StrangeSox

I find it insulting when people hand-wave away anything they don't like.

Martyr! [/other conservative hand-wave]

You know what's awesome? Straw men. I love straw men. edit: I'm not belittling you, I'm belittling illogical reasoning, such as broadly dismissing all polls on the grounds that some may be manipulated. You're not questioning the validity but declaring all invalid.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) No, I'm not. As you can often check for photo manipulations (at least pros can) -- whereas with poll data, you cannot fact check them unless you were standing there with the pollster to see how they collected said data. This is incorrect.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Because that's the same thing. This marks my exit from this thread. Government running a non-profit business against private for-profit and non-profit businesses. How is it so starkly different? Also, if the government plan isn't as good, people will pay more for more value from the private plans. If they can offer comparable value for lower cost w/ no profit, what exactly am I supposed to have a problem with?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) This is the point people seem to miss when it comes to government run programs. Entitlement aside, the fact is, the government is the only entity in the free world that is able to run a business in the red -- it can be in debt, it can over spend and it can make NO money and never be affected. If private health insurance has to compete with an entity that doesn't have to make a profit, they stand no chance. And that's how government insurance would work. If they went over budget -- so what -- tax people -- tax something, anything...doesn't matter. If Blue Cross, for example, doesn't make a profit, they go bankrupt. Big difference. Why aren't all private schools out of business then?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) No, it's not. Yes, it is. Dismissing all polls because they can be manipulated is not logical. Dismissing polls that are manipulated is. Scientific data can be manipulated, so that's why we have peer-review. There's ways to verify data and check methodologies. If you find a problem, then it is logical to dismiss. You're setting it up to reject any data sets aside from personal anecdotes which is a completely illogical position to argue from.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Depends -- if those thousands were actually anonymous thousands from various random areas -- maybe I'd trust it, but I know how polls tend to work, and that's not it. They tend to try to get their data from crowds that will deliver them the answers they're looking for. It'd be like going to San Francisco and asking 1000 people if gay marriage should be allowed, and then going to po-dunk Arkansas and asking the same question of a 1000 more...I can tell you how those two polls will turn out. So tell me what the obviously flawed methodology in this poll is. That's why they report things like that--so people can check if they're fudging numbers.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) I dismiss all polls, including ones that happen to take side with what I feel is right because I know how easy they are to manipulate. Good enough? No, its still completely illogical.

I've only occasionally read this thread, so I didn't really ignore anything. Data gathering > anecdotal claims. That doesn't mean that the anecdotes aren't true or that there aren't problems but that anecdotal evidence doesn't extrapolate to a broader level. How is the data skewed? You're just hand-waving away anything you don't agree with. Confirmation bias in full effect. I didn't say Republican either, but it is an incredibly common tactic of conservatives & R's to immediately dismiss any poll with unfavorable results without explaining why the poll is flawed.

Everyone knows that you can manipulate any poll to say whatever you want so all polls/ surveys are meaningless (unless I find one that agrees with what I'm saying, then its 100% factual). [/conservative hand-waving of contradictory data] edit: hahahahahaha did I call it or what? Point out the flawed methodology. You can't just reject any data set that you don't like on the basis that you don't like it. If you're going to accuse them of fraud, you've got the burden of proof. Show where the data is skewed. Show where their methodology is biased.

It was a temporary response t a DoS problem. http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800...articleid=26970

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 03:05 PM) Carl Everett doesn't eat meat more than 5000 years old because it doesn't exist. Eccentric scientists eat frozen mammoth meat.

Chimps also like to cannibalize their enemies. We're omnivores, and there's really no way around that.

This writer is a terrible person.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 09:10 AM) However, by observing animal behavior and feeding habits, we can learn if other species voluntarily become vegetarians or carnivores. Felines are obligate carnivores. They will die without meat.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 10:08 PM) You really think humans have sharp, pointy teeth like a wolf, lion, or other predators? Perhaps you can demonstrate for me how a human can run down a deer or other prey and sink your sharp, pointy teeth into their hide like other predators do. Do we have a set of teeth like a cow or a horse? Or do we have a nice mix of teeth for meat-eating and plant-eating, being omnivores and all? There are plenty of carnivorous animals that do not physically catch their prey at all (scavengers) or that do not bring an animal down with their teeth (apes, including humans).

People are weird. I have several friends that are vegetarians and one or two are vegans. I've got nothing against that choice, I just don't agree over the ethical/ moral arguments of killing an animal.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) Apparently you don't want me to "Deal with it" anymore. yeah, that was a lame thing to say. "Accept the reality that your food source results in the death of sentient animals, even if they are not the intended target" is much better.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) Like I said. I choose not to purposefully kill sentient beings. Animals are killed to provide your food source. they may not be intentionally harvested, but there is zero doubt that they will be killed in the agricultural process.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) Vegetables don't have a central nervous system. So? Whatever ethical judgments you pass on people who eat regular diets, fruitarians pass the same on you. However ridiculous you think they might be, we (or at least I) think the same of your arguments.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) I care about all sentient beings. You've no problem killing some forms of life based on emotional separations. Hope you've never swatted a gnat or mosquito away.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) Wow. Keep convincing your self that you have a great argument. Also since I'm sure you're anti-murder for humans I expect you to sell your car and walk everywhere for the rest of your life since cars and other vehicles accidentally kill people. I look forward to some more ingenious arguments from you. Perhaps you'll tell me that eating vegetables equals murder too. If you're eating farm-grown vegetables, animals were killed in the harvesting of those. There's no way around that. At least acknowledge that your chosen food source still results in the deaths of animals (not to mention millions of innocent plants!).

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) i have bad news for you BigSqwert, farms that use mechanical harvesting kill tons of animals. you need to stop eating vegetables if you wish to be truly, as you have defined, humane; never eat food that has caused the death of an animal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) Probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard for rationalizing meat eating. Why do you only care about animals? Don't other life forms have just as much "right" to live?