| |
|
Topic Title |
Replies |
Topic Starter |
Views |
Last Action |
| Important Topics |
 |
 |
|
24
|
CuriousToad |
556 |
30th November 2009 - 05:41 AM
Last post by: GtPreach |
 |
|
|
0
|
Kronix |
254 |
14th November 2006 - 12:05 AM
Last post by: Kronix |
Welcome to The Podium. This forum is for public debating, discussing current events, or generally any other focused discussions that any members have. The rules for the podium are a bit more strict however.
Spam is not tolerated here at all, any posts with one or two sentences will be considered spam.
If you have something to say, try to centralize the reader by telling them your main ideas, and then support your arguement with evidence and facts and make it as if you were really debating it in public -- which you are.
Spelling errors are frowned upon here. Try to use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation in all posts.
Heated arguements are allowed, but direct flaming is not tolerated. Do not call someone a moron just because they don't agree with you -- beat them in the arguement.
If you have any suggestions on how to improve the podium, post it here.
|
|
Pinned: Logic
Use it, don't abuse it
|
1
|
Guest_Sirri_* |
287 |
13th September 2006 - 05:21 PM
Last post by: huston182 |
Here's some information on logic as a good suggestion of our fearless leader. Read it because it's good not only for posting in the podium, but also for life. Knowledge is power. Kama Shaka Laka.
http://www.kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.phpLogical Fallacies in Psychology: 18 Types
Kenneth S. Pope, Ph.D., ABPP
Here are 18 logical fallacies. We've all probably fallen for them -- and perhaps used them -- from time to time.
Articles in other sections of this web site examine logical fallacies in more detail (e.g., the affirming the consequent fallacy discussed in the "Science As Careful Questioning" American Psychologist article; the ad hominem fallacy discussed in the "Pseudoscience, Cross-examination, & Scientific Evidence" Psychology, Public Policy, & Law article). I thought it might be helpful to draw these fallacies together on one page. This list is not, of course, comprehensive. I've tried to choose those fallacies that seem to thrive and are unlikely to appear on the "endangered species" list in the psychological literature and in psychological discussions.
The fallacies are ad hominem, affirming the consequent, appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantium), argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), begging the question (petitio principii), composition fallacy, deny ing the antecedent, disjunctive fallacy, division fallacy, false analogy, false dilemma, golden mean fallacy, mistaking deductive validity for truth, naturalistic fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), red herring, straw person, and you too (tu quoque).
The name of each fallacy is followed by a brief description and an example from the field of psychology.
For those interested, other articles in this section include 21 ethical fallacies and 7 fallacies & pitfalls in psychological assessment.
Ad Hominem
The argumentum ad hominem or ad feminam attempts to discredit an argument or position by drawing attention to characteristics of the person who is making the argument or who holds the position.
Example: "The research and reasoning that supposedly supports (or that supposedly discredits) this intervention are a joke. The researchers are people who are not methodologically sophisticated and there have been rumors--I have no idea whether they're true or not--that they faked some of the data. The advocates (or opponents) of this intervention are the worst kind of sloppy thinkers. They are fanatical adherents who already have their minds made up; they've become true believers in their cause. They make arguments only a stupid person would accept, and mistakes in reasoning that would make an undergrad psych major blush. These are not the kind of people who deserve to be taken seriously."
Affirming the Consequent
This fallacy takes the form of:
If x, then y.
y.
therefore: x.
Example: "People who are psychotic act in a bizarre manner. This person acts in a bizarre manner. Therefore: This person is psychotic."
Alternate example: "If this client is competent to stand trial, she will certainly know the answers to at least 80% of the questions on this standardized test. She knows the answers to 87% of the test questions. Therefore she is competent to stand trial."
Appeal To Ignorance (Ad Ignorantium)
The appeal to ignorance fallacy takes the form of:
There is no (or insufficient) evidence establishing that x is false.
Therefore: x is true.
Example: "In the 6 years that I have been practicing my new and improved brand of cognitive-humanistic-dynamic-behavioral-decontructive-metaregressive-deontological psychotherapy (now with biofeedback!), which I developed, there has not been one published study showing that it fails to work or that it has ever harmed a patient. It is clearly one of the safest and most effective interventions ever devised."
Argument to Logic (Argumentum ad Logicam)
The argument to logic fallacy takes the form of assuming that a proposition must be false because an argument offered in support of that proposition was fallacious.
Example: "This new test seemed so promising, but the 3 studies that supported its validity turned out to have critical methodological flaws, so the test is probably not valid."
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
This fallacy, one of the fallacies of circularity, takes the form of arguments or other statements that simply assume or re-state their own truth rather than providing relevant evidence and logical arguments.
Examples: Sometimes this fallacy literally takes the form of a question, such as, "Has your psychology department stopped teaching that ineffective approach to therapy yet?" (The question assumes--and a "yes" or "no" response to the question affirms--that the approach is ineffective.) Or: "Why must you always take positions that are so unscientific?" (The question assumes that all of the person's positions are unscientific.) Sometimes this fallacy takes the form of a statement such as "No one can deny that [my theoretical orientation] is the only valid theoretical orientation" or "It must be acknowledged that [whatever psychological test battery I use] is the only legitimate test battery." Sometimes it takes the form of a logical argument, such as, "My new method of conducting meta-analyses is the most valid there is because it is the only one capable of such validity, the only one that has ever approached such validity, and the only one that is so completely valid."
