I stated that people either tell the truth, or they lie.
They also spout nonsense.
I stated that people either tell the truth, or they lie.
They also spout nonsense.
Heavily? Compared to the rest of California, perhaps.
1) Yeah, which is why I did it. Inflamatory subject using rational thought. Imagine that.
2) If you ran a Hamburger Restaurant and said that you're not a "Hamburger" place because only 33% of your business was "Hamburgers", would you be telling the truth, or telling a lie?
You sell Hamburger, fries, and a soda, and count that as 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 you'd technically be correct. But everyone in the world would understand that you're in the "hamburger" business. Right?
3) So, yeah, Abortion procedure itself is only 12%. Technically correct using the metric as applied by PP, which is VERY similar to how I explained above. How about you ask the question differently. How many people visiting PP are there to get an abortion vs "other" services they offer. BTW, those "other" services are fairly limited to
They claim to be "women's health" but they do not offer Prenatal anything
BUT I have an idea, I've suggested a number of times. Planned Parenthood can keep all the funding it gets now, if they stop providing abortion or referrals for abortion. Lets see how much of their Business is Abortion. I'll bet it is like a Hamburger shop not being able to actually sell burgers. Just fries, cokes
You have not described a "phenomenon", you made a false claim. Instead of admitting you are wrong, and caught in the act, you attempt to play word games. Cowardice at it's finest.
So you are saying that people only ever use language to establish stable beliefs in propositions, and that they never say anything purely to achieve emotional effect?
As for cowardice, well if it makes you feel less insecure I suppose there's nothing I can do about it. But it's bullshit -- in the epistemic sense of the word -- and it reflects on you more than me.
There is an expectation that you are not being monitored by the police state, up until this point. Technology is invasive the moment it becomes pervasive. I have no ability to OPT out of state surveillance, and the state has no expectation that they can monitor me without a court order. I would consider this a violation of 4th Amendment "Unreasonable" search
All News is fake depending on who is reporting and who is the reader/viewer.
Kind of like "Planned Parenthood doesn't use public funding for abortion services". Technically "accurate", but really not even close to being accurate.
A woman comes in for an abortion, but gets six other "tests" and diagnostics done. Pregancy test, Pap smear
Technically it is "true" that PP doesn't use federal dollars for "abortion". Realistically it is fully subsidized procedure using loopholes. Both sides are considered "alternative facts" by the other side. And the reason we can't have civil discourse about anything any more.
And watch this get modded "Troll" since I used the inflammatory "Planned Parenthood / Abortion" example by people who can't actually debate the actual topic.
There are several issues with most systems that require certificates to work correctly.
1) Certificates Expire, on a regular basis, have a plan to update them (Auto renew)
2) Notifications should be sent to a "group" email address, not an individual.
3) We have these things called "Calendars" use them
4) Documentation is key, even if 1-3 fail you should have a searchable document that has they dates listed for key events.
The problem is, nobody ever documents shit like this, because actual documentation process takes more time than actually doing the Cert updates.Except when you measure the failure to renew it in time.
...that studies are invariably wrong. Until another study shows that the "wrong" study was actually correct.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
A long history of not working particularly well. And testosterone hacking is the grand-daddy of them all. You know all those steampunk-y horror stories about rich Victorian eccentrics who go mad because they implanted monkey testicles into themselves in a bid to achieve eternal youth? People actually did that.
There's a thin line... or rather let's say a fork in the road between pseudoscience and science. I think they both start in the same, non-scientific place. And that place is a kind of magical thinking. It's what happens after the initial inspiration that makes the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Testosterone is higher in men than women, an in particular higher in young men, and higher in men who achieve social dominance. It also rises after sexual intercourse. So by magical thinking testosterone must be the "manliness" hormone; it makes you young, vigorous, dominant and sexually potent.
There's nothing wrong with that as a starting point, but in the long history of testosterone hacking it hasn't worked out, except for gaining muscle mass in conjunction with resistance training. Sure if you treat men with a testosterone blocker they'll eventually lose interest in sex, men generally have less sex as they get older, and at the same time their testosterone levels decrease. So it's natural to jump to the conclusion of a chain of causality: worn out old glands put out less testosterone, and that causes a reduction in interest in sex. But if you actually test that hypothesis, it doesn't work out: individuals with least decline in testosterone levels actually have less sex than their normal counterparts. The normal decline isn't large enough to produce on its own any measurable effect in interest in sex. So if your interest in sex is dropping as you get older, look elsewhere for the cause.
This is the danger of calling testosterone "the male sex hormone", as if God had a punch list of features He wanted and implemented each feature with a single steroid compound that works in isolation from everything else. Yes, testosterone is involved in masculinization of adolescents, but it's not as simple as the more testosterone you are, the more male you are. The endocrine system is complex and dynamic, responding to internal and external changes -- including aging. Both men and women have and need testosterone and estrogen, in ways we don't fully understand yet.
If you want to get the most out of your life, eat a variety of real food in moderation, exercise, sleep, and in general alternate stress with rest. The ancient Greeks could have told you that, and in thousands of years we have not been able yet to improve on that as far as lifestyle advice is concerned. Go to your doctor if you're sick or injured, or even for a testosterone treatement if you have abnormally low testosterone for your age. But don't go to the doctor for a magic pill that will make you youthful, manly, sexy and dynamic. All that's up to you.
Sure catastrophe is great for establishing equality. It's also great for establishing dictatorship, or oligarchy.
Consider Japan. Japan is a major industrial power with no energy resources (other than renewables) of its own, so it got 30% of its energy from nuclear power, and it was on its way to making that 40%. Then there was the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe and now nuclear is essentially dead in Japan.
Is that good? Bad? Either way the indisputable thing is that Fukushima made a difference. Catastrophe is practically the only thing that makes people undertake drastic change; absent disaster people will simply tweak things until they seem to more or less work.
The position where slaves didn't count towards representation was just as good a default, which makes 3/5 looks like a compromise to me. Which wouldn't be surprising; the framers had a real knack for that.
Note also because of the limited, means-tested franchise in many states, the higher property ownership disparity in slave states (because of the plantation economy) concentrated enormously disproportionate power in the hands of planters.
Democracy in the early US wouldn't look very familiar. In 1824 just 4% of all Americans voted.
Another thing you had was a huge body of men who'd been through a massive, life-changing experience together. One that took immense risk and sacrifice but ultimately ended in victory (at least for us Americans).
If you believe that people are capable at all of learning from experience, they must have brought something away from that.
I am not arguing over definitions at all. You are. I am describing a phenomenon you are free to describe with different words if that rings your bell.
Well, you are ignoring polysemy here; yes "bullshit" can refer to tall tales like your drinking fifty gallons of beer. However there are other senses of the word, including topics of serious inquiry in the field of epistemics.
I refer you to Professor H.G. Frankfurt's seminal work, On Bullshit (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-691-12294-6.) for more information.
I find that Socratic debate usually convinces the other person that you are attacking them and their stated belief fairly quickly even if actually just honestly wanting more information.
Well, you're in good company on that one. As I recall Socrates ruffled his share of feathers.
That said, I'm talking about satisfying yourself. Convincing others necessarily involves making allowances for their muddy thinking.
Swap read error. You lose your mind.