[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[Doom]

I have to call a reading comprehension fail on you. His entire book is a long rant on how public schooling is evil and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. I can't teach you reading comprehension.

I certainly acknowlege that everyone who's read the book possibly has a reading comprehension fail.

But, you haven't even read the entire book, so it's odd for you to make a claim about "his entire book".

Pick any part of the book. He directs the reader to a point in history or some source, and then draws wild conclusions not evident from the source.

I certainly respect this as an opinion.

People burn out from jobs after distinguished careers. The fact that he decided to write an entire book about how his own job was awful is a pretty good sign of burnout.

Are you referencing some other book here? The book we're currently discussion isn't primarily about his own job at all (although he does have a few anecdotes).

The fact that his license was pulled twice for insubordination and they kept trying to fire him in defiance of the law is a pretty good indication that he wasn't hacking it.

I agree this is a possible valid interpretation, but you are assuming the lawbreakers were in the right for their illegal acts.

Many, many, whistleblowers have been treated harshly in an illegal way; while I accept your position that their harsh and illegal treatment was justified despite the law, I'm unwilling to take it at face value.

His scream of consciousness writing style that draws inappropriate conclusions from the stated facts is a sign of psychosis. Look up the literature on psychosis on your own time.

I certainly respect this as an opinion. I note that I'm hard pressed to find another reviewer able to characterize his writing as such, and Amazon has a number of negative reviews. Again, to emphasize: even the negative reviewers, some of whom have extensive criticisms, can't even come close to the 'stuff' you're diagnosing and asserting.

It really seems with his extensive speaking engagements, the psychosis thing you're claiming would have popped up...but I respect it's just your opinion on the matter.

Again, I direct you to the source. In several places he frames his arguments as an almost mystical search for truths that exist beyond the facts that only he has found. The whole "Putting Pedagogy to the Question" prologue reeks of arrogance and victimization, but it crops up in every section I sampled like the "I Quit, I Think" essay.

Again, I certainly respect this as an opinion.

[Psychic Robot]

You can tax the middle class 10%, and raise the middle class's purchasing power 20%. This means an 8% increase in the net value of every dollar they have. Is this a tax burden that needs reduced, y/n?

(Though, as it turns out, you're right and we should be taxing the ultra-wealthy instead; they can handle it better.)

no it is not the government's job to fix society. here's a better way to increase purchasing power: stop printing money

You're implying rights are not a concept invented and applied by man to achieve results. Which is sort of a stupid implication. The federal government can do whatever society says it can by not stopping it. We have some formal codes of conduct legitimizing this, and we change them as the needs see fit. Recently, we've made a move towards federal government over state government. Recently as in since the civil war. These have been some of the most prosperous years our country has had. As you so eloquently put it, "deal with it."

states' rights vs. rights of the federal government. I support marijuana legalization but I would oppose federally-mandated marijuana legalization.

When I say socialism, I mean the Ameican concept of socialism. Which is not socialism at all, and has nothing to do with government employment. "more government is not what we need" is also an objective claim, and I seriously invite you to provide supporting evidence for it, because I can provide pretty awesome evidence that governments are capable of stepping in and doing pretty sweet things and effecting positive change. In our history and in other countries.

What we're actually talking about (the American concept of socialism) is just plain ol' private sector regulation with public sector action.

uh then say what you mean because socialism to me is public enterprise vs. private enterprise, which is why I distinguish between "socialism" and "european socialism." also allow me to prove that we need less federal government

1. federal government takes money from states and redistributes it "fairly" resulting in a net loss for states with high taxes (usually blue states) and a net gain for states with low taxes (usually red states). this is bullshit because you are stealing from those who earn to fund those who aren't willing to raise their taxes to fund social programs. ironic though that democrats love social programs and they go to fund republicans, but the point is that it's wrong.

2. war on terror, war on drugs. wasteful government spending resulting in inflation and a weak dollar. also a loss of american lives for israel/halliburton.

3. social security/medicare/medicaid. the closest things america has to wealth redistribution and universal health care also happen to be its bleeders in terms of finances. heavy reform necessary and these should be on the state level not federal level precisely because wealth redistribution from #1 to fund these.

4. obamacare. if you think this is good then I don't know what

What the fuck are you even babbling about for fuck's sake?

America's banks implement a clever banking scheme that singlehandedly drives our economy face first into the ground and makes them a profit. Your response: "it's your fault that these other people did this thing to you that you are now suffering for. So now we must punish ourselves for a great depression." "You got raped, so climb in the jail cell, you dirty rapist. How dare you let that crime happen under your watch? Don't you know how terrible rape is?"

But here's the big thing; the way you want to let things get worse first won't make them any god damn better. It will make them super-fucking worse, and then worse, and then more worse. Your false dichotomy of "status quo" or "economic collapse" is non-existent. Because everyone already has ideas that are A) not the status quo, and B) not economic collapse. You are ignoring them because you think people should suffer, and then recover. Instead of just recover. Which is pointless and sadistic and will in fact make the recovery harder.