Composition Fallacy
This fallacy takes the form of assuming that a group possesses the characteristics of its individual members.
Example: "Several years ago, a group of 10 psychologists started a psychology training program. Each of those psychologists is efficient, effective, and highly-regarded. Their training program must be efficient, effective, and highly-regarded."
Denying the Antecedent
This fallacy takes the form of:
If x, then y.
Not x.
therefore: not y.
Example: "If this test were based on fraudulent norms, then it would be invalid. But the norms are not fraudulent. Therefore, this test is valid."
Disjunctive Fallacy
This fallacy takes the form of:
Either x or y.
x.
Therefore: not y.
Example: "These test results are clearly wrong, and it must be either because the client was malingering or because I bungled the test administration. Taking another look at the test manual, I see now that I bungled the test administration. Therefore the client was not malingering."
Division Fallacy
The division fallacy or decomposition fallacy takes the form of assuming that the members of a group posses the characteristics of the group.
Example: "This clinic sure makes a lot of money. Each of the psychologists who work there must earn a large income."
False Analogy
The false or faulty analogy fallacy takes the form of argument by analogy in which the comparison is misleading in at least one important aspect.
Example: "There were wonderful psychologists who passed away several decades ago. If they could be effective in what they did without reading any of the studies or other articles that have been published in the last several decades, there's no need for me to read any of those works in order to be effective."
False Dilemma
Also known as the "either/or" fallacy or the fallacy of false choices, this fallacy takes the form of only acknowledging 2 (one of which is usually extreme) options from a continuum or other array of possibilities.
Example: "Either we accept the findings of this study demonstrating that this new intervention is the best to be used for this disorder, or we must no longer call ourselves scientists, psychologists, or reasonable people."
Golden Mean Fallacy
The fallacy of the Golden Mean (or fallacy of compromise, or fallacy of moderation) takes the form of assuming that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two competing positions.
Example: "In our psychology department, half of the faculty believe that a behavioral approach is the only valid approach; the other half believe that the only valid approach is psychodynamic. Obviously the most valid approach must be one that incorporates both behavioral and psychodynamic elements."
Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth
This fallacy takes the form of assuming that because an argument is a logical syllogism, therefore the conclusion must be true. It ignores the possibility that the premises of the argument may be false.
Example: "I just read a book that proves that that book's author can do much better than any psychological test at finding out if someone is malingering. The book's author reviews the literature showing that no psychological test is perfect at identifying malingering. All have at least some false positives and false negatives. But the author has a new method of identifying malingerers. All he does is listen to the sound of their voice as they say a sentence or two. And he included in the book a chart showing that by using this method he has never been wrong in hundreds of cases. That proves his method is better than using psychological tests."
Naturalistic Fallacy
The naturalistic fallacy takes the form of logically deducing values (e.g., what is good, best, right, ethical, or moral) based only on statements of fact.
Example: "There is no intervention for victims of domestic violence that has more empirical support from controlled studies than this one. It is clear that this is the right way to address this problem and we should all be providing this therapy whenever victims of domestic violence come to us for help."
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore on account of this)
The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy takes the form of confusing correlation with causation and concluding that because Y follows X, then Y must be a result of X.
Example: "My new sport psychology intervention works! I chose the player with the lowest batting average based on the last game from each of the teams in our amateur baseball league. Then I gave each of them my 5-minute intervention. And almost all of them improved their batting average in the next game!" (Note: this example may also involve the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean.)
Red Herring
This fallacy takes the form of introducing or focusing on irrelevant information to distract from the valid evidence and reasoning. It takes its name from the strategy of dragging a herring or other fish across the path to distract hounds and other tracking dogs and to throw them off the scent of whatever they were searching for.
Example: "Some of you have objected to the new test batteries that were purchased for our program, alleging that they have no demonstrable validity, were not adequately normed for the kind of clients we see, and are unusable for clients who are physically disabled. What you have conveniently failed to mention, however, is that they cost less than a third of the price for the other tests we had been using, are much easier to learn, and can be administered and scored in less than half the time of the tests we used to use."
Straw Person
The straw person, or straw man, or straw woman fallacy takes the form mischaracterizing someone else's position in a way that makes it weaker, false, or ridiculous.
Example: "Those who believe in behavior modification obviously want to try to control everyone by subjecting them to rewards and punishments."
You Too! (tu quoque)
This fallacy takes the form of distracting attention from error or weakness by claiming that an opposing argument, person, or position has the same error or weakness.
Example: "I have been accused of using an ad hominem approach in trying to defend my research. But those who attack me and my research are also using ad hominem. And they started it!"
[© copyright K.S. Pope, 2003]
| Forum Topics |
|
|
|
34
|
Eclipse |
780 |
3rd August 2010 - 06:11 AM
Last post by: Metroplizer |
Do you fear the darkness that will encompass you when your body loses consciousness? After all, it is inevitable. It will come, so are you be sad? There are many possibilities in the end, and many choices you will make now. Which one is right? Should you spend your life doing good and committing no sin, only to find there is no eternal bliss,
or sin and enjoy your life to the fullest, and find there is only eternity in the Fire? Or will you reincarnate and find yourself in the shoes of a tree, destined to stay in the same place for hundreds of years? Does the fact that you suddenly cease to exist bother you? After spending so long with the blessing of free thought and intelligence? So many questions, yet you find there are little to no answers. The complexity of this life makes you uncertain, and you question what is right and what is wrong.
