Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - dallen68

Pages: [1]
General Discussion / Bad Reporting
« on: November 29, 2014, 12:28:11 AM »
This may not be a "talking point", but there really is no other place to put it and I doubt it's worthy of it's own thing, as it's merely a passing thought. Anyways, on facebook some of us were talking about Fergusen and Shane mentioned passive voice. It occurs to me that sometimes journalists write this way so as to not color public opinion ahead of the trial.

For example, if I say: "Shane shot Travis with a baretta,"  I'm potentially contaminating Shane's chances of an impartial trial, because I've essentially convicted Shane in a trial of the press. But if I say, "Travis was shot, and Shane was arrested at the scene, while holding a baretta," I did not comment on Shane's guilt or innocence, just reported the facts.  I'm just saying the reason for it may not be to absolve the police of guilt.

General Discussion / Nazi Argument
« on: June 16, 2014, 09:33:04 PM »
Something Shane said in his last video negates the Nazi fallacy (in my opinion). As a reminder, the Nazi fallacy says that once you bring up Nazis, you lose the argument. What Shane said was that if the argument you're using to support (whatever) "could" be used to justify some wrong thing in the past, then the argument doesn't stand. Since that is the only context I've ever encountered the Nazi argument...

It has to be one way or the other: Either pointing out that (point) could be used to justify Nazis means the person opposing the argument is wrong or the fact that (point) could be used to justify Nazis means the person proposing the argument is wrong.

Dear David Allen,
Starbucks' milk is straight from factory farms, and its baked goods are chock-full of GMOs.
No wonder it's a dues-paying member of the pro-factory, anti-accountability Grocery Manufacturers Association — or that it's part of a coalition that spent $70 million fighting against common sense GMO labeling in the U.S.
Starbucks has willingly climbed into bed with the same people that back Monsanto while misleading customers about its "sustainability" and "ethical sourcing."
It's time for the corporation to live up to i ts words, sourcing dairy products from organic family farmers and backing GMO label legislation.

PETITION TO STARBUCKS: I'm appalled that Starbucks worked with Monsanto and the GMA to block GMO labeling and back mass factory farming. Terminate your relationship with the GMA, start sourcing from organic family farmers, and come out in favor of GMO labeling now.

You know how in some of the videos Shane is on about how creationists and statist and such are always on about you can't prove a negative, or absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

I'm wondering if that's actually true... I'm wondering if there is ever a time when you can take an absence of evidence as evidence.

General Discussion / Media Inconsistancies
« on: August 30, 2013, 03:56:37 AM »
Hopefully, users will use this thread to highlight inconsistencies in news reports in the media. As an added bonus, perhaps it will become a source material for "biggest bogon emitter", "idiot extrordinaire" & "news of the bogus"

At any rate, as an example:

From Philip Elliot, AP 08/29/2013 - States can request permission to ignore parts of the No Child Left Behind education law through the spring of 2016, the Education Department said Thursday.

A paragraph later - The law expired in 2007 and included goals now seen as overly ambitious.

(If the law expired in 2007, why not just ignore it altogether, without asking permission?)

Two paragraphs later - Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the sweeping law, formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is outdated and inhibits innovation and reform by school districts and states.

"The smartest way to fix that is through a reauthorized ESEA law, but Congress has not agreed on a responsible bill," Duncan said.

(If the law is "outdated and inhibits innovation..." wouldn't the fix be to NOT reauthorize it?

General Discussion / Obama's upcoming climate change speech
« on: June 23, 2013, 05:00:09 AM »
Speculation on several online news magazines (including Reason, Politico, and RCP) suggests the President may announce that he intends to use a series of executive orders in order to bypass congress in order to pass regulations dealing with climate change.

One, can he do this? If so, what are the limits of it, and can congress, at least conceivable come back and reverse these new regulations?

Other than those that deal with military installations, of which he is the CoC, what is the constitutional basis for him unilaterally making up standards for appliances and power plants?

Today, the USSC has decided that it is fine for police to take your DNA as a standard arrest procedure. While in the case immediately before the court, it did uphold a rape conviction, which Maryland's court of appeals had overturned on the basis that there was no reason to suspect the person; this decision is going to do law enforcement more harm than good.

It has been standard practice for years to take DNA from convicted felons, and see if they can be tied to any other crimes. However, if people have to worry about being swabbed for running a red light, it may increase the chance of public endangerment from people fleeing authorities.

Woman searched WebMD for treatment options for 14 yr old gunshot victim instead of taking him to the hospital or calling emergency services.

Pages: [1]