StrangeSox

Right, Adams was pretty heavily attacked for doing that, like anyone who defends Al Qaeda suspects are now. It was a big risk, personally and professionally, to do that. But, any time we want to hero-worship the founders or treat their ideas as holy writ, we need to remind ourselves that they counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and treated women as property. They were human, and they certainly were fallible. Political science and philosophy have both advanced quite a bit since the late 18th century, and virtues from that time may simply big wrong in a modern society.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) I think you missed this in your skimming... Well, to sound a little contradictory here, more CO2 may be "better for the biosphere" overall (though I don't know how you quantify that), but it probably isn't better for humans (along with many other species).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) Here is an excerpt from Super Freakonomics which describes the position taken by Intellectual Ventures: Excerpt from Super Freakonomics It's a long excerpt, but I promise you, it is definitely worth reading... One big problem from skimming: The "CO2 is good for plants!" argument doesn't hold up, especially not for all plants and all situations. CO2 would have to be the limiting factor for growth, and we'd have to ignore the likely droughts and floods that will result. Also, I'm pretty sure this: Is just simply untrue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) I have no information on their position on climate change and I can't seem to find any at that page. Can you fill in the blanks? I know the freakonomics guys support "geoengineering" over carbon pricing/taxing/limiting policies.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) Do you really not get the fallacy in your logic? Basically you are taking the Glen Beck side of things, where you have no burden of proof, but everyone else does. Seriously, what are you talking about? Have I made a positive claim here that I need to support? No. You have. And, when it was pointed out that there really isn't any support for the $200M figure, you tried to shift the burden of proof. This was pointed out by multiple people, not just me or BS. If I make a claim, then I have the burden. Asking someone else to support their claim does not give me any burden. What you're doing here, what Beck does, is to make a claim and assume it's true unless it's refuted. I haven't actually made a claim, so your argument makes no sense. And you still haven't, by the way, supported the original assertion in question. Just to expand a bit, if I can show that a statement I disagree with is wrong, if I can find reliable counterfactuals or contradictory evidence, I'll provide it. But in this case, my point is that we really have no source for the costs of these trips. We've a rough idea of how many people went, and that's really it. Which is why, if you want to use the $200M to make an argument or criticize spending, I'm going to ask you to support it with something reliable. We can discuss the merits of expensive overseas travel, of his family coming with, or other factors without the "ZOMG OBAMA WASTES $1B!" figure. It's not necessary and it's not grounded in reality.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:35 AM) I would love to see Congress deal with the tax cut question by submitting two bills - one for extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets, and a seperate one for extension or modification for the top tiers. The lower one will pass in a hurry from both sides, and that will allow those to continue, while the higher tier ones are debated. Seems like a win for everyone, since everyone can point to tax cuts for 99% of the country. I don't know why the Democrats didn't do this before the election, honestly. It would have forced Republicans to either hold up "tax cuts for the middle class" to get tax cuts for the wealthy, or to give up tax cuts for the wealthy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:31 AM) So basically you can just say prove it to every single person who posts something, and you have nothing to prove ever. Sure that makes perfect sense. Do you really not get that this is a logical fallacy? Seriously?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 07:36 AM) A few of these are laughably WTF...but there's a serious point in this one that has come up again and again in the media. We heard over and over that Obama should have "focused more on jobs" or something along those lines. What exactly does giving a press conference saying "I want to create jobs" actually do? No one is going to create jobs based on a press conference. You can argue specific policies that might be job creators...I'd go for additional infrastructure spending and a huge investment in clean energy, others might go for an upper class tax cut...but you don't get any of those by going out every day and saying "I want to create jobs". You want to win an election? Actually create some. Ironically, Boehner's main focus seems to be repealing health care.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 07:21 AM) This. It's not like they are getting thoroughly outplayed all of the time, but they keep having bad decisions & mental lapses that are causing them to give up goals, while they can't seem to make the big play offensively. The talent is obviously there, and as the young guys keep getting more ice time, I think they will start looking better. I really like what I have seen from Skille & Dowell. LOL at the doom & gloom attitude that seems to be prevailing in & around the UC. I guess since they won the Cup, people expected them to breeze through the NHL despite all the roster changes and new youth in the lineup. Now people seem to act like this team never has a chance to be good again. Let's not forget they have 4 of the top 25-30 players in the entire NHL signed for the next 5 seasons. Btw, f*** the NHL schedule makers. Why do the Hawks have 4-6 more games played than any other team in the division??? I'm sure that is not helping, it seems like almost every game is part of a back-to-back. They've played more games than anyone. NJ's played 14, there's two or three teams at 13 and the rest are bunched in the 10-11-12 range, with a couple of teams only having played 9. I guess that means they'll have a more spread out schedule at some point in the year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:32 PM) I'm asking you to do the exact same thing. You tell me why it is unreasonable for you to do it too. Because I'm not making a positive assertion, I"m asking you to support yours. Shifting the Burden is a logical fallacy.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) Ummm, cause 3000 people, a history of significant spending, and speculation of 200 million in costs. Looks to me like I have support and all you do is post, no, bulls***. Well if that is the case, get out of the thread cause you clearly don't want to discuss things. No, you don't. Speculation isn't evidence. I'm not exactly making an argument here, merely asking you to support yours. I don't need support to be skeptical. Now, if you come with some reliable evidence for a claim and I unreasonable question or reject it, that's a different story. Asking someone to support an assertion is something. I did not say it cannot be true or is not a fact; I have said, repeatedly, that it is simply not a supported claim. Which can lead to a fair discussion, as long as we all agree that speculation isn't evidence and the burden of proof for a claim lies on the person making a claim.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:52 PM) You guys are the unclassy ones who don't do anything but through out trivial comments. You don't even want to debate or discuss the issue and its pretty darn pathetic. A discussion on the merits of the trip, regardless of cost or assuming argumento $200M, is worth having. I'll drop this if you will and we can all move on.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) f*** off. I don't have to prove anything. If you want to support an assertion, yeah, you kinda do. I'm asking you to support a claim. Why is that so unreasonable?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) What poor reasoning? I think it is a worthy thing to know and learn. Something was said by an official. Does he know, I have no idea. Right, there was no compelling reason to believe his claims. This was pointed out, and you and Mike responded by shifting the burden to others to disprove the claim. No, you did not. But you still tried to shift the burden, and you tried to use fuzzy arguments that "if they don't address it, there's reason to believe it." Like I said, the figure may be right, but assuming it's true without examination simply because someone said it and, so far, no one has refuted it does not make for a good argument.