So I ask you, do you fear the dark abyss?
 |
|
|
16
|
Maynedge |
645 |
10th March 2010 - 10:31 PM
Last post by: Prophet |
|
|
|
3
|
Maynedge |
174 |
19th February 2010 - 12:40 AM
Last post by: WsLp137 |
|
|
|
6
|
jiggyjack |
213 |
20th January 2010 - 06:35 PM
Last post by: SaintCaleb |
http://www.cars.gov/OK, so at face value this is a great program.
I would like to point out a few things that the Government obviously did not think of.
1. People who can afford a New vehicle are not going to be influnced too much by a few thousand dollars.
2. People who are excited by this program generally can NOT afford a $300 car payment much less the $150-$300 full coverage insurance payment they will need to have.
3. These cars that are being sold will quickly be repossesed by the loan companies.
4. The divide between the have's and have nots WILL be increased.
Basically this program is Bread and circuses. Which ironically enough was extremmly popular right before the Roman empire crashed to the ground.
What program will the Government implement to help the people that got thier cars reposesed through this program?
Do you see the Quandry?
|
|
|
8
|
GiyvinMoun |
200 |
10th October 2009 - 12:30 AM
Last post by: C-man |
this is a true story...
One day, a lonely middle-aged fellow was killing time in a machine shop and feeling a little frisky. Apparently a thrill seeker with too much testosterone or a heretofore unidentified brand of functional retardation, the man sought a more exciting masturbation method. He had apparently made it a tradition to rub one out by grinding his genitals against the canvas drive-belt of a large floor-based piece of running machinery.
You can see where this is going.
If you've ever humped a piece of shop equipment then you know how easy it is to lose yourself in the moment. You may also know how easy it is to get your scrotum caught in it and get tossed across the room by your now-torn open sack.
In lieu of the normal response of weeping in the fetal position while holding together his devastated dick meat, the guy grabbed the nearest staple gun and proceeded to pump eight one-inch staples into himself in a feeble attempt to patch together what was left of his sack.
Then he finished his shift.
He only went to the hospital three days later for treatment of a potential infection. At the hospital doctors found an impressive infection and another surprise, the entire left testicle was missing (likely some lucky coworker stumbled upon it at work later in the week).
The doctor wouldn't release the man's name for privacy reasons, but we're surprised every corporation on earth doesn't have this guy on a poster in the break room, with the slogan, "Ask yourself: Would this man have called in sick with the sniffles?"
I love cracked dot com
http://www.cracked.com/article_17432_p2.htmldiscuss
|
 |
|
1
|
CuriousToad |
91 |
6th October 2009 - 01:01 AM
Last post by: m4onixtj |
QUOTE
President Barack Obama has stated that he has a low threshold for "success" in Afghanistan. He wants an Afghanistan that can no longer serve as a base for any terrorist group that would be able to attack the United States. Assuming that the President of the United States is true to his word, he should perhaps consider the possibility that the minimum objective for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan has already been achieved. If that is so, it is time for the United States to end its de facto occupation of the country and leave the Afghan people to settle on a form of government that will satisfy their needs, not those of a segment of the international community led by Washington.
The fact is that the threat from terrorism has been greatly exaggerated for political reasons to create a sense of fear that has enabled Democrats and Republicans alike to aggrandize power in the federal government. The US State Department issues an annual report that identifies the "state sponsors" of terrorism, those countries that allegedly support and provide a safe haven for terrorist movements. The list has significance because inclusion on it automatically triggers sanctions and other punitive measures, but the report itself and the politics that drive it make its conclusions highly questionable.
The current version identifies Cuba, the Sudan, Syria, and Iran as state sponsors but a careful reading of the report itself raises serious questions. The entry on Cuba concedes "Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world." It justifies Cuba's inclusion on the list by noting that Havana endorses the activities of nominally Marxist Western hemisphere terrorist groups like Colombia's FARC. Does Cuba's encouragement of a terrorist group that it does not actually assist constitute state sponsorship? More important, does Cuba actually threaten the United States through its actions? Or is Cuba on the list because there is a powerful anti-Cuban lobby in Miami? The question answers itself.
Then there is the Sudan, also on the list. The entry on Sudan admits "Sudan remained a cooperative partner in global counterterrorism efforts. During the past year, the Sudanese government continued to pursue terrorist operations directly involving threats to US interests and personnel in Sudan." So why is Sudan listed? Reading the report reveals that Sudan is named because it has not proscribed Hamas, which it considers a legitimate political party in the Palestinian territories and a national liberation movement, a view that is shared by much of the world. Does Sudan threaten the United States or support any group that threatens the United States? No. So one might reasonably question why it is on a terrorism list compiled by the United States Department of State.
Syria is also on the State Department list. According to the report, Syria "has not been directly implicated in an act of terrorism since 1986" but the Syrians defend "what they considered to be legitimate armed resistance by Palestinians and Hizballah against Israeli occupation of Arab territory." As Syria is still technically at war with Israel and Israel occupies Syrian territory this viewpoint should astonish no one. The ongoing hostility means in practice that Syria permits Hamas, Hizballah, and three lesser Palestinian groups to have representational offices in Damascus. Does the existence of the offices of groups that Washington describes at terrorist but which cannot threaten the United States constitute a danger? Of course not. The United States has no legitimate national interest that is in any way threatened by Damascus and the inclusion of Syria on the State Department list is purely political in nature, motivated by disapproval of the regime of President Bashir al-Assad.
