Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama to do away with Affirmative Action
This just in:
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.
...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.
...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.
"Good" ethanol gas is a governent sponsored "green" hoax
Gas sold at gas stations is often 10% ethanol. It's touted as being "green" and as mixing a non-renewable source of energy with a renewable source of energy (i.e. ethanol is made from corn).
However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.
Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":
Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.
Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".
Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.
The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.
However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.
Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":
Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.
Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".
Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.
The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.
How HUD caused the market crash
How the department of Housing and Urban Development caused the credit crisis and the market crash.
http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj
It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.
This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".
http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj
It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.
This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The "Causation vs Correlation" error
Causation vs Correlation can be one form of confusion and poor thinking.
How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.
At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.
Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.
The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.
The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"
I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.
I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).
It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!
Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.
The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).
How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.
At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.
Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.
The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.
The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"
I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.
I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).
It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!
Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.
The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Luke 14 and self loathing
Here's the context of Luke 14.
Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.
He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.
Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.
(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).
Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...
(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?
Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?
Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?
Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r
Is this not in context with Luke 14?
Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.
(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).
Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.
He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.
Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.
(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).
Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...
(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?
Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?
Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?
Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r
Is this not in context with Luke 14?
Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.
(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)