Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6 days ago, adrshepard wrote:

At 3 days ago, Slizor wrote:

Two, the story is predicated on a simplistic understanding of "reward". It assumes, following usage in the status quo, that what you receive for a service/product is "earned" - that you have a moral right to it on the basis of deserving it. However, the world is replete with examples of people who get a high salary but actually do very little - investment bankers being a good example.

You don't have the slightest idea what you are taking about. An investment banker has to make extremely difficult and risky decisions about what companies to accept as clients, whether their securities are marketable and how to make them so, and deal with a whole other slew of complicated financial instruments.

...which they tend not to understand. I mean, who can really evaluate the creditworthiness of a single CDO2? Also, if recent form is anything to go by, investment bankers who make risky decisions and then fuck up.....well they just get bailed out by the government. Echoing public choice theorists, it's not really risk when you don't lose anything.

Also, to attack the example is not to attack the point.

Equally, people who do do useful things - factory workers, for example - often see very poor returns for the provision (and fruits) of their labour.

You're fundamentally confused about the concept of "value." It is not the amount of calories or muscles used, or whether the end product is something real, like a house, as opposed to something abstract like financial advice, it's about how replaceable you are. I'm sure many factory laborers work pretty hard, but the fact is that there are a hell of a lot more people who can operate part of an assembly line than can keep track of the latest financial regulations or trends and use them to build securities. The market for employees functions the same way as the market for goods. Especially skilled or uniquely capable individuals will get paid more than those who blend in with everyone else.

Interesting. You define the value of labour (and, slightly more abstractly, "value" itself) in a market manner but fail to see the inherent contradictions about using such an arbitrary system. We can just as easily, using the market mechanism, assign "value" as how much someone is willing to pay for the end product. The failure to pay at a level whereby the end product and the labour are equal thus implies exploitation.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the market isn't a great tool for assigning "value". But then we'd have to move away from adrshepard's TRUTH that I, and a lot of other people, don't agree with...and wouldn't that be a shame.

As such, to suggest that in Capitalism people are given their due "reward" is fundamentally not in line with how capitalism has operated. Also, to link reward to hard work in capitalism is just plain fucking stupid

Not true. You're just forgetting that hard work applies to young adults as well. The people who bungle through high school, don't care about learning, or who only do the minimum necessary to advance to the next grade aren't going to be in a good position to get a college education. The poor but dedicated student has far more potential than the rich, uninspired slacker. The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year for just this purpose through community and state colleges, scholarship programs, and subsidized financial aid, not to mention what's spent at the federal level to support primary education.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to advance here. That the US is a meritocracy? HAH. While not accepting your example, how about we don't skew the data with outliers? Who gets a better reward - the poor mediocre student, or the rich mediocre student?

Here, to get you started...
http://www.economicmobility.org/reports_and_research/key_fin dings

Operating under its implicit definition of socialism, the government, even if it takes all the "reward" can not take away the inate pleasure of crafting something, or of enjoying your work.

Every failed socialist system spent considerable resources trying to convince people that this was the case. It didn't work, so instead the government just punished anyone who publicly said otherwise.

Interesting logic there. I suppose you have a nice juicy quote that backs your implied causation up. Something like Stalin saying "They wouldn't believe the innate value of work, so we started censoring people!"

What's that? No? Oh, then how about you deal with the point in a substantive manner? Maybe start talking about how people only do something if they get a monetary reward.

Okay we want peace, capitalism and democracy,

Let's not assume universal norms, k?

but we don't want to PRAY TO GOD at school, we don't want to EAT WITH A KNIFE AND FORK, we don't want to HOLD OUR HANDS OVER OUR MOUTH WHEN WE BURP and we don't want to say PLEASE AND THANK YOUS.

Erm, eating with a knife and fork makes sense when you're not just eating fast food all the time. Sorry, but I like to cut steak and not tear at it with my teeth. Holding your hand over your mouth when you burp can too, be helpful in that I don't really want to have your burp directed towards me (here's where your interests and my interests clash). Oh, and with please and thank yous, grow the fuck up. People don't have to do things for you, so when they do be a bit fucking grateful.

Seriously I bet most of you Newgrounds users love it here because this is the future. It's free, open, limitless and most of all it is INTIMATE.

No, it is not intimate, it is not intimate at all. In fact, taking intimate to mean "warm, close and private", NG BBS is the exact opposite of intimacy.

At 1 month ago, Korriken wrote: linky

A study by the University of California has found that the media is indeed biased to the left. however, the media outlets as a whole are not as extreme as the politicians in congress about their left or right leanings.