And finally there is Iran. Like Syria, Iran undeniably supports Hizballah and Hamas, which it regards as national liberation movements and also as legitimate political parties in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories. The State Department report also states that Tehran supports both the Afghan Taliban and Iraqi militants, a contention that is more significant in that it suggests active and ongoing confrontation with US forces in the region. But is the assertion of Iranian involvement true? Many observers believe that Iran's role in Iraq has been greatly exaggerated by the US government, which has needed a scapegoat to explain why the country continues to be experiencing major security problems more than six years after the US invasion. Actual evidence of Iranian involvement is hard to find. The suggestion that Iran would be aiding the Taliban is even more absurd for sectarian reasons. The Taliban consider Shi'ites like the Iranians to be heretics and has even sanctioned killing them. It has massacred Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan and it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that there is no love lost between the Taliban and Tehran. So again the question must be asked, what is the American horse in this race? As in the case of Syria, does Iran really threaten the United States because it supports two groups that themselves do not endanger the US? There is no American national interest involved and Washington should avoid labeling others as terrorists when it is simultaneously engaged in illegal military action that amounts to state sponsored terrorism in places like Pakistan and Somalia, with whom the US is not at war.
One of the real ironies of the State Department's terrorist list is its selectivity. FARC of Colombia is a terrorist group that has actually attacked, killed, and kidnapped Americans. A laptop captured by Colombian soldiers in March 2008 revealed that the Venezuelan intelligence services were actively negotiating with FARC to provide weapons and other support. Venezuela considers FARC to be a liberation movement, a view not shared by either Washington or Bogota, but perhaps there is another reason why Caracas is not on the state sponsor list. Venezuela provides 11% of the oil consumed in the United States and is the second biggest supplier of crude after only Canada and ahead of Saudi Arabia. If it were to be named a state sponsor of terrorism, buying its oil would become illegal.
And then there are the real terrorists. Al-Qaeda and its truncated leadership is still hiding in a cave in Pakistan with more than 100,000 US and NATO troops camped next door. An increasing number of intelligence analysts and scholars believe that Usama bin Laden is actually dead. General Stanley McChrystal, US Commander in Afghanistan, has admitted that there is no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Pakistani sources see little sign of activity directly attributable to al-Qaeda in their own country. They maintain that all of the suicide bombings in Pakistan over the past two years have been carried out by Pakistanis, not by the Arabs or Chechens normally associated with al-Qaeda. Professor Jean-Pierre Filiu of the highly esteemed French think tank the Paris Institute of Political Studies, sees an al-Qaeda in decline and on the run reduced to a tiny remnant forced to move frequently and under constant pressure. Does al-Qaeda threaten the United States? Well, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen seem to think so, but if they thought otherwise they would be out of a job. Perhaps the American public should begin to ask why hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent yearly to fight an enemy that might well be more imaginary that real. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it is time to put the genie back into the bottle and end the global war on terror once and for all. If President Obama really believes what he says, it is past time for him to accept that Afghanistan is a mess but unlikely to become a terrorist haven. Which means "mission accomplished" and it's time to leave.
Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty
What do you guys think? Is it time to end the global war on terror? Is it time to leave Afghanistan?
|
|
Iceman
Confessions of a Mafia Hitman
|
2
|
CuriousToad |
113 |
29th September 2009 - 02:26 AM
Last post by: Poison |
|
 |
|
25
|
CuriousToad |
469 |
19th September 2009 - 07:06 AM
Last post by: Miniman |
This thread is devoted to everyone who lost their lives on that terrible day. I hope whoever was responsible gets what they deserve.
 |
|
|
25
|
CuriousToad |
553 |
22nd August 2009 - 04:52 PM
Last post by: Imperium |
The drinking age is 21 as of now. States decide the drinking age, but if they put it lower then 21, the federal government cuts off funding for state highways.
I think the federal government shouldn't be involved in things like this. Why should every neighborhood follow the same social laws? If one state wants to lower the drinking age to 18, they should be able to, no strings attached.
What say you, clan members?
|
|
|
9
|
m4onixtj |
252 |
22nd August 2009 - 04:20 AM
Last post by: GiyvinMoun |
With the recent release of the Lockerbie terrorist, I thought this question was relevant.
It should be no surprise to those that have read the majority of my podium posts that I think they deserve to die where they are.
|
|
|
18
|
Zal |
364 |
17th August 2009 - 05:40 PM
Last post by: C-man |
Now, I want to start this off with a caution, this story, will more than likely make you feel sad, depressed, sick, or outraged in one or more ways, so you must bear with me here if you want to read it all or not. Try not to puke on your shoes:
'Girl, 7, told social worker how to kill, court hears'
Child Protection Trial
Mike McIntyre, Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
A seven-year-old girl who showed up at her Winnipeg school with hate propaganda written on her body told a social worker that "black people should die," according to testimony yesterday at a child protection trial.
The girl -- now in the custody of Child and Family Services (CFS) along with her younger brother -- told the social worker that her mother and stepfather taught her such beliefs.
Family services is now trying to obtain a permanent order of guardianship for the children, claiming they are at risk of physical and emotional harm from their parents.
The youngsters' stepfather is fighting for custody and has filed a constitutional challenge, claiming his rights to freedom of expression and religion have been violated. The children's mother is not attending the trial.
"Black people don't belong," the girl stated matter-of-factly in a March, 2008, interview with the social worker inside her school. "What people don't understand is that black people should die."
