Are you certain there was a point to be missed? I'm not entirely sure there was.
Are you a native speaker? His quote was as follows:
And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.
That assertion means that he says I have not shown that government can solve any problem - in other words I have shown so far that government can solve no problems. It does not mean that he believes government can't solve every problem, which would be a much more reasonable assertion.
It's possible he intended that sentence to mean what you claim - that government can't solve every problem. But that's not how I read it and I'm fairly confident in saying that's not how most people read it or how it was intended.
You assume I'm American. I'm not.
I grew up in a place that neither despises nor automatically praises government. Ambulances showed up promptly, and people got excellent care. Various other social programs also more or less worked. Nothing was perfect, of course, but it worked.
Also, nobody's defending statism, promoting any particular economic system, or calling government a "virtue in and of itself." What I have been doing is calling libertarians on their bullshit. If you want to argue the merits of a particular government program, that's a different argument than the one we're having
It's not an argument I expect to be able to have with you, of course, since you seem to assume anyone defending any government program is promoting Bolshevism. Finding common ground with someone so miseducated is unlikely to be possible. But at least you admit government is necessary, which is more than some of your libertarian brothers.
the internet was a govenment thing? lol you went too far there. tut tut... landing a person on a moon isn't a problem, it's a waste of resources and dick waving to the russians. GM is a disaster and just a money maker for monsanto. saftey in the auto industry? germans made the first airbag and it's wasn't gov' funded, laminated windscreens - yeah you guessed it not a gov' funded thing, seat belts? same again, only later did they decide to bring them into law. please stop chucking around the word fact, you don't know what it means. fact.
The internet came from DARPA funding. It grew out of ARPANET, which was created using the US Department of Defense funding. So yes, it was a US government thing. They also helped to develop Multics, which was also quite important. Your revisionism is noted, however.
And landing a man on the moon is a waste? Yeah, I'm sure that had no benefits whatsoever.
GM employs hundreds of thousands of people. But sure, that's just a big Monsanto conspiracy.
If you think government response had nothing to do with auto safety, you're an idiot. The car industry was very resistant in the US to introducing safety measures, and even went after Ralph Nader for writing his book, Unsafe at Any Speed. It was the US government that hauled the president of GM in front of a senate subcommittee and forced him to apologize for what they did trying to discredit Nader.
Facts. Perhaps you should try learning more of them.
There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW.
Yeah, you're right, if you ignore sea surface temperatures, atmospheric temperature readings, deep ocean temperatures, or any other data. Other than that, no evidence at all.
The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade.
Even if the models are flawed (they're fine except for the large error bars), and even if the hiatus were real (it's not), a decade isn't that long in climate terms. But those things aren't true. As they say, no useful lie ever dies, right?
And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes
....) all have failed.
You do understand these predictions aren't going to come true for 100 years or more, right? Or do you get all your science from conspiracy theorists incapable of reading scientific papers themselves?
And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).
Again, you need to stop listening to stupid people. No storm can be caused by global warming any more than an avalanche can be caused by a snowflake. They're contributors that raise the odds of these events happening.
And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.
The national highway system, the Hoover dam, landing a man on the moon, creating the internet, providing health care in any country not called The United States of America, FDIC, rescuing GM, safety improvements in the auto industry, stopping Thalidomide in the US, banning CFCs...
That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head, though. Actual research would yield a bunch more, I'm sure. The fact you clearly haven't done it says a lot about why you believe the things you do.
But I'm not sure why I'm explaining this. You're not going to listen or understand any of it, are you?
Isn't it funny* how people who have a preexisting belief that government regulation is bad and takes away your freedom also believe that something that seems insoluble without government action isn't real despite overwhelming evidence?
* And by funny, I mean entirely expected and unsurprising.
because I am not anti vax, but i am pro choice.
You are free not to get a vaccine. But you shouldn't be able to work at Disney if you don't. Being free to choose doesn't mean you get to avoid the consequences. Same deal if you want to be a doctor or nurse, teacher, or probably even a chef or waiter. That's true of the flu vaccine and doubly so of the measles vaccine.
For example, im not a flue shot kinda guy
Yes, god forbid you do something that will result in less personal misery for you and help prevent the thousands of deaths per year caused by the flu virus.
Do tell what reasons you have for not getting the flu vaccine. I'm sure it'll be wonderfully entertaining.
Of course it's a legitimate question. It's not that you're asking loaded questions in bad faith and have no intention of believing anyone who gives you an honest answer. And people who are asking legitimate questions always put climate science in scare quotes. And they would never ask a leading question that they could easily learn more about with some google searches. Nor is it trolling to make unfounded, baseless, and unsourced accusations about climate science being shadowy manipulators of data that refuse to provide any details about how they derive their work.
You're not a troll at all. Just a reasonable person interested in honest discourse. Exactly the kind of person I frequently see here on Slashdot.
(For those who are truly interested in learning more on the topic of how they correct biases in sea level temperature, unlike the guy "just asking questions" above, perhaps you might find this NASA paper informative and interesting)
It is entertaining to compare a real coverup attempt such as this to what conspiracy theorists say happen, e.g. at Roswell or during 9/11 or whatever else.
