, and the refutation is cited every time the flawed argument is made. repeating a flawed argument ad infinitum does not make it any more correct - the refutation is just as valid now as it always has been, yet still it gets made as if everyone suddenly got stupid and forgot. pets are like that trying to get something from you... they'll wait a while then come back at it, probably because they forgot you said no, but it seems like they're hoping you're the one that forgot you said no.

     

    taks

  6. But no matter, since we can't determine whether if guns have created a culture to shoot people more often, or if the culture makes people to shoot each other more often.

    mkreku committed yet another fallacy: **** hoc ergo propter hoc. look it up, mkreku. the correlation, btw, does not hold when you get down to the state level in the US, either. you would expect to see higher death rates (gun-related) in areas with the most liberal gun control laws and/or highest ownership rates, but that is not true (it is all over the map). you would also expect to have seen the UK rate drop relative to the US' after the gun ban went into effect, which it did not (the UK's has always been lower).

     

    taks

  7. Statistically, owning a gun is simply not a good way to defend yourself.

    i missed that one. prove it.

     

    It's not because I don't think you should, it's because you owning a gun is demonstrably bad for society.

    you're right, and a state that has absolute control over an unarmed populace is clearly good for society as has been so frequently demonstrated. oh, wait, it actually worked the other way historically.

     

    Owning a handgun for "self-defense" is selfish and short-sighted.

    you're right, and as a result we look past it to the point of protecting the people from the state. still self defense, but in a much larger context.

     

    Morals have nothing to do with it,

    perhaps in your world, but then again, arguing morals with a someone making such claims is an exercise in circular... wait, you mention it here:

     

    it's simple logic

    yet i get the impression you don't understand what logic means.

     

    the needs of society come before the needs of the individual. Always.

    if you satisfy the needs of the individual first, it will necessarily lead to the betterment of society. history disproves your assertion Always.

     

    taks

  8. Is it now simple enough for you to actually respond to the stupidity posted above? Or are you going to pull out more useless popular internet expressions to avoid the subject?

    i know exactly what GD said, and your response was a strawman, with a bunch of hyperbole and a slippery slope to boot.

     

    Guard Dog wants to keep his **** enlargers, but according to his post (or one of the choices in it), it shouldn't stop with firearms. He doesn't want anyone to be able to tell him what he can or can't have.

    you were so close, here, but he really didn't say "it shouldn't stop with firearms." you added that bit. simply saying "i'm tired of people telling me what i can and can't do" is not even close to the same as saying "i think everyone should have a nuke." besides that, his comment was clearly in the context of self defense, a concept few of your hyperbolic examples fit.

     

    Where does he draw the line? Is there a line? Where does it stop being about "imposing your will on someone else" and simply being "it should be this way because I think it's right"?

    self defense, obviously, but clearly you need someone else to point it out. anyone that understands context, knows exactly what GD meant.

     

    I assume someone is helping you look up all these 'difficult' expressions that you then seem to repeat like a monkey with a keyboard.

    wow. maybe you should stop repeating the same sorts of fallacies? hmmm?

     

    fyi: strawman arguments, or red herrings in general, are the most common fallacious argument. they are the most common because they represent a cop-out when someone, like you, mkreku, doesn't have a legitimate argument and inserts something weak instead, since it is easier to respond to. that's why it is so easy for me to spot, people like you repetedly commit them, probably because your arguments are simply that weak.

     

    now that i've clearly dissected your argument for what it is, do you think maybe we could stop with the nonsense?

     

    taks

  9. they boosted me to business class as a joke on the theme.

    i actually got "bumped" from my seat once due to overbooking and had to accept a first class seat in return. same flight, of course. they actually asked if i would be ok with that. my reply had something to do with bears and pooping in the woods.

     

    taks

  10. Well, I guess it could be food poisoning. The symptoms (nausea, diarrhea, body- and headache, dehydration) are quite similar. I haven't puked yet, but the nausea has gotten close to pushing me over the edge from time to time. This sucks.

    if it is food poisoning, you would know it. you would also be spending much more time in the bathroom on your knees, too. i had to be taken to the hospital the one time i had it. it doesn't typically result in a fever or other aches, as i recall (going on memory from what the doctor told me... probably could check wiki but i'm hungover and not feeling investigative right now). anyway, they gave me a shot that cleared up the nausea in half an hour, and immodium will always plug the back-end rather quickly. add in some saline drips through an IV and i was fine in under 2 hours though i felt out of sorts for a day or two afterward.