Actually, a study by two researchers at UCLA has found that the media has a political preference to the "left" of members of Congress during a period when Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

And now to back up my viewpoint of this study with....words from the study itself.
"Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference." (p.1204)

"For instance, the results of the previous section show that the average New York Times article is approximately as liberal as the average Joe Lieberman (D-CT) speech. While Lieberman is left of center in the United States Senate, many would claim that, compared with all persons in the entire world, he is centrist or even right-leaning. And if the latter is oneâEUTMs criterion, then nearly all of the media outlets that we examine are right of center." (p.1215)

"Our method only measures the degree to which media is liberal or conservative, relative to Congress." (p.1223)

"The focus of our results is for the period 1995âEU"1999." (p.1218)

All in all, the study doesn't actually say much that helps arguments about "the liberal bias to the media". But then, economics articles rarely say anything at all.

At 2 days ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: Here is a nice story you folks would love to hear

A professor of Economics and Political Science at UF said he had never failed a single student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
"OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A."

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

Three points. One, the story is fiction. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Two, the story is predicated on a simplistic understanding of "reward". It assumes, following usage in the status quo, that what you receive for a service/product is "earned" - that you have a moral right to it on the basis of deserving it. However, the world is replete with examples of people who get a high salary but actually do very little - investment bankers being a good example. Equally, people who do do useful things - factory workers, for example - often see very poor returns for the provision (and fruits) of their labour. As such, to suggest that in Capitalism people are given their due "reward" is fundamentally not in line with how capitalism has operated. Also, to link reward to hard work in capitalism is just plain fucking stupid - feel free to use the same examples for this point too.

Three, your example, while using non-monetary "rewards" as an experiment, limits its understanding of rewards to being solely monetary in its supposed critique of socialism. Operating under its implicit definition of socialism, the government, even if it takes all the "reward" can not take away the inate pleasure of crafting something, or of enjoying your work.

WOW, that is a terrifically dreadful blog post.

Wait, you're ACTUALLY doing a phd in politics?

ahahahahahahahahahaahh holy shit this is priceless

*Yawn* Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.

At 8/25/11 09:38 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Before I start, yes I am making an odd claim but I will back it up with historical references and facts.

The main problem with your claim is conceptual. First, your understanding of capitalism limits capitalism to only existing with a completely free market ("true capitalism".) Not only is such a view unnecessarily restrictive, it also premised upon a complete illusion.

Second, your understanding of socialism seems to be put as a binary opposite to "true capitalism", rather than defined as something in and of itself; that is to say, socialism exists when capitalism does not. Not to get too basic here, but a simple google search on the definition of socialism brings up "A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Frankly, trickle down economics falls far short of that.

At 9/14/11 07:10 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/14/11 01:16 PM, Proteas wrote:

part E. Slow cooker: the wife you only wish you had
part F. Gravy and Sauce: for those dishes that need something... more.

Hells yes. I don't currently have a slow cooker, just a pot, but I still love slow cooking. Actually, I potroasted a mini shoulder of lamb the other week, I managed to pull the bone out of the meat when it was cooked, it was just falling apart.

I'm sad to see SadisticMonkey just getting a pounding on this thread and that we're yet to pull out some of the core principals but, hey, this is Newgrounds.

Okay, I've picked up a few key points from SadisticMonkey's responses.

Define rational.

As I and many others define it, rational behaviour means using certain means to attain certain ends, between which you believe exists a causal relationship.
The reasoning that lead you to establish the causal relationship maybe faulty, which would be irrational thought, but using this definition every (non-retarded, and I mean that seriously) human behaves rationally.

I'm curious about these "certain ends". Are these certain ends defined by an observer (i.e. an economist) or are they defined by individuals themselves? I ask because if they are defined by an observer than it is possible to empirically evaluate the claim of rationality. If they are not, then rationality becomes nothing more than an statement that has no predictive capacity, is unprovable and borders on the mundane.

Also, if we go down the individual preference formation route, then, reflecting on the modern world, we are forced to reflect upon the role of advertising (and/or misinformation campaigns) in the shaping of consumer preference - i.e. in the shaping of market demand. That companies may be able to stimulate demand presents quite a radically different view from your idea of a consumer-led market.

I never said I was against regulation, jsut government regulation.

I, like most libertarians, expect that on a total market non-staet regulatory mechanisms would emerge, due to immense consumer demand for them.