The girl said her mother had used a marker to draw a massive swastika on her arm and other slogans on her legs, including references to Adolf Hitler and the slogan "we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Photographs of the markings were shown in court.
The social worker testified that the girl repeatedly used the N-word to describe black people and said she believes strongly in what her parents taught her.
The girl also gave a graphic description of how to kill a black person, telling the social worker about using a spiked ball attached to a chain and then "whipping them until they die."
The worker asked the girl if those ideas "scared her?"
"No, black people just need to die. That's not scary. This is a white man's world," she replied.
The girl also made racist remarks about the World Trade Center attacks, described watching "skinhead" videos and Web sites with her parents and watching them regularly smoke marijuana. She said her parents even made a poster of her and her brother with the slogan "Missing -- A Future For Our White Children," which they plastered around Winnipeg.
A lawyer for CFS told the trial, which had its opening day yesterday, that the case has nothing to do with infringing free speech or expression. He said it is about "long-standing family dysfunction" -- including drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, neglect and criminal activity and associations -- which will prove the children are at risk if returned to their parents.
CFS is also relying on a doctor's report that both parents "are not in a position to offer either of their children care at this time," court was told.
The girl's stepfather -- who is currently living apart from the girl's mother -- has denied any wrongdoing and recently filed an affidavit supporting his position.
"[The mother] and I were excellent parents to our biological child [the boy] and to [the girl], both before and after the children were apprehended. I believe that there is no legal basis for the children having been apprehended in the first place," he wrote.
"State removal of a child from parental custody is a serious interference with the psychological integrity of the parent and infringes every parent's right to a fair hearing pursuant ... to the Charter," his lawyer added.
The case has generated national and international publicity because of the unique issues involved. The court hearing is expected to address the extent to which the beliefs as expressed by the parents are legally protected and whether educating their children in these beliefs entitled CFS to apprehend the children.
The trial is expected to last two weeks.
My oh my, definitely not the sort of family that should have children in the first place it seems now does it? This story brings up so many questions that do indeed already have answers, but morally there is no good answer for them. I mean, it all seems like a bad experiment, like say in Clockwork Orange. Like they wanted to say to the world, "I will raise this killer, I will raise her to make you all see you all should die". So what's really to think here really, is it extremism, is it a side effect of all the crap she's listened to and believed, or was it all a plan? The answer is probably all of the above unfortunately. All I can really do is feel sorry for a kid that could've had fun, could've made friends with black people and all races alike, and could've just grown up as a kid god dammit.
Now if you excuse me, I got to go vomit.
~Zal
|
|
|
19
|
CuriousToad |
329 |
17th August 2009 - 09:29 AM
Last post by: GalenDoUrden |
That makes an epic statement.
That is all.
|
|
|
5
|
Maynedge |
185 |
17th August 2009 - 05:19 AM
Last post by: Blackdepth |
|
|
|
20
|
CuriousToad |
431 |
17th August 2009 - 04:18 AM
Last post by: Blackdepth |
Lately this section has been pretty dead. I think that is because not many people here are interested in politics. So I'm proposing a more philosophical or religious discussion.
What is the point of life?
I'll chime in later.
|
|
|
19
|
Reaper |
379 |
6th August 2009 - 01:07 AM
Last post by: m4onixtj |
I want to know, what does everyone think is a more sensible government. A democracy where everyone is set apart by what they have and others don't, where someone who worked hard, or won the lottery lives in luxury and where someone who slacked or was robbed of their hard earned money in some way or another live together. Or, a Socialist Government, where everyone is taken care of, you can't get ahead of someone with hard work, but there (in the more wealthy socialist states) is no starving, poor, people on the streets, no one not able to get healthcare, and no one living in luxury while others live in hovels.
|
|
|
2
|
CABG |
127 |
21st July 2009 - 07:41 AM
Last post by: CuriousToad |
Forty years ago to the day, at about this time, I can remember vividly sitting in the lunch room at school in front of a black and white television with most of the other kids.
It was just before 1pm on July 21st, 1969. I was 11 years old and in Year 7.
Neil Armstrong came down the ladder and made that footprint.
It was a wonderful time to be a child. The years of buildup, all followed closely by kids my age.We all had toy rockets and pictures of the moon. If you were lucky, even a telescope. There was Star Trek and Lost In Space on TV. What could be better?
Then, it just seemed to fizzle out, apart from the interest with Apollo 13.
We've had the space station and the shuttles, with their own triumphs and tragedies, but these too will soon end.
The next dream was Mars in 2020, but now that seems an optimistic timetable - delayed for who knows how long. I lament that I probably won't see man set foot on Mars in my lifetime.
Why the delay? Well, it seems there's not enough money. The world spends trillions waging a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and billions propping up failed corporate executives and their companies who screwed us all with their obnoxious greed and amorality.
There's also no vision anymore.
JFK got an A+ for vision. GWB gets an F- (In Australia he'd get NS - Not Submitted).
At some stage in the future, our sun will go red giant. The earth will be swallowed up. We need to get off this rock and move house sometime before then, if we don't annihilate ourselves first.
But, hey, it's not really our problem, we'll leave it for future generations to sort out.
I suppose this is a selfish attitude that we (I'm including myself) have been slowly developing.
It seems that there are a lot of problems in the world based on selfish and self-centred motives. One only has to look in the Middle East, Tibet, Burma, Somalia, even Fiji. But that's another topic.
THERE IS NO ROAD TO PEACE. PEACE IS THE ROAD.