The government can't even keep a few website security flaws secret, but conspiracy theorists expect us to believe they can execute a controlled demolition of the WTC and hide it from everyone except that Loose Change nut?
Too bad you don't have any facts on your side, then, isn't it?
You people are as bad as the creationists with your science denial. There's overwhelming evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by mankind, and that it's going to be really bad for us in another one or two hundred years. It's so overwhelming that 97% of climate scientists agree with that.
And then you like to point out irrelevant local phenomena as "evidence" against this, like the antarctic sea ice extent increasing this year while ignoring the actual volume of it, ignoring arctic sea ice, ignoring greenland ice melt. Or you like to point to 1998 as being a very hot year and saying "look, we've only had a couple of years hotter than that" while ignoring the trend lines, as if one year of temperature means everything.
Which is why you're as bad as the creationists. You think your tiny little facts, like an incorrectly dated fossil, or some scientific misconduct around one hominid fossil, disproves an enormous body of evidence. You've got your head in the sand and you seem to like it there.
This is why I find this discussion so absurd.
If the US really was concerned about Snowden giving US secrets to Russia, why not reinstate his passport so he can leave? They're the reason he's stranded in Russia, not because Snowden wanted to go there.
given that you're confusing the manifesto you _claim_ to have read with the youtube video that you're actually quoting from
I started out by saying your reading comprehension skills weren't very good. Glad you're able to prove that again. Hint: I never claimed to have read the 141 page screed he wrote, and I never claimed that the YouTube video transcript and the longer screed were the same. Why would I bother when he comes right out and tells us why he killed those people in the YouTube video transcript? I even quoted it for you. Why are you so hesitant to believe what he plainly tells us directly and forthrightly?
In any case, see my reply to the anonymous coward cross thread. I think every word applies to your response here. I'm not the one who's fitting things to my pre-held position.
I also find it amusing how I'm the one excluding large portions of what's happening here when you, along with so many others, are happy to ignore the fact that this guy is a product of our culture, and the only thing that's special about him is the degree he was willing to go to. People like you feel better when they can pretend he's a one-off. He's not. He's just a more frustrated (and better armed) version of the football player who rapes a college student and tapes it, or the boy who shames a girl who sexted him so much that she commits suicide.
If you want to spend your time digging through his writing in the desperate hope that you can prove his plainly stated reasons for doing what he did wrong, then by all means, have at it. But let's not call it anything other than what it is: motivated reasoning.
I apologize for missing a link. #6 was supposed to link to this graph.
You "snipped" a bunch of examples of NON-sexually driven narcissism, then claim that all his narcissism was sexual in nature. Utter fail.
Because I never claimed he was a good person, not a narcissist, and not any number of things.
Also, NONE of the quotes you provided are in his manifesto.
I've heard the YouTube video and the associated transcript referred to as his manifesto and I was doing the same thing here. But if you'd rather I call it something else, then by all means, provide a better word.
They ARE in his last YouTube video, which is a much shorter and more focused document, and is indeed heavily misogynistic.
Good. Perhaps you have some basic reading comprehension skills after all.
If that were the only record he'd provided you would have a point. But the 141 page document he left that was LINKED ABOVE tells a fairly different story, and you appear to be ignoring it entirely (and claiming to have read it when you clearly haven't).
Indeed? So you decided his stated reasons for the shooting didn't match up with your worldview, so, you, Mr. Amateur Psychoanalyst, decided to go off and read his 161-page crazy town document and tell us all how he wasn't really serious when he made that YouTube video? Cool story, bro.
#yesallwomen pretty quickly morphed into #killallmen
Oh yes? That must be why my Twitter timeline is full of that #killallmen hashtag. Oh wait, it's not. In fact, I just checked the top several hundred #yesallwomen tweets on Twitter, and guess what? Not a single #killallmen hashtag.
You seem to be suffering from a persecution complex. Again, I tell you. Try to listen, and stop getting so defensive.
And even if some women are using that #killallmen hashtag on Twitter, so what? Do you really see many women out killing as many men as possible? OTOH, do you even have any idea how many women are raped, beaten, or otherwise abused at the hands of men? If you think a few morons using the #killallmen hashtag is at all equivalent to the things the women in this discussion are protesting, you're so out of touch with reality, I can't imagine where you've been living.
Even your weird statement of "misogyny hurts men too" was made, and a lot of people got pissed that it was "derailing the conversation". That's the part that's bigoted.
I'm so amazed by the ability of people like you to latch on to one or two things you might find objectionable about something and so miss the point completely. Let's grant for a moment that some large percentage of women really did do what you say - a point I find extremely unlikely - then, so what? Does that make the harm that is done to women any less objectionable, or any less real?
I say again, stop being so god-damned defensive about everything and try to see the point they're making and understand it.
You must prove your case, which has not happened.
Oh yes? Has it not?
AGW makes a handful of claims. First, that the earth is getting warmer.
Second, that the oceans are getting warmer.
Third, that sea levels will rise
Fourth, that arctic ice will retreat.
Fifth, that Greenland's ice will melt..
Sixth, that antarctic ice will melt.
I could go on, but let's make #7 that man is causing it.
So do tell what's missing here. Again, please use scientific evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Most of the links I've provided above refer you to their sources and extra reading and come from such things as IPCC reports. And again, I'll wait.