| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
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. Strider |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... 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. So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy to manipulate. Greetings! Volker |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:36:33 GMT, Strider wrote:
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. Strider "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill g.c. Hard to argue with the truth. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote: "Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: 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. So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy to manipulate. Hey that may be true, but it's accurate. ;-) |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Bob Brock" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer" wrote: So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy to manipulate. Hey that may be true, but it's accurate. ;-) %-) Greetings! Volker |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote: "Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... 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. So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy to manipulate. Greetings! Volker Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie continually and people like you would come to believe it. Strider |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article , "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. You know, I just about stopped reading that thread at that point, as some things are just so ignorant I lose interest in players whose thinking is SO poor that their perspective ceases to be worth weighing at all -- as even if I strongly disagree with someone, there should be some core worth at least passing consideration, & it's less fun to argue about it if the other side is just nose-pickin' with shit in his shorts gibbering random nonsense. I've heard some dumbass stuff for why my own vegetarianism is going to kill me, though I'm healthier than any of 'em after 25+ years of meatlessness. But the old it's-a-lefty-commy-pinko-conspiracy argument has never before been on the list of demented reasons for nutritional facts not being facts; makes as much sense as invoking butt-probing "greys" from outer space, who do indeed figure into many leftophobics' unusual beliefs. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
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. 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. g.c. Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would qualify as "leftist". |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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." Jeff |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message m... "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 ========================== LOL Which is exactly what the above reference is all about, an agenda, based on idiocy and delusions... 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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
Junk science is junk science, especially when done for political reasons.
"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message m... "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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"Jeff McCann" wrote in message ... "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." Junk science is junk science. its hard to take anything seriously that has such a radical poltical position. Jeff |
"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. |
"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. |
"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 |
"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. |
"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 |
"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. |
"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. |
"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. |
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"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. |
"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 |
"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. |
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
"Bob Peterson" wrote...
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. What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially when done for political reasons." The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not, independent of the state of mind those doing it. you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.' 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. Having grounds for questioning something is very different from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that* difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your* credibility. To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:23:13 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote... 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. What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially when done for political reasons." The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not, independent of the state of mind those doing it. you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.' 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. Having grounds for questioning something is very different from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that* difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your* credibility. To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense. "Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or disprove that theory. The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science. Strider |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote:
To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense. You, sir, haven't dealt with anyone with an "agenda", then. That phrase pretty much describes every "statistic" ever quoted. ral |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
Isn't "Left wing kookiness" something to be dealt with by the
Department of Redundancy Department? Claude |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote:
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 Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so far . . . . Keith For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:56 GMT, Strider wrote:
"Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or disprove that theory. The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science. Strider Well defined. What does that have to do with politics? K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. The "liberals" are the true conservatives (conserving the existing political order) and the "conservatives" and libertarians are the true liberals (supporters of more personal freedom). The times, they are a-changing. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. Libertarianism=Corporate Fascism. g.c. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article , Greylock
wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought & paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate, but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers" please them, these answers tend somehow to be found. By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from the interested parties. One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the plants. Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the never-seen complete data. Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good" science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, & statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete findings themselves. The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals, but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the original. -paghat the ratgirl Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article ,
(George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter