Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion of politics into science will bias the results of any study. Strider |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion of politics into science will bias the results of any study. Strider |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message m... "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate, but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question it. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message m... "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate, but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question it. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message m... "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate, but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question it. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message m... "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate, but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:28:03 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote: "Strider" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to say. To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. Hope this helps. The source of any information is relevant to the value of that information. Any info from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife with their philosophy, is based on fantasy, and is suspect from the outset. But even a stopped clock is correct twice every day. Also "[a]ny info from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife with their philosophy, is based on fantasy, and is suspect from the outset" reads awfully close to "I am uncomfortable with anything that challenges my present preconceptions and beliefs, so I prefer to argue more about the source than the content." I occasionally come into contact with the couple of outright lunatics we have in our town. Knowing their mental condition, I don't believe anything they say. For similar reasons, I don't believe anything a "leftwing, tofu sucking, liberal" says either without indepently checking it out using reliable sources. "Leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals" simply aren't reliable sources of information, IMHO. And when it comes to deciding what are reliable sources, MHO is the only thing that counts - for me. Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:28:03 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote: "Strider" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to say. To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. Hope this helps. The source of any information is relevant to the value of that information. Any info from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife with their philosophy, is based on fantasy, and is suspect from the outset. But even a stopped clock is correct twice every day. Also "[a]ny info from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife with their philosophy, is based on fantasy, and is suspect from the outset" reads awfully close to "I am uncomfortable with anything that challenges my present preconceptions and beliefs, so I prefer to argue more about the source than the content." I occasionally come into contact with the couple of outright lunatics we have in our town. Knowing their mental condition, I don't believe anything they say. For similar reasons, I don't believe anything a "leftwing, tofu sucking, liberal" says either without indepently checking it out using reliable sources. "Leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals" simply aren't reliable sources of information, IMHO. And when it comes to deciding what are reliable sources, MHO is the only thing that counts - for me. Fair enough. But in most cases, I'm sure that cognitive dissonance has more to do with it than any well-reasoned and objective concern over the reliability of the source. Jeff |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
well... unless you are talking about chicken wings.... I think most chickens are
right winged which makes the right wing larger and more succulent. Ingrid To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is "left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's completely beside the point. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:12:12 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:20 -0500, Tom Quackenbush wrote: George Cleveland wrote: "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the same political sense that it's used today? I only ask because it seems that being conservative, rather than innovative, is a good survival strategy for those of us that aren't brilliant. IOW, reliance on the "tried and true" methods seems to be a safer bet than risking the unknown, which tends to have a high failure rate. FWIW, I'm all in favor of _someone_ risking the unknown, but if I were responsible for feeding my wife & kids, I'd rather it were someone _else_. R, Tom Q. These are good points. Obviously he was referring to what was considered conservative in his own time. And its not just the intellectually challenged who end up supporting the "Old Regime", whatever that is at the given time and place. Yes, but the Old Regime now is the New Deal setup FDR and LBJ saddled us with. The so-called "conservatives" aren't. The so-called "liberals" aren't. The words that we use to describe the political factions are exactly ass-backwards from the truth. Nope. The Old Regime are the Reaganites and the large corporations. They have been the peoiple in power for most of the last 150 years. The powerless in general receive no favors by sticking their necks out. If you're living close to the bone, any change can be just enough to send you into personal and familial disaster. Thats why revolutions against repressive regimes and economic systems are so rare. The oppressed have to literally reach the point where they have nothing left to lose. Revolutions usually occur when the lot of the ordinary people is improving. The truly hopeless seldom rebel. Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would qualify as "leftist". The New Deal certainly was (unless by "leftist" you mean "communist"). Nope again. FDR didn't propose anything that hadn't been proposed by the Progressive Party which was a spin off from the Republican Party. Most of FDR's reforms were modest compared to the rising leftist popular sentiment at the time. Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. g.c. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" | Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers | Gardening |