Who has that attitude? The argument is that overseas travel, while expensive, is a worthwhile expenditure because of the benefits it can bring.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) What's worse? 200 million now, or 200 billion down the road because we didn't have this economic/political ally? This shortsightedness has to stop, it's a big reason why were in the economic/political situation we are in now. Yep. Not to mention national security concerns. Diplomacy isn't cheap, and to borrow an old adage, "you've gotta spend money to make money."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) Buffalo grabbed Shawne Merriman off of waivers. Hell, that's a reasonable gamble. Worst thing that happens is he undermines the coach of a winless team and makes a fool of an organization in the toilet anyway. Seems like guys fall off from their highs in the NFL faster than anywhere else.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:17 PM) How many people can match her job for job? 50? 100? 500? 1,000? Small numbers compared to our total population. I'll agree she is an example of making mistakes at the top, but she sold people within those organizations and their boards on some of this stuff. For that she is an excellent salesperson. I also base that on my belief that she thought she was doing the right thing. But she was, ultimately, a failure at that position and for her to campaign as a strong, smart executive is pretty ironic. Saying she had "interesting" ideas doesn't excuse the fact that they were also bad ideas.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:12 PM) Sorry, basic logic, such as "assertions need support before being considered plausible or true" is incontrovertible fact. Go back and read some of Mike and Jason's posts where they pretty damn clearly try to shift the blame, and when it's pointed out, don't see anything wrong with that. Here: QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) itt we witness how speculation passes into fact and dominates discussions of ultimately meaningless issues while important issues are ignored. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:47 PM) $200 million a day isn't "meaningless" That would fund my hometown school system for four years. Its that exact attitude that has put us $14 TRILLION in the hole. Begging the question in the first sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) Think about it, people talk about how much of her personal fortune Meg Whitman pissed away during her campaign (between 160 and 170 million). And that is still less than going to India will cost in one day. egging the question in the second sentence. That this trip really costs $200M is not in evidence, yet it's being taken for fact. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) So is someone going to show any proof it isn't real, or is this one of those things where it just keeps getting repeated until everyone takes it as gospel? Shifting the burden of proof, and then unironically trying to accuse others of doing it. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:07 PM) What unsubstantiated claim am I making? Why don't you please enlighten me. I didn't write the article stating the 200 million and I haven't seen you get off your ass and show me something to prove it wrong. Shifting the burden of proof. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) There is also nothing to prove that it isn't, except your speculation. Shifting the burden of proof. And then I explained why I think it is representative of how narratives spread from conservative media. edit: Ultimately, the $200M figure may be accurate or at least somewhat accurate. But the arguments given above are still fallacious reasons for accepting it. You can get to the right answer through poor reasoning.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) Pretty much the microcosm of the liberal logic stream - (1) deem X an uncontrovertible fact, (2) insult any person that either doesn't believe in and/or simply questions X, (3) blame Bush, (4) comment on Rush/Fox News and the dumbing down of America, (5) make outlandish statement about conservative thought/agenda (5) forget what initial issue was, move on to opinion Y, (6) repeat. Sorry, basic logic, such as "assertions need support before being considered plausible or true" is incontrovertible fact. Go back and read some of Mike and Jason's posts where they pretty damn clearly try to shift the blame, and when it's pointed out, don't see anything wrong with that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) Frankly, that's probably a whole additional plane full of security and equipment, since they won't be following the President around everywhere he goes. A valid point.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Lets see, a pattern of overspending. I'd find that pretty damn relevant. It's circumstantial evidence at best. Provide it. No, it doesn't raise that question. Assuming that the claim should be addressed is begging the question that it is worth addressing. The White House does not need to respond to every off-the-wall assertion thrown out, and accusations shouldn't be assumed true otherwise. How much additional cost is his family, three people, going to bring? When you say his "entourage", who do you mean?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people. Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant. Don't forget that they had to reassemble a few helicopters. Ship and maintain the limos and a couple doze other vehicles. Set up the security command centers, network, get equipment in place, etc. Who knows how many SS officers. Journalists are in there, but I'm not sure how that would apply to the $200M number.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:57 PM) Seriously? Get the f*** out. You seriously are going to go out and post this and act as if your blessed democratic party is just perfect and that its just the big bad conservative pundits. Give me a freaking break. I don't like the Democrats much. I'm going to seriously post that as an example of how it works, and I predicted it. You're using poor reasoning to accept specious claims because you like the claims. You've already tried to shift the burden multiple times. This is how misleading, untruthful political rhetoric works, and it's a hallmark of conservative media.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) These news outlets are all repeating the same thing from the same source. Where are the facts to back up this claim? Some form of the f***** fallacy (The f***** fallacy is a belief that multiple pieces of suspect or weak evidence provide strong evidence when bundled together), perhaps. Circular reasoning, at least.