Subject:
|
Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:55:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
552 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Did you read the article, or did you access the actual study? If you’ve only
read the article (as, admittedly, I have), then you’ve misunderstood it.
Nowhere does the article claim that Mussolini is conservative. Rather, it
identifies Mussolini, Hitler, Reagan, and Limbaugh to suffer “from the same
affliction.” That’s a very different statement. If you accept that
conservatism is an affliction, then I suppose your objection has some merit,
but otherwise you’re formulating a straw man again.
|
You can find it at:
http://why-war.com/resources/files/politicalconservatism.pdf
And if you can understand more than half of it that’s more than I can, without a
degree in psychology!
The article regards Mussolini & Hitler as conservatives for the scope of the
study. For example (p. 342):
“...right-wing revolutionaries, such as Hitler or Mussolini or Pinochet...”
(emphasis mine).
Still, where’s the comparable study on liberalism? That would be the
academically objective thing to do.
| |
Not quite. Tax dollars were spent so that the Bush administration could omit
data found to be inconvenient. The science is not bad; the overwhelming
consensus in the scientific community is that the evidence shows that global
warming is on the rise, and the predominant consensus is that, based on
available evidence, fossil fuel emissions contribute to an increase in
greenhouse gases, which in turn contributes to global warming.
|
The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community used to be that the earth
was flat, and then that the planets revolved around the earth. A good case can
be made that the Bush report omitted unproven science that is hotly (no pun
intended) debated but not proven.
| |
Citation, please. Atmospheric temperature is only one of a spectrum of
indicators, including drought levels, ocean temperature, and changes in polar
ice. To dismiss the issue of global warming based on a single factor is bad
science.
|
See http://www.junkscience.com/.
Similarly, to confirm the issue of global warming, or to blame it solely on
human activities, is bad science. Realistically, we can’t accurately predict
the weather for the next week. Why do we think we can predict it for the next
hundred years?
| |
| |
I’ve never understood the liberal hatred of logging companies.
|
Straw man. I have no reason to support a caricture of my position.
|
OK, then don’t. But that also means that any argument that you make from
personal experience is a straw man argument as well, and thus inadmissible.
| |
Red herring. You don’t address my point that tax dollars are paying for both
the destruction (with ordnance manufactured by for-profit corporations) and
the reconstruction (by for-profit corporations).
|
Speaking of red herrings, I’m not sure what you’re trying to show with your
point--irony in tax dollars paying for both destruction and reconstruction
(omitting the fact that ‘twixt the two was the accomplishment of the goal of
topping Hussein’s regime)? We’ve done the same thing since the Marshall Plan,
and judging from the paradises of Europe and Japan it works.
And should munitions and reconstruction both be undertaken by the government?
Or private citizens?
Best regards,
Carl
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