     

    technically, there's no such thing as the stomach flu, though i've read that the flu itself can cause nausea and diarrhea (as well as the other symptoms, obviously). i haven't had anything like that in a long time, fortunately, and i certainly don't envy you.

     

    we went out to eat at carrabba's for dinner tonight. excellent, as always. going up to ski in the morning, and staying to ski again sunday, too. tomorrow night is a steak night in downtown frisco.

     

    taks

  11. Who said anything about me actually having the belief that global warming is occuring due to man's intervention.

    well, you did directly say that WE were destroying our host. you even went on to anthropomorphize the earth by calling the damage a "wound."

     

    No, my opinion is more that if this is infact the case, and we cannot address it, then well.. f*** humanity, looks like we fail.

    or we adapt?

     

    taks

  12. Plato argued in The Republic that it was the only way to do human thought.

    i don't care what plato argued, classical greece was not a period representative of what i originally proposed. do some better research, find a different period to prove your point, this one ain't it.

     

    You might want to read up on the history of Greece and Rome before you make up your little hypotheses.

    i did, and i have. i suggest the same to you.

     

    Democracy then was often very different to democracy now (and largely not about individual rights).

    it lasted through the classical greece period which pidesco claims refutes my theory about absolute power, the period in which greece is known for its intellectual advancements.

     

    Not to mention that democracy didn't last that long - much of the time the Greek and Roman empires were run by dictators and emperors.

    not the period referred to as "classical greece." this is easy to find out, had you bothered to look. this is not unlike that comment in the windows7 thread where you failed to actually read the article, right?

     

    knowledge is the enemy of tyranny. you, and many others that post in these silly threads, however, are not.

     

    taks

  13. Human thinking went down the gutter when the church had power.

    that's actually what happens when any one group has absolute power, be it religious or otherwise.

     

    that's where the whole concept of individual rights is derived, as a means to protect people from such groups (particularly the state).

     

    taks

  14. new year's day is tomorrow

    new year's eve on the other hand is today :)

    not here, not when you posted at least. we're like 12 hours behind you. :lol:

     

    13 minutes to NYE for me. will be loaded beginning in about 16 hours.

     

    taks

  15. I've never had it done before and when he bashed my neck I swear to God I nearly jumped up, shouting "OH SO IT'S A FIGHT YOU WANT, IS IT?"

    there are reports that the neck jar thing they do can rupture/tear the carotid. at any rate, my neck has never been the same since my chiropractic visits over a decade ago. my back got better, but that was actually the result of exercise as far as i could tell. never again, and i would not recommend a chiropractor to anyone.

     

    taks

  16. Greed is NOT necessarily evil.

    greed is a moral concept and as such, whether or not it is "evil" depends upon individual moral beliefs.

     

    adam smith felt that pursuit of individual needs, i.e., greed, ultimately served to benefit the many.

     

    taks

  17. Democracy, at the very least, should enable citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided

    that's your failing, in one simple statement. you assume there is only so much pie. tsk.

     

    The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals.

    that's (part of) the purpose of government, but not democracy per se. the purpose of democracy is so people have a choice in how their society is led.

     

    Contrary to popular belief, democracy and capitalism simply don't mix.

    completely untrue, and as already noted, history proves you wrong. does that mean democracy is the best form of government for capitalism? no.

     

    taks

  18. has anyone taken any time to actually comprehend the context of Adam Smith and his intent behind a Laissez Faire system of economics?

    which interpretation would you be attempting to elicit from the hoi polloi?

     

    Or should I just ASSUME that a thread such as this will only elicit inflammatory content as opposed to informed nuances that evidence a less than grey appreciation of how humanity should live in economic harmony based on the resource at hand?

    probably.

     

    granted, you so rarely post anything other than thread closures that i'm too shocked to really comment. nay, afraid.

     

    taks

×
×
  • Create New...