timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Newsweek article on global warming being overstated or a good thing.
Seems to reek of bias. Opinions?
Seems to reek of bias. Opinions?
[quote-sech]Is there global warming? YES
Is it bad for people? YES
Is there something that we can do to mitigate or stop it? YES
Does the source matter? NO
Just to correct a few misconceptions:I like jtr's fantasy dream of hundreds of thousands (it would require that many to effectively reduce the percentage of personal vehicle ownership, not to mention massive screening security costs you don't have with personal vehicles, muggers-*Bernard Getz* jtr?, terrorist plots, jtr?) 'failsafe' 400mph maglev trains crossing the continents, running on minature fusion engines. Only need to rob the world's entire bank accts. to the tune of penta dollars to fund R&D, and then manufacturer such a project. Then we'll reduce 1/2 of emissions, and live in utopia...not.
We'll be waiting...You won't have time to laugh when it does fall on your head.
This all reminds of Chicken little.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
So you can ignore his links, and he'll ignore all yours with the same justification, but mirrored. I'm sure you'll meet in the middle sooner or later.From my regular visits to Fark.com, I can tell you that most of the crap on WorldnetDaily comes from people who think Fox News is too liberal; it's on about the same level with Newsmax.com or FreeRepublic.com in terms of its shrill and biased hard right viewpoints.
In other words, nothing on that site is worth more than that proverbial spit.
Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.
Don't worry you're not alone... However, some people apparently aren't able to do so.I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.
Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.
Don't worry you're not alone... However, some people apparently aren't able to do so.
I just don't have that kind of time. Each story from an untrustworthy source would need to be verified by other sources, and those would need to be verified.
I think anything which shows up on WorldNetDaily can safely be discounted in any argument where facts might need to play a part. WND is at best an opinion site which masquerades as news in service of a right wing worldview.
Same for Fox News. In either case, the media oonsumer should seriously discount it as a source.
Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.
Please... Don't tell me you're that stupid... You do this each and every day in lots of other areas. How do you determine the trustworthiness of anything you read online? Why is this any harder than anything else you read? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse?I have another minute or so, so I'll bite.
How?
Do you already have first-hand knowledge of the event?
Did you originally hear it from a "known good" source?
Does it pass a "smell test" based on other information?
If you don't know that the source you are reading is trustworthy, what good information can you get from it?
Please... Don't tell me you're that stupid... You do this each and every day in lots of other areas. How do you determine the trustworthiness of anything you read online? Why is this any harder than anything else you read? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse?
Your argument assumes some sort of false dichotomy. Since I don't accept the premise of the questions I sure am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of your questions.Now, if you could demonstrate some willingness to debate by answering the original question, we could continue.
Your argument assumes some sort of false dichotomy. Since I don't accept the premise of the questions I sure am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of your questions.
I will say however that you can ask your same 3-4 questions of everything I read online whether it's a video card review, or a story about all the hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. How come you can make those calls for other things?
What makes "NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz)" so neutral when we can't even confirm first hand the information is correct?
Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.
Yes because the gov't does things so well. Look at how well the run medicare, welfare, social security, securing our borders, the whole Katrina situation, Amtrak, the postal service, etc, etc, etc. Clearly we need to put the same bunch of idiots in charge of more stuff.Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.
Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society. I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?
I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.
Agreed! Corporations having the rights of individuals makes no sense.Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.
Also agreed! A large group of is incredibly powerful! This is not a good thing!I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.
Totally disagree! I know somewhere it says that the government is supposed to act in the public good, but in reality it is worse than those corporations you speak of. The amount of power entrusted to the federal government practically insures corruption, and many of those same protections that make the corporations so foul are just as bad or worse here.Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society.
Every church and every non-profit are simply more corporations, with their own agendas that do not always (if ever) line up with the "public good"I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?
A few of them may work, but they don't work well, or efficiently. The solution should be less gov't, not more gov't. The gov't gets involved and things go downhill in a hurry. Just look at how well the public education system in the US works.Medicade works. The Interstate Highway system works. Our Military works. Rural Electrification would never have happened if some jerkoff had said "We'll let the market handle it!"
A few of them may work, but they don't work well, or efficiently. The solution should be less gov't, not more gov't.
That doesn't work. What we end up with is a situation where a non-governmental body ends up regulating some large and important part of our lives, or else that non-governmental body chooses not to because it's not profitable. I'd rather place my faith in a governmental body that I theoretically have some control over as a citizen in a democratic country than in what a corporate board of directors feels like doing on a given day.
Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. The current mortgage lending crisis should be proof of that.
The gov't gets involved and things go downhill in a hurry. Just look at how well the public education system in the US works.
It works better than you think it does, obviously. Particularly when you realize that a lot of the material now taught at the high school level used to be reserved for college level instruction.
The current mortgage crisis is the result of the gov't involvement and interference in the mortgage industry, not a result of their being hands off.Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. The current mortgage lending crisis should be proof of that.
The test score sure don't show it. The US ranks dead last in industrialized nations despite being number 1 on per student spending.It works better than you think it does, obviously. Particularly when you realize that a lot of the material now taught at the high school level used to be reserved for college level instruction.
The current mortgage crisis is the result of the gov't involvement and interference in the mortgage industry, not a result of their being hands off.
The test score sure don't show it. The US ranks dead last in industrialized nations despite being number 1 on per student spending.
See, the problem is that the gov't is interfering with the mortgage industry by offering gov't backed loans which artificially suppress the interest rates that people who are credit risks would otherwise pay. As a result the non gov't backed lenders have to compete with the gov't and provide lower interest rates than they otherwise would...I rather suspect it wouldn't've happened with proper regulation and government oversight.