Two points. First, products are multifaceted and have many attributes by which they can be judged on. As such, and following a view that consumers define their own preferences, purchasing a product only gives a very limited amount of information. My purchase of my laptop, for example, could be viewed as that I like the safety of my laptop, or the size of it, or the colour, or the price, or that it has a graphics card (out of interest, it was the last three that made my decision.) However, all the manufacturer knows is that "The laptop must satisfy some of his requirements."

Of course, a more pressing point with safety is "what if the consumer does not know how unsafe a product is?" With all the information available to consumers, all the attributes that they can base their decisions on, how are they to know that the gas tank is defective or the brakes can give out after 10,000 miles?

Second, how would non-state regulation work? Is it reliant on the co-operation of companies? If so, would they not set have an incentive to set the bar very low so that they can get a seal of approval? So you start a healthy foods regulatory agency with the co-operation of some food manufacturers and they agree to put your logo on any food that is below 60% and 15% salt.

Either way, the best regulation is competition, which the state prevents.

Following my previous point, competition only works on a very limited basis. Full product competition - so on safety, on improved performance, on aesthetics - would never happen. Businesses work on selling via a couple of unique selling points, not on whole products. They do so because people do not think that deeply about purchases.

How do companies (who don't get corrupt politicians to pass laws in their favour) make money? By providing goods and services better and/or cheaper than their competitors as judged by society on aggregate. Bad things can be done by businesses, but nearly all ofthese things can be traced back to the government preveting a market mechanism from functioning, like shutting out competition through regulations.

You want to watch your reasoning there. First, you discount businesses as actors (i.e. they're not to blame) and, second, you will inevitably fall foul of the confirmation bias. Of course you can trace things back to government, government is huge, but that doesn't mean that it's their fault or that a market mechanism would have worked any better.

Anyhow, I was wondering, could you describe a completely free market?

Since I know how many libertarians and other forms of right-wing nutter there are on this board, I was wondering if we could start a discussion on what a free market would look like - how do you define a free market? It may help, in considering this question, to think about the boundaries of the market; about where the market ends. Also, I wonder how people conceptualise the link between "economic freedom" and "social freedom".

Yeah, so, I'm just hoping for a discussion on a basic concept that is thrown around a lot.

My data is slightly out of date (2006 figures) but they do show the international trends in oil consumption by transport.

The USA consumes 6.49 litres per capita per day (LCD) for transport. Its average gasoline tax is $0.4
Canada : 4.82 LCD $1.03
Britain: 2.84 LCD $4.24
Japan: 2.18 LCD $2.07

I could give you more on other countries, but it's hard to find the tax numbers. I also can't remember if I've excluded freight or not from these numbers.

Slizor, what ideologies would msnbc have to adopt and advertise to qualify as far left?

I always think that a good test of how far left someone is if they advocate the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. This nationalisation is not reactive to the failure of a private company in order to prop the company up, it is well-organised, comprehensive and justified on the grounds (or similar grounds) that private enterprise, particularly in the case of the commanding heights, is often actively harmful and is an inefficient (and unfair) way of managing society.

I should actually extend my point slightly to make sure people understand that media bias plurality wouldn't simply be the two main political viewpoints being represented. There are many political positions that are not represented in the news media - whole parts of the spectrum are simply absent. The lack of a far left is an example of this situation.

You appear to have failed to finish your post.

Could you please share your insights into why it is you feel that I am incorrect?

I wonder how long you sat there, writing out that paragraph in spell check to make yourself sound even remotely intelligent.

I'll take it as a compliment that you are unable to imagine that my writing style is effortless. Maybe one day, if you put a lot of work in, you can have a similar skill level.

At 12/11/10 03:01 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Seriously...quit picking apart posts to troll already. Either add to the discussion or just fuck off. I'm so sick of you picking and choosing and missing the entire point of what people are saying (most likely deliberately) so you can troll.

You can't tell me you didn't think the same thing when he said liberal media bias didn't "really" exist.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that the idea of media bias plurality is a myth as some stations actively agitate and because there are parts of the political spectrum that are not represented. It is entirely possible within the bounds of my argument that a highly politically polarised media system exists. In fact, it could be counted as evidence of a broad agreement with my viewpoint of media plurality.

I understand that you are confused because you think liberal and socialist are synonyms, but hey I'm not here to try and counter 50 years of American propaganda.

Bottom line is: Slizor is nothing more than one of those idiots who would protest illegal wars and torture during the Bush years, and yet cling to Obama's dick when he does nothing different. Instead clinging to the tired 2 year old excuse of "He can't do everything over night" or "It's the Republicans fault".