Happy Anniversary everyone.
|
|
|
3
|
CuriousToad |
140 |
9th July 2009 - 12:46 AM
Last post by: m4onixtj |
QUOTE
Vice President Joseph Biden is like the crazy uncle normally locked away in the bedroom upstairs. Set loose, he's bound to say just about anything. Want to know where the vice president would hide during a nuclear war? He will helpfully point out the location of the secret bunker.
Now he's encouraging Israel to bomb Iran.
Reports antiwar.com:
QUOTE
In an interview today on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulus," Vice President Joe Biden said it was up to the Israeli government to decide if Iran constituted an existential threat and that the nation was "entitled" to launch a military strike against the nation if they wanted to.
Biden said the United States would make no effort to dissuade the Israeli government from launching an attack on Iran, but was deliberately evasive on the question of whether the US would provide Israel with access to Iraqi airspace for the strike, saying he didn't want to "speculate."
The consequences of any such war would be horrific, and the U.S. would be blamed for any Israeli attack. If Israel and the U.S. had no relationship it would be correct to say that the decision was up to Israel. But the U.S. has funded, armed, and backed Israel; Israel would need U.S. clearance to fly across Iraqi airspace. Worse, after Vice President Biden's remarks, everyone would believe that Washington had given Israel the green light for an attack.
It is even more imperative than before that the Obama administration do everything possible to dissuade Israel striking Iran.
Oh, and it's time to lock up Cracy Uncle Joe again.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
4
|
Maynedge |
160 |
2nd July 2009 - 05:44 PM
Last post by: paulito15 |
|
|
|
2
|
Maynedge |
97 |
29th June 2009 - 11:59 PM
Last post by: m4onixtj |
Their Democracy threw this guy out for trying to side step the constituion and Obama is prompt to condem that process, but was very slow to speak out on the Iran issue.
Where is the consistency?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.htmlHugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.
It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.
But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.
Associated Press
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.
Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.
Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.
Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."
Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.
For Hondurans who still remember military dictatorship, Mr. Zelaya also has another strike against him: He keeps rotten company. Earlier this month he hosted an OAS general assembly and led the effort, along side OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to bring Cuba back into the supposedly democratic organization.
The OAS response is no surprise. Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that "the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called 'democratic charter.' It seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove." A less-kind interpretation of Mr. Insulza's judgment is that he doesn't mind the Chávez-style coup.
The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.
|
|
|
1
|
CuriousToad |
79 |
27th June 2009 - 12:48 AM
Last post by: m4onixtj |
QUOTE
Everyone is looking for something to say about Iran. The neo-conservatives are predictably hailing the march of democracy on the streets of Tehran for reasons of their own, while hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham are calling on the Obama Administration to do something to help anyone tagged as a reformer. More moderate voices are generally supporting President Barack Obama's initial show of restraint -- avoiding any open support of either side -- and only condemning the violence because it is disproportionate due to the suffering it has caused. Still others are calling on the United States to avoid any interference of any kind. The non-interventionists themselves fall into two camps: the constitutionalists and libertarians believe that interfering in other people's quarrels is intrinsically problematical because as John Quincy Adams said, "America does not need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Realists argue that interventions by the United States rarely turn out well, citing the cases of Vietnam, Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, and more.
Having spent much of my working life as an intelligence officer on the street in places like Istanbul, I am astonished at what passes for expertise in the debate over what to do about Iran. It is clear that even the few genuine experts on Iran don't really know what is going on there because they are slaves to their sources of information, which tend to reflect their own philosophical viewpoints and are, in any event, narrowly based. It is conventional wisdom in most of the US media that the Iranian election was stolen, the result of massive fraud. But was it? Opinion polls conducted by a US based organization several weeks before the polling predicted an Ahmadinejad victory. The president is hugely popular among poor rural Iranians and also enjoys overwhelming support for his defense of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy. Elections are very complex affairs and how a talking head sitting in Washington, breathlessly interpreting grainy texting images, can even pretend to understand what is going on in Iran and why defies all logic, particularly if the expert in question speaks no Farsi and probably would have difficulty in locating Isfahan on a map.
Mir Hossein Mousavi is a reformer and modernist, isn't he? Perhaps not. He has always been extremely conservative in his political alignments. As Prime Minister in 1981-9, he was regarded as a hardliner. He started Iran's nuclear program, helped found Hezbollah and may have directed the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut. He is, in reality, a defender of extremely corrupt vested interests. That he has attracted the support of the so-called "Gucci crowd" of twentyish twitterers does not mean that he has embraced western values. As president, he would not abandon nuclear energy and would not immediately begin to talk nice to Barack Obama. His reformer credentials are pretty much non-existent, the creation of a media and an engaged punditry that wants to explain the Iran crisis in terms that a European or American audience would find comfortable.
And then there is the corruption issue, Iran's six hundred pound gorilla. Mousavi is heir to the corrupt Iran of the post-revolutionary period when the country was looted by the senior clerics cooperating with the business class, the bazaaris. Some intelligence sources believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been demonized by the western media, is actually the reformer in that he has taken on the country's pervasive corruption with the full support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. Massive corruption has been business as usual in Iran, frequently managed by politicians who have called themselves reformers. Another so-called reformer, who is the money man behind Mousavi, is former Iranian Majlis speaker Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, nicknamed "the Shark." Rafsanjani is a billionaire who controls large sectors of the country's economy, to include a chain of private universities which became the source of the young organizers who brought the twitterers out on the street.
