Fundamentalist Evangelicalism != Christianity.

Also make sure that you don't confuse Protestants with Catholics. Also, make sure you don't confuse media oversimplifications for the statements themselves.

What the Pope said about condoms in Africa is certainly execrable and foul, but he didn't actually say that condoms spread AIDS.

She is aware of the issue and is not just attacking the false use of the word theft , for copy right infringement.

It is a fact that in some cases copy right infringement amounts to theft by proxy.

say i was sum one that designs and makes bikes i would have had to invested my time in making the bike i would have invested cost in buying the metal and then that money will have gone to the people who got the metal for me.

if you duplicated bikes ore it was passable it would no longer be financially viable for people to design and build bikes and the metal industry would no longer be able to make mony from the bike industry. and well i would no longer be able to make mony from bikes evan though it was something i loved.


Why am i not allowed to make money out of music ore software ?


If we lived in a compleaty flat structured anarchist/ socialist society then I would not mind the problem is in the current system if your default position is copy everything that's non hard ware without paying for it then you are actually stifling creativity. ( ore at a minimum the ability to derive an income from creativity)


the thing that makes it worse is the big companies who are actually pushing the anti copy agenda are the ones that are not affected by it because thay can brain wash large sectoins of the populatoin with advertising to still buy the stuff thay are selling. Where as independent artists , small dev studios are counting on 100 - 1,000 sales to bank roll there next project.


I agree that Theft is the wrong word to use but Theft by proxy is a more than appropriate description of what copy right infringement can do in some cases not all.

I am actually more on the side of people copying things and distributing materials freely Evan if that is at the determent to some indi artists (not all indi artists ) I just don't think oversimplification of the issue is constructive.


In an educated ethical society it would not be illegal to copy anything and in fact all perchises of physical/non physical goods would be the same . you would simply pay Base rate production costs + what u thought it was worth. that way people with lots of money would pay relative to what thay had and people with less would pay relative to what thay had.

In the capitalist society we are in now this is only possible for coffee shops and other small retailers that can use sociology to there advantage in terms of people fealing obliged to be reasonable and it is yet to be seen if this could work if it was the norm (although i would hope it did).

While interesting, it lacks a depth of explanation I think. Other super powers of the past have collapsed from within without the list he spelled out. The social, economic and diplomatic factors of different "empires" might affect the breaking point to the degree that you can't make a "standard" model for them. Innate complexities of large human interactions and earth conditions may mean a more specific model is the only real model to be had and as such, such a direct comparison to Russia would be oversimplification.

>> ^Bic54:
If Hamas would stop firing missiles into Israel, Israel would have no need to invade Gaza. Remember people, it's Hamas who blends in with the civilians, forcing Israel to attack civilian territory. Israel isn't setting out to kill innocent people; it's just an unfortunate result in the battle against Hamas.



An egregious oversimplification worthy of any illiterate wanker without a mind of their own. Quit listening to Daddy and pick up a newspaper for once.

>> ^MaxWilder:
That statistic is a gross oversimplification of gender inequality. As far as I'm concerned, it's bullshit. There are still a number of gender based discriminatory practices, but you can't simply tag a number on them. I'm talking about encouraging more women to enter the sciences, encouraging more women to take their careers as seriously as their male counterparts (regarding career-family prioritization), and encouraging more men to take a greater role in child-rearing responsibilities.

>> ^thepinky:
Yeah, the statistic thing is oversimplified, but claiming that the problem is mostly the fault of women and their failure to take their careers as seriously as men and to study the sciences is an oversimplification and a misconception. Women ARE actually being paid less for the same jobs with the same qualifications and the same educations.
Besides, your brains are a third the size of ours. It's science.
(Name that movie!)


Sorry, Anchorwoman, but the studies I've seen only point to discrimination in the schooling and career choice areas of income determination. I'm sure there is more to it, but even so that's where we need to focus. I firmly believe that women should have every opportunity and encouragement available to men. I think we're getting there, but we still have work to do.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

>> ^thepinky:
Yeah, the statistic thing is oversimplified, but claiming that the problem is mostly the fault of women and their failure to take their careers as seriously as men and to study the sciences is an oversimplification and a misconception. Women ARE actually being paid less for the same jobs with the same qualifications and the same educations.

It is already illegal to pay women less for the exact same position, qualifications, experience, performance, etc. :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

Difficult to enforce, obviously, since an employer can argue that one person merited higher pay.

Also nobody said it was the "fault" of women for earning less. Also, women account for 80%+ of consumer discretionary spending! So I don't think women are so much being oppressed as entering into arrangements where they'd rather take care of their family than work.

Yeah, the statistic thing is oversimplified, but claiming that the problem is mostly the fault of women and their failure to take their careers as seriously as men and to study the sciences is an oversimplification and a misconception. Women ARE actually being paid less for the same jobs with the same qualifications and the same educations.

Besides, your brains are a third the size of ours. It's science.

(Name that movie!)