I'm left to guess here that the above argument is an extrapolation of my likely views based on your limited understanding of my views on media bias plurality. Needless to say, your attempt to guess my opinion, or my actions, with regards to Obama are very wrong; most likely based on your misunderstanding of my first post. I suggest you re-evaluate your assumptions before proceeding with this debate.

Hence: Dumb Fuck

Actually, to make this argument you need an operational definition of what a "dumb fuck" is. This definition would form a second premise from which, in combination with your first line of argument, you could reliably conclude as to my level of dumb fuckery.

Doesn't seem that much different to the US political system at the moment anyhow. It's not really like US politicians are poor or not well-connected. Hell, it's pretty much a requirement of the US electoral system that you have to be moneyed. Maybe business money is better than old money.

Second, there is a whole side of the political spectrum that is missing; there is no "far left" news station, or even a "left" news station. This distortion is indicative generally of American politics but really does mess up any idea of plurality.

Which only goes to show how much of a dumb fuck you really are.

You appear to have failed to finish your post. In fact, your lack of information leaves me wondering whether you actually accept my central argument - that there is a significant lack of media plurality in the US - or if you are spending your time preparing a robust and well-researched counter argument that you intend to later elaborate; instead choosing the (uncompleted) post above to debate one of my two supporting arguments.

Could you please share your insights into why it is you feel that I am incorrect?

I always find it interesting when this debate about news station bias comes up and people say "other stations are biased too!" The implication is that there is some form of news bias plurality that ensures balanced coverage overall. Frankly, this viewpoint is bullshit, for two main reasons.

First, while it is the case that all news outlets have some political ideology that guides what news is selected and how issues are reported, there is a major difference between having a perspective on a story and distorting the facts of a story to fit in a political argument. Good news outlets and good journalists do not seek to soapbox but to investigate and present information in a reasonably neutral way. So, yes, while all news stations are biased, not all actively manipulate information or try to effect public policy, which is what the memo above suggests Fox was doing.

Second, there is a whole side of the political spectrum that is missing; there is no "far left" news station, or even a "left" news station. This distortion is indicative generally of American politics but really does mess up any idea of plurality. Instead of plurality the overall political bias of American media is right-wing, as you have far right-wing outlets and centerist outlets; left wing soapboxing is non-existent.

Why do you have to drag me into creating a contending narrative? I was happy with a factual discussion, but you keep on presenting analysis/opinion as fact.

The source of the information is always relevant when analysing the information. When the information is released by a partisan source then bias must be suspected - particularly in the case of these videos as they have a narrative overlay.

The narrative doesn't describe anything important (maybe they weren't trying to "kidnap" him, maybe it wasn't exactly a firebomb) that isn't immediately obvious in the video. It's clear that the soldiers are being attacked with metal poles, attacked with some form of grenade, and thrown over the side.

I was actually talking about the wider narrative overlay, i.e. the entire Israeli argument. People don't watch these videos prior to hearing the Israeli side of the story and so their interpretation of the videos is guided by the Israeli narrative overlay. This manner of working denies the capacity for independent analysis of the events (particularly as we still don't have full footage!)

There are many questions about the footage because it lacks any context. Israel is yet to release full footage that will allow a proper analysis of it to be done. Instead the information is partial and, undoubtably, biased by its omissions. When we will see footage of people being shot?

What is it that you think could possibly be revealed that would vindicate the activists? Do you really think that a bunch of highly trained commandos, doubtlessly reminded of the important role of restraint, would start shooting civilians for no legitimate reason? I have much more faith in the ability of elite soldiers to follow orders and do their jobs than in the honesty of a Free-Palestine activist.

Do you really think that highly trained commandos, doubtless trained to be as effective killing machines as possible and work without being repulsed by killing, are, in a violent situation, capable of turning their training off?

See: Contending Narratives.

You won't see footage of people being shot for two reasons:
1. Graphic footage of violent death is in poor taste.
2. Nothing beneficial to Israel could ever come of it. Unless they captured the view of the soldier pulling the trigger, there could never be any footage definitive enough to prove to the average public viewer that there was no other possible way of removing the threat. However many people saw it and objectively agreed about the necessity of the killing would never outnumber the outraged people who saw nothing but a Turk getting shot by an Israeli.

1. Pfft. Like taste matters.
2. Apart from your assumption that there was no other possible way of removing the threat, that's exactly my point. Israel can't benefit from the release of this information, so it is withholding it. It is only giving supporting documentation (which it controls the majority of) that supports its version of events.
A corollary to 2.: The footage could prove that the people were shot for no legitimate reason - supporting the accounts of the peace activists. Hence, it has not been released.