If there was one thing I learned from twenty years of experience as a military intelligence and CIA officer it is that nothing is ever what it seems. If a situation appears to be clear cut, with good guys and bad guys arrayed against each other it is probably anything but. So maybe black and white comes out gray. All the more reason to step back. The interventionists from both left and right do not make it clear what the United States should do to help the "reformers." Perhaps that is just as well as the only options would be to hurl empty threats, start bombing, or initiate yet another CIA covert action to destabilize the regime, ignoring the lessons of the CIA's 1953 debacle, and with the predictable and contrary result of actually strengthening the clerics and their rule.
Change by evolution is better than by revolution. Both metamorphoses are underway in Iran: one is immediate and reactionary and, perhaps necessarily, more graphic and even grim. The other suggests the possibility that long-lasting change might happen in Tehran -- if outside influences do not upset the sensitive process of transformation. As is frequently the case, those who would do nothing probably have it right, whether arguing for constitutional reasons or as realists. Iran and its elections are issues that we do not and cannot understand and they are ultimately issues that have to be decided by the Iranian people. Rightly or wrongly, outside interference in what is taking place on the streets of Tehran will be exploited by the regime to deflect any legitimate criticism, making any change even less likely. The old Hippocratic advice to doctors to "do no harm" should perhaps be the best advice for the American political chattering classes and the media. Doing no harm regarding events in Iran is to stay out of it.
Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative Defense Alliance
This certainly brings up a good point. How does the mainstream media know for sure if the election was a sham? It's so fishy when the mainstream media puts this shit out. It just seems like the media and government work together to fit their own agenda, whatever that may be.
Anyway, comment on this. Let's get some activity in the forum. Dave and I are lonely over here.
|
|
|
2
|
CuriousToad |
101 |
19th June 2009 - 09:33 AM
Last post by: CuriousToad |
QUOTE
Amid all the internet brouhaha over events in Iran -- the "greening," so to speak, of the blogosphere -- what has been missed, so far, is the meaning and significance of the American response. On the surface, that response has been rigorously proper. In his most recent remarks, President Obama told reporters that it would be unseemly for the US to be seen as meddling in the Iranian electoral process.
This provoked a fusillade of self-righteous on the neocon Right: "He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election," bawled John "Quick Draw" McCain. Unlike McCain -- whose tendency to go ballistic is inadvisable in general and impermissible in a US President -- Obama understands that a US government endorsement of the Green Revolution would be the kiss of death for Mousavi -- perhaps even in a literal sense.
"It's important to understand that although there is some ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons."
Very smart -- and so threatening in so many ways that it almost makes me pine for the good old days of the Bush era, when dumbness was de rigueur in Washington.
Obama realizes that the Iranian students flashing their green-painted peace signs -- or is that a "V" for victory? -- are fervently patriotic, and, being good nationalists, are all in favor of Iran's nuclear power program. He knows Mousavi's history as a conservative, albeit a relatively moderate one, in the context of Iranian politics. What strikes me as ominously threatening is the certitude with which he averred that Iran "is pursuing nuclear weapons." Are they really? Someone please tell Dennis Blair, because he testified just 3 months ago that the U.S. intelligence community still stands by the spooks who exhibited a similar degree of certitude back in 2007 when they announced Iran had long ago given up its nuclear weapons program, and there was no evidence they had restarted it.
A US President hasn't come right out and contradicted his own intelligence agency since …. Well, since George W. Bush ignored the CIA and went with the manufactured "evidence" of Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" generated by Dick Cheney's office and other, even less savory sources. Aside from this disturbing parallel, however, here's another:
"The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element...It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran's nuclear program when he was prime minister."
These are the words of Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, testifying before a committee of the Israeli Knesset. Like American neocons Max Boot and Daniel Pipes, Dagan believes the alleged madman Ahmadinejad is good for Israel -- on the grounds, as Pipes puts it, that it is better to have an open enemy than one whose agenda is not quite so obvious. This should put to rest concern over the hysterical Israeli claim that Iran represents an "existential threat" to the continued existence of the Jewish state. If that were true, they'd be cheering on the Green Revolution for all they're worth: as it is, their top officials are openly rooting for a man who -- they insist -- is calling for their extermination.
Note how closely Obama's evaluation of Mousavi follows Dagan's. This is not to say they are wrong, factually: indeed, to characterize the Green revolutionaries as anything other than confirmed nationalists would be a mistake. And that really is the core issue, as far as the US and Israeli governments are concerned: democracy schmocracy -- the Iranians, by god, are not going to be allowed to challenge either Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region, or American hegemony.
The US and Israel are determined to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear technology of any sort. This is quite contrary to the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Israel refuses to sign, never mind adhere to. In his many statements on the subject, our sainted President has declared that the acquisition of nukes by Iran would set off a regional "arms race" -- without (for all his vaunted "smartness") acknowledging that Israel's possession of hundreds of nukes long ago set that race in motion.
The reality is this: "change" may be in the cards in Iran, depending on how the battle in the streets of Iran's cities turns out. But it is most certainly not on the agenda in either the US or Israel, nor anywhere else in the Western world, as far as policy toward Iran is concerned. The recent spate of bombings and other acts of terror in Iran's eastern provinces -- carried out by Jundullah, a radical Sunni group known to have received assistance from the US, according to journalist Seymour Hersh -- signals to Tehran that there will be no let up in a campaign for "regime change" that started under the previous administration.