>> ^MaxWilder:
That statistic is a gross oversimplification of gender inequality. As far as I'm concerned, it's bullshit. There are still a number of gender based discriminatory practices, but you can't simply tag a number on them. I'm talking about encouraging more women to enter the sciences, encouraging more women to take their careers as seriously as their male counterparts (regarding career-family prioritization), and encouraging more men to take a greater role in child-rearing responsibilities.

That statistic is a gross oversimplification of gender inequality. As far as I'm concerned, it's bullshit. There are still a number of gender based discriminatory practices, but you can't simply tag a number on them. I'm talking about encouraging more women to enter the sciences, encouraging more women to take their careers as seriously as their male counterparts (regarding career-family prioritization), and encouraging more men to take a greater role in child-rearing responsibilities.

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
The tax cuts for the rich line kinda puts him in the "I watch TV so I think I know a lot about taxes" group...so the substance part...not so much.
"Tax cuts for the rich" may be an oversimplification, but it's closer to the truth than saying that there weren't tax cuts for the rich.


Any tax cut has to include the rich. So your point doesn't mean anything. Any tax cut that doesn't include the rich is socialism.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
The tax cuts for the rich line kinda puts him in the "I watch TV so I think I know a lot about taxes" group...so the substance part...not so much.

"Tax cuts for the rich" may be an oversimplification, but it's closer to the truth than saying that there weren't tax cuts for the rich.

/\Admiral Oversimplification - one of Captain Obvious' distant cousins

^mentality:
"If you believe in democracy (rule by majority), you believe that 9/10 people can choose to kill the 10th person."

That's only true for "pure" democracies, and is a gross oversimplification.

No, its true for all democracies. There are no laws in a democracy, there is only majority rule. If it appears that there are "laws" it is only because the majority agrees with them. "Laws" in a democracy are not based on any system of morality, they are merely rules set by the whims of the majority. This is why slavery can be legal in a democracy in one century, and illegal in another. There never really was a "law"--only the illusion of "law" by majority consensus.

When I say "9/10 people can chose to kill the 10th person" what I also mean is "9/10 people can chose to forbid the 10th from smoking in restaurants". The only difference between these two statements is that in the former, the majority condemns murder, whereas in the latter, the majority condemns smoking. In either case, the reason one is prevented from murder and preventing from smoking is that the majority dictates it--not that the person has unalienable rights protect by law.

I would not want to live in a....democracy without laws.

You live in a democracy. What then?

In a republic, individuals have certain unalienable rights (sound familiar?) which are timeless. They do not depend on the whims of the majority or the orders of a despot, they are true for all men for all time. The method in which government officials are selected is irrelevant, whats important is the fact that humans have basic rights which must be protected by law. In a republic, by definition, whatever system is selected would have majority support--for how else could it persist when the illegal use of force is forbidden by law? Thus, a republic could utilize elected representatives, an elected monarch, a birthright monarch, or even a series of randomly selected people--if it was so desired.

Majority support and majority rule are two very, very different things.

"If you believe in democracy (rule by majority), you believe that 9/10 people can choose to kill the 10th person."

That's only true for "pure" democracies, and is a gross oversimplification. I would not want to live in a republic without democracy, or a democracy without laws.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That is complete nonsense. Its such a nonsensical statement that the opposite argument is much more compelling to my ear (though still a wild oversimplification), that poor people who don't have the ability to replace stolen goods, repair damages, file lawsuits or pay for insurance, would be more concerned with funding collective security, as they could be wiped out completely by a single incident.

I am saying that someone with $10 million has more to lose than someone with $10,000. You disagree? If china invades tomorrow and loots the entire country, who loses more? If there are no police who is more likely to be kidnapped for ransom--the millionaire or the pauper? With no legal system, whose house will be the first to be burglarized, the mansion on the hill or the one bedroom apartment in the city?

Do you know why people form nonprofits? Because you don't pay taxes on things related to the organization, but in-turn all the money you generate can only be spent to benefit the nonprofit. The whole point of your column here was you want to make taxes voluntary... so, uh, yeah, I think what you mean instead of 'nonprofit' is 'board', or 'committee'... and those things we already have.

If your argument is true, that people only give to charity for tax breaks, or only form charity organizations for tax shelter, we are a sorry lot indeed, and the community most definitely should not be trusted.

Anyhow, I'm not going to go through and bust your balls on everything that makes no sense in this... strict individualists are by definition anarchists while strict collectivists are communists...

I would argue that anyone who is an anarchist is not an individualist, as there can be no law in anarchy, and without law, there are no individual rights.

I respect that you're trying to find your position towards the individualist side of the spectrum, but as a general statement I think you're system is all over the place, with individuals being selfish but not that selfish and on and on...

That is how the "invisible hand" works. Even though people are acting in their own selfish interest, they end up benefiting the community at large. It is one of the most important principles of the market. Just look at the quote in my bio:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The butcher ends up providing dinner for thousands of people--do you think he does that out of the goodness of his heart? No, he does it for the selfish reason that he gets paid. Same thing with the doctor. Do you think the doctor spends 8 years in medical school and 60 hours a week because he wants everyone to be healthy? No, he does it because he gets paid well. Part of him likely enjoys helping others, but that too is a selfish interest.