Again, you reduce Israel's choices. This would have been a nothing issue if Israel had let the activists pass. The most galling aspect of your logic is that you present the choice as let them past, or what did happen. This is not the case, the manner in which they stopped them (which, after all, is what has caused the international outcry) was entirely dependent upon operational decisions.

So, according to you, there were different methods of rerouting the ships that did not involve anyone actually boarding them (I'd say the deaths are more significant than the technicalities of seizing the ship in international waters).

Not necessarily not boarding them, although despite your claims I imagine they could have crippled the Mavi Marmara and towed that. However, there were many choices in the manner in which they chose to board them, the team they decided to send (which was trained for combat, not crowd control), the weapons given to the soldiers (was live ammunition really necessary? There's a good reason why riot police don't have live ammunition.)

I'm defending the logic of not accepting Israel's offer of transferring the goods to Israel. The choice was viewed as unacceptable for good reason.

How was the other choice any more logical? Don't they believe that Israel engages in wanton cruelty against innocent civilians without hesitation? Why should a flotilla that dares to challenge Israel directly fare any better?
There's no way to argue away or ignore the inherent risk of confronting heavily armed groups, even if it is done peacefully.

Who says they expected them to be heavily armed?

Anyhow I would think that the whole point is moot. The activists wanted to highlight the blockade in the international arena. (Note: please don't read into this that I think they wanted to martyr themselves or anything like this.)

To restate the point about territorial waters, Israel is already in them. Your argument that this had to happen in international waters in order to avoid a dangerous incursion into Gazan territorial waters is wrong.

An educated guess that turned out to be wrong. I can live with that, especially since the whole international waters debate seems irrelevant anyway, as you'll see.

Ships on international waters are under the jurisdiction of the country's flag they fly. By conducting this operation in international waters they overstepped their jurisdiction.

Saying that you are going to act outside your authority does not then permit you to act outside your authority.
It has been suggested that two ships of the floatilla were sabotaged before getting anywhere close to Israel.

Somehow I doubt that international waters were established to ensure that fleets headed for a nation's blockaded enemy could only be stopped or intercepted at the declared point of the blockade. More likely they were intended to prevent nations from seizing random shipping and using hostile intent as an excuse.

Please stop making "educated" guesses the premise of your argument. It takes a lot longer to research things that just make shit up.

A more educated guess about international waters is that their establishement was slow, piecemeal and thus lacked any particular raison d'etra. Furthermore, since international waters have long been established, the norms and laws that surround them could have significantly altered the justifications for their continued existence.

In this case, Israel didn't have to wait for the ships to reach the blockade to know they were meant to help an enemy because the fleet organizers themselves declared it was their intent. If a known supporter of an enemy is coming to help, why would it make sense to wait until he is about to reach him before doing anything?

Actually the fleet organisers did not declare that their intent was to help an enemy. Their intent was to deliver aid to the Gazans. Furthermore, the area that the blockade operates in is sufficiently far away from actual land that characterising it as "about to reach him" is misrepresentation.

What does the source have to do with it? It's on video tape! What, you think the Israeli military filmed a reenactment with props and helicopters and actors?
Don't be dense.

The source of the information is always relevant when analysing the information. When the information is released by a partisan source then bias must be suspected - particularly in the case of these videos as they have a narrative overlay.

More importantly, and as I have already said, it lacks any context.

As for actual manipulation of the footage, I very much doubt it. However, it could have been doctored, or as you try to reduce my argument to, reenacted.

Ask yourself this: if the Israelis knew the situation turned violent already, that for whatever reason, soldiers on parts of the ship not on videotape had fired their weapons, do you think they would still send guys down with paintball guns? That they wouldn't know? They have the radio feed between the commandos and the navy in some of the videos, so there was real time communication.

There are many questions about the footage because it lacks any context. Israel is yet to release full footage that will allow a proper analysis of it to be done. Instead the information is partial and, undoubtably, biased by its omissions. When we will see footage of people being shot?

Moreover,

Let me tell you something. This is a proud and somewhat paranoid nation we are talking about. Letting the convoy penetrate a three year-old blockade of an advanced military would be a humiliation beyond imagination. You might as well suggest that a nation should surrender immediately in case it were invaded because fewer people would lose their lives.

Again, inexplicable. You think the goddamned Israeli military should have bowed to a bunch of activists for the sake of avoiding violence?