Anyone who believes the Obama administration is about to cut the Iranians any slack is in for a disappointment of major proportions. Change may be in the air in Tehran, but it's the same old warmongering in Washington, D.C. Obama's warhawks are lying low, for the moment, preparing for a long siege. For the moment, the prospect of a US-Iranian confrontation is taking a back seat to the drama being enacted in the streets of Tehran, but the War Party's day will come, of that you can be sure -- and a lot sooner than anyone thinks.
Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty
What do you guys think we should do?
|
|
|
10
|
Striker |
239 |
16th June 2009 - 10:07 AM
Last post by: m4onixtj |
What do u all think about this?? I think its just all talk if not the North will be uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years..
QUOTE
EOUL, South Korea —
North Korea's communist regime has warned of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula while vowing to step up its atomic bomb-making program in defiance of new U.N. sanctions.
The North's defiance presents a growing diplomatic headache for President Barack Obama as he prepares for talks Tuesday with his South Korean counterpart on the North's missile and nuclear programs.
A commentary Sunday in the North's the main state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, claimed the U.S. has 1,000 nuclear weapons in South Korea. Another commentary published Saturday in the state-run Tongil Sinbo weekly claimed the U.S. has been deploying a vast amount of nuclear weapons in South Korea and Japan.
North Korea "is completely within the range of U.S. nuclear attack and the Korean peninsula is becoming an area where the chances of a nuclear war are the highest in the world," the Tongil Sinbo commentary said.
Kim Yong-kyu, a spokesman at the U.S. military command in Seoul, called the latest accusation "baseless," saying Washington has no nuclear bombs in South Korea. U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991 as part of arms reductions following the Cold War.
On Saturday, North Korea's Foreign Ministry threatened war on any country that dared to stop its ships on the high seas under the new sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council on Friday as punishment for the North's latest nuclear test.
It is not clear if the statements are simply rhetorical. Still, they are a huge setback for international attempts to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions following its second nuclear test on May 25. It first tested a nuclear device in 2006.
In its Saturday's statement, North Korea said it has been enriching uranium to provide fuel for its light-water reactor. It was the first public acknowledgment the North is running a uranium enrichment program in addition to its known plutonium-based program. The two radioactive materials are key ingredients in making atomic bombs.
On Sunday, Yonhap news agency reported South Korea and the U.S. have mobilized spy satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and human intelligence networks to obtain evidence that the North has been running a uranium enrichment program.
South Korea's Defense Ministry said it cannot confirm the report. The National Intelligence Service — South Korea's main spy agency — was not available for comment.
North Korea said more than one-third of 8,000 spent fuel rods in its possession has been reprocessed and all the plutonium extracted would be used to make atomic bombs. The country could harvest 13-18 pounds (6-8 kilograms) of plutonium — enough to make at least one nuclear bomb — if all the rods are reprocessed.
In addition, North Korea is believed to have enough plutonium for at least half a dozen atomic bombs.
North Korea says its nuclear program is a deterrent against the U.S., which it routinely accuses of plotting to topple its regime. Washington, which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has repeatedly said it has no such intention.
The new U.N. sanctions are aimed at depriving the North of the financing used to build its rogue nuclear program. The resolution also authorized searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting illicit ballistic missile and nuclear materials.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the new U.N. penalties provide the necessary tools to help check North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The sanctions show that "North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver those weapons through missiles is not going to be accepted by the neighbors as well as the greater international community," Clinton said Saturday at a news conference in Canada.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,526186,00.html
|
|
|
3
|
Maynedge |
152 |
24th May 2009 - 01:36 PM
Last post by: John |
|
|
|
2
|
Maynedge |
109 |
13th May 2009 - 01:46 AM
Last post by: CuriousToad |
http://www.thelocal.se/19392.htmlSwedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.
The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.
The woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus's gender.
Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.
The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus's gender is the basis for the request.
|
|
|
10
|
Maynedge |
240 |
9th May 2009 - 01:17 PM
Last post by: CuriousToad |
|
|
|
4
|
Shinchib |
206 |
9th May 2009 - 01:13 PM
Last post by: CuriousToad |
|
|
GhostNet
Yet Another Canadian Discovery...
|
1
|
Zal |
113 |
31st March 2009 - 09:40 AM
Last post by: GalenDoUrden |
Now while I'm not sure if everybody has heard of this yet, I suppose it's something new for everybody nonetheless. Well, yesterday, researchers at the University of Toronto released a report on a extremely complex network of hackers running mainly out of China called GhostNet. While they were only trying to find the Chinese government's involvement of rigging the Dali Lama's residence with tapping equipment etc., they found something disturbing. A majority of embassies computers and other considered high-worth computers at the UN had been infected with malware that could quite simply, take over the entire computer. You name it, it can do. Even turn on the webcam.
Wiki here:
GhostNet Wiki So what exactly does this mean? Does the Chinese government have a role, if not a MAJOR role in this type of network? Personally, I think this is something that would have been found out regardless, as I think it's a combination of many Chinese actions against major companies such as Skype. Can we do anything about this? Or shall we make embassies rid of their computers and email? Who knows, I doubt GhostNet will be taken down, unless some hacker(s) takes it upon him/herself to rid the world of it, as I know the Free World Government's will more than likely have a solution that comes at the cost of diplomatic referendums and whatnot.
Until then, beware the Ghost...
~Zal
|
|
|
1 2 3 > »
New Replies
Hot Topic (New)
Poll (New)
Moved Topic