Again, you reduce Israel's choices. This would have been a nothing issue if Israel had let the activists pass. The most galling aspect of your logic is that you present the choice as let them past, or what did happen. This is not the case, the manner in which they stopped them (which, after all, is what has caused the international outcry) was entirely dependent upon operational decisions. Clearly Israel took the wrong ones, unless this outcome was intended.

Israel did not have to act in the manner that it did to preserve the blockade; it chose this route. The route may have had unintended consequences, but those were the result of choices made by Israel, not decisions made for them.

You're right. Challenging armed naval vessels was a much wiser decision. Now Israel has seized all of the supplies, and is probably well within its rights to do with it as it pleases. Great planning, huh?
How can you defend these people? At the very least they showed wanton disregard for the safety of the passengers by confronting military ships.

I'm defending the logic of not accepting Israel's offer of transferring the goods to Israel. The choice was viewed as unacceptable for good reason.

Yes, according to wikipedia. If you search "Israel blockade 20 miles" you'll see that's the real extent of the exclusion zone. They don't want ships meeting in the middle, which is probably why the fishing restriction is in place for three miles.

Wikipedia, which is the first result from your search, says "The Israeli navy maintains a sea blockade from three nautical miles offshore." The exclusion zone is larger than this, that is true. However, the Israeli navy would be well within Gazan territorial waters (sic) at three miles out....rendering your argument invalid.

Believe it or not, Israeli officials actually indicated that they would not wait for the flotilla to reach the blockade itself, so as to keep the interception relatively unpredictable, as well as keep ships from the Gaza Strip from sailing out to meet it.

Saying that you are going to act outside your authority does not then permit you to act outside your authority. Also, they kinda did do. It has been suggested that two ships of the floatilla were sabotaged before getting anywhere close to Israel.

Secondly, Gaza doesn't have territorial waters - it's not a state and the issue is yet to be resolved.

Funny, because gaza territorial waters brings up a hell of a lot of search results, not to mention that the foreign minister of Turkey said that the NGOs aboard the flotilla said they would approach Gazan waters (which you say don't exist), protest for a while, then drop off their goods at Israeli ports.

Search results don't mean anything. Gaza has a maritime boundary (as established by the Oslo accords) but no territorial waters....as it does not constitute a "territory". Hence https://www.cia.gov/library/publications /the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html (Maritime Claims)

To restate the point about territorial waters, Israel is already in them. Your argument that this had to happen in international waters in order to avoid a dangerous incursion into Gazan territorial waters is wrong.

Where to start?

I think probably the videos should be the first point. The videos are being pretty much solely released by Israel - it is likely that they seized all video equipment - and the videos only tell a small part of the story. Now, if we were to trust the source (which, considering its origin, is questionable), they do seem to be fairly good pieces of evidence about the activists using violence. However, since they are only partial sources of information from the raid, they lack any chronology and thus strip the videos of context (which has allowed people to lay their own context on it.) Had the activists already been attacked? Was this a response? Had they seen other ships attacked? Had the Israeli soldiers basically lost control of the situation on a ship? These videos do not tell us anything like this, or who attacked first (which seems to be one of the key points.) Real evidence would constitute all the video recording during the raid, which has not been released and which I consider rather telling.

Secondly, the issue of Israel having to stop the activists. It may seem like a small point, but reasoning stems from this small mistake. Israel did not HAVE to stop them, they could have let them pass. They CHOSE to stop them in order to continue their blockade, which, again, they chose to place on Gaza. Please stop trying to reduce the Israeli position to acting in the only way possible. There were choices made here - about where to intercept, about what forces to use, etc.

Thirdly, yes the activists did have the option of transferring the aid to the Israelis to be distributed and they rejected the option. I can imagine a number of good reasons for this, such as mistrust of Israel (they, after all, being the state that is imposing the blockade the activists are against) and concerns about the distribution (would it entail an increase in the total amount of aid, or would it have acted as a substitute for aid already entering?)

Fourthly, the issue about international waters. I'm not going to go into the legalities of attacks on international waters and blockades of quasi-states (particularly when this happened 25 miles away from the blockaded area). However, the idea that Israel couldn't have done this in their or Gaza's territorial waters is plain wrong. Firstly, Israel maintains the blockade three nautical miles away from the Gazan coastline (territorial waters extend up to 12 n. miles.) Secondly, Gaza doesn't have territorial waters - it's not a state and the issue is yet to be resolved. Thirdly, and this is particularly to adrshepard, don't call people retards, retard.

Now, anyone who responds please note this and note this well. I have not imposed a narrative here and I have not tried to explain what happened. All I have done is tried to correct some factual inaccuracies, add balance to source analysis and refute some logical errors.

Personally I think Al Gore is kind of a wang, but a whole topic to blast him on a single flub like this? You're really overstating the importance of it, I think.

Consider the implications if something like this was said by our beloved Sarah Palin.

I mean, you CAN imagine her saying something like that, right?

The difference is that Al Gore is a politician.

You're allowed to crucify hick Americans for their stupidity.

I think you'll have an easier discussion if you define what age range we're talking about. Paedophiles are more associated with children under the age of around 13. From that age onwards we're talking more about statutory rape than paedophillia. So, anyone want to argue for the ability of prepubescent children to understand and consent to sex?

I don't see how this issue is anything at all to do with gay marriage instead of the issue of marriage just generally.

I think people are looking at this in the wrong way. The Missile Shield was never an improvement to the USA's or Europe's defensive capabilities because it covered issues that had already been dealt with by MAD (which also applies to Iran.) What the Missile Shield was capable of was unbalancing the MAD balance of power and increasing the ability of the USA to strike without fearing a retaliatory strike. Scrapping it is just keeping the status quo, which, frankly, managed to work even when the two most powerful countries in the history of the world were ideologically-opposed and paranoidally scared of each other.

What really gets me is that Bush tried to justify the Missile Shield on the back of 9/11. He didn't seem to get the fact that a Missile Shield onlyprotects against scientifically-developed states, not non-state actors with limited resources (and to pre-empt any claims of terrorist-supporting countries giving terrorists ICBMs I will say this: get a grip, no state in the world would give such highly classified and easily tracable technology to any terrorist organisation for fear of retaliatory strikes. Any arguments along this path would have to assume that the state had no interest in its own survival.)

Look at Medicare, look at Social Security. Both you can say "socialist" programs and they are failing, besides I want to have a say in my healthcare, not the government.

They're not Socialist programs in any way, shape or form. They're pansy-assed, compromised, politically-weak programs that work within the Capitalist system and get raped time and again by private companies making profit from taxpayers money.

You know how you save money? You nationalise the whole sodding lot. You stop insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, etc, taking billions out of the public purse and you ensure that everyone in the country has a good standard of health (which has huge ancilliary benefits.)
<rant>
It's time people stopped believing the unreflective economic bullshit that private is better than public. 'cause you know what? Economists know shit. Absolutely jack-shit. Right-wing wankers.
</rant>

Update: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8232 423.stm

The British Government has released all the corrospondence on the issues. Pdfs of the letters are available above. It includes Megrahi's failed application to the Prisoner Transfer programme and the letters that the Times reported.

In the case of Megrahi, you have only ONE of those two guidlines for transfer met, namely the agreement of both jurisdictions that he can be transfered. The other guidline (all criminal proceedings being exhausted) has not, as Megrahi's lawyers were still in the process of making appeals on his case. So that begs the question... why was he released?

He wasn't released according to the PTA (which would actualy have seen him transferred to Libya to serve out his sentence), he was released on compassionate grounds (in accordance with Scottish law) because he is estimated to have less than 3 months to live.

And pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't Scotland part of the "United Kingdom," of which Scotland is part of?

It is, but there is a Scottish Parliament set up in 1998) and the Scottish legal system has a long history of being separate to England & Wales. This decision

I only just realised that this thread is about twice the size of the entire old bbs. Freaky.

At 8/30/09 09:17 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/30/09 09:05 PM, Slizor wrote: I'd like to see a bit more evidence before I'm willing to decide either way.

Okay, here's the Reuters report on it if you don't trust the Times as a good source, along with my google search with about a dozen other news articles on the matter.

Again, all the sources (I had to do my own Google search, your link just links to Google) just link back to The Times and I still haven't seen a photograph of the letters. One point that would lend a bit of credibility to your argument though is Jack Straw's comments that the issue is "academic" and a "red herring". It's not really dismissing the argument on its own grounds, is it? Also, this chimes with the content of the letters.

Although, on the other hand, Jack Straw is a seasoned Politician, why would he send such potentially damaging letters to a recently appointed Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice who is part of a rival political party? I would have expected him to play his hand closer to his chest. Plus the timing of the letters (a month after Gordon Brown came to office) is suspicous as it only implicates the current government, not the Blair government who brokered the deal.

Anyhow, if we take The Times article at face value, my reading of the situation is this.

In 2007 the British Government negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya in part as a continuation of the normalisation of relations and also because of Libya's oil resources. While Straw tried to resist the inclusion of Megrahi the Libyans were having none of it and he gave in to their deamnds. However, because the decision to transfer Megrahi was in the remit of the Scottish Government Megrahi never was released under the agreement (which would explain the delay between the PTA and now.) Megrahi then became terminal and was released under Scottish law on compassionate grounds.

So, what this would mean is that while the UK government was willing to transfer Megrahi to a Libyan prison in return for BP's access to oil and greater diplomatic ties, because of Scotch opposition they were unable to. Megrahi's release, then, was actually according to Scoth law and reflecting their decisions and was not a product of international political horse trading. As such, while the UK government has shown intent to trade Megrahi in return for oil (to put it crudely) they didn't actually release him.

So... how many of you clicked on this topic thinking it was going to be about the war in Iraq? SURPRISE, FUCKER! It's not. While the argument can be made that the War in Iraq was a war fought for oil, credible supporting evidence is diffiuclt to produce and somewhat biased at best. However, I was surprised (if not downright flabbergasted) to find that the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber was fueled by nothing short of an oil deal.

Hmmmm......I'm not sure I trust The Times on this one (for a lack of credible supporting evidence on the one hand (on the internet version at least, I do realise they remove a lot of pictures) and also because it seems like a way of tying the British government into a Scottish decision that has been widely condemned.) I really wouldn't crow too much about this one Proteas, a newspaper report isn't really a smoking gun.

I'd like to see a bit more evidence before I'm willing to decide either way.

At 8/24/09 05:00 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Can't help but think your accounting for the difference between them based on career prospects and therefore their predicted income is flawed. Looking at the lists of subjects you've posted, the conservative leaning ones tend to be things which are very ' There is only one correct way of doing things' and students might not be encouraged to challenge the norm as much. If they aren't expected to challenge the norm then I can easily see that as having an influence on political ideology.

This would certainly be my take on things. Although I would phrase it as the "subjects that have less (read no) focus on theory of knowledge issues". Engineering students in particular (from my experience) are very much the sort of people who will argue things like "well it's my opinion so it's valid", misunderstand the application of statistics, be unable to understand the validity of sources and generally be unable to deploy any other analytical viewpoints than their own.

One point about the first post. There isn't currently an indication, but if the stats are about people currently at Uni then the explaination posited is flawed because liberals can't be affected by the assumed unemployment they are yet to experience.....unless time starts moving backwards.

Have anyone thought that perhaps, just maybe, having universal health care -- much like having a public education system or having social security -- isn't socialism?

Spot on. If anyone was even vaguely aware of the bredth of political and economic theory they would understand the multitude of theories that policy actions could be classified as.

But hey, this is a debate that is taking place in a country that is unable to distinguish the political positions of liberalism and ideologies of the left, so I'm not expected much in terms of voter understanding.

At 8/14/09 08:15 PM, michelinman wrote:

At 8/14/09 08:00 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I've eaten squirrel and don't particularly care for it.

It's got a lot of flavor, it's just really greasy like duck. All in all, I'd eat it again.

Duck's not greasy......it's just a little fatty. All you really need to do to make it less so is blanch it for 5-10 mins (so the fat turns liquid) and drain away excess fat before roasting.

Ummm...duck.

Again, I'd like to see the actual data and not an article that picks and chooses which statistics to show its readers.

Cop-out argument.

I use Independent polling data and because you don't like what it says, you bitch and whine then claim bias.

This surprises me not!

Don't talk shite. You've linked to articles (which inevitably focus on certain aspects rather than others - it's not bias, it's reporting) but not to any actual datasets. If you want to backup your claim that you use "independent polling data" then actually link to that independent polling data or send him an electronic copy of the dataset. Otherwise you're mistaking a secondary source for a primary source and trying to bullshit your way out of an informational hole.

On a side note, I would like to see some evidence of you actually using independent polling data. What exactly do you us it for? I know that any datasets that I use I can directly source (or have made myself) and I can explain how I have manipulated the data.

Urm.....has no-one else seen the glaring error in the topic? The topic started with an ancedote about an article in a magazine....most likely written by a journalist (or, at best, one single teacher.) This was then used as evidence that, because they used absolute rather than relative statistics, that teachers, in general, are undereducated.

Now, journalists (and hey, let's throw politicians in the mix too) are well known to be absolutely shite with statistics and, as it turns out, science too.

I'm not saying that teachers would necessarily understand the use and abuse of quantitative methods, but that the argument originally provided is deficient and, as demonstrated by my argument, there are a whole range of skills that teachers could fruitfully master alongside quantitative psychology (such as critical thinking, maybe.)