You have bad ideas, and they seem to revolve around hurting people for your own satisfaction.

we must progress toward worsening living conditions so that we can usher in meaningful reform. once it gets so bad that everyone agrees that we need change, then we can agree to pass legislation. until that point most americans don't see the need for things like stopping the tide of illegal immigrants.

[K]

I have to call a reading comprehension fail on you. His entire book is a long rant on how public schooling is evil and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. I can't teach you reading comprehension.

I certainly acknowlege that everyone who's read the book possibly has a reading comprehension fail.

But, you haven't even read the entire book, so it's odd for you to make a claim about "his entire book".

I drew an inductive conclusion based on the sample I read and the fact that he actually describes the book in these terms in the prologues.

This thing is such obvious crap that I think people take one look at it and don't comment on it at all since it seems to be unworthy of even negative attention, but I appreciate your Appeal to the Masses Fallacy (though you should realize that anyone doing an Amazon review is already the self-selecting group that takes this dreck seriously).

The purple prose and blatant self-importance is almost as bad as the failures in logic, factual errors, and dreamy mysticism loosely disguised as academic discourse. I give you credit for finishing it, but you should feel deep shame for accepting any part of it as anything less than a joke.

In fact, it almost works as a parody. I could totally see someone in a comedy group reading selections of it out loud.

[Username17]

Wait... what? People are actually talking about "The New Dumbness" as if it wasn't the ramblings of a crazy person? Literacy today is higher than it has ever been. Ten years ago, literacy was the highest it had been up to that point. Any argument about education that does not concede that people today are smarter and better read today than they were in the past is not worth debating.

You can talk about how the education system fails some students, and you can talk about how some subjects could be taught better and you can talk about how some things are no longer relevant to the modern person (lie, say: calc functions). But if you claim that people in general are dumber than people in the past, you're just factually wrong.

This argument right here is already more reading and writing than 19th century people did in a week.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

You lose more points for not bothering to check: it's a real word, and he's using it properly: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dumbness, definition 6. Oopsie.

Yeah, that wasn't a grammatical/linguistic jab. That was a "so far this guy sounds like a moron jab." I'll forgive you the lack of comprehension here.

And you forfeit all by not bothering to check what the actual thesis of the book is. Oopsie, as usual.

Your argument in defense of the stupid shit he says is that he says things contrary or irrelevant to his thesis, and I should ignore those things.

Do you have anything better?

Here you are correct, sort of. The measurable effect is a reduction; feel free to check 19th century entrance exams to see for yourself, however, what an 18 year old could do then, as opposed to now. Oopsie, again.

Feel free to provide sources pre-common education and post-common education. Please ensure that they are not racially biased (i.e., literacy rates for non-whites went up post access to education, literacy rates for whites went up less). Please make sure that said data is evident from our experiences in the third world, where access to education has demonstrably not reduced knowledge at all, and has done the exact opposite. Your theories should not forget that Africa is part of the world, too. Your evidence should also take into account the fact that people are measured against their contemporaries, so the bar has increased with our knowledge, so simple pass/fail rates are sort of irrelevant.

Yes, mastering ancient Latin--mandatory for being considered educated at that time-- is totally trivial next to operating a microwave. Go and look at an 19th century schematic for building a boat...complicated things existed then, too. Oopsie, again.

A few things here. Firstly, it was not mastering ancient Latin. At best, you were to have a rudimentary latin vocabulary. Today, we do the same thing with existent languages; a foreign language goes a long way towards getting into a college. Bonus points for us, because our studied languages still exist and are useful.

Also, you mistakenly thought I meant operating a microwave, as opposed to referring to the scientific principles on which it functions, which actually are covered. I don't think anyone's taken a class on using a microwave.

Let's assume you're actually right about something this time. Even if true, we've a 12 year old able to handle money dispersal in a military operation...nowadays you'd need a college degree, have to pass a bunch of tests, and have certification.

His peers were shooting guns at people and dying on the front lines. Today, you have to be 18 to serve in the military. We pushed back the age of obligation for both of those, it seems. Letting him sign paychecks and do rudimentary financing because his father was a Big Deal is not something worth noting.

Even if what you say is true, it's curious that Wikipedia says none of this, in fact it even says he was operating a ship at age 12. Oopsie.

His command history is right there on wikipedia. 1823, placed in command of the USS Ferret. That puts him in his 20's. He was not in command of the USS Essex, that was another man's ship on which he served, which is the mistake you seem to be making because that is when he was 12.

What are you reading?

[DSMatticus]

no it is not the government's job to fix society. here's a better way to increase purchasing power: stop printing money

This is an idea which can be objectively measured. We have done so. We found it lacking. Printing money in certain circumstances is super-effective at getting the economy going again, and then your money starts buying things again.

Universal "NO PRINT!" is a bad idea, and is not a better way to increase purchasing power.

states' rights vs. rights of the federal government. I support marijuana legalization but I would oppose federally-mandated marijuana legalization.

Again, rights are what we say and enforce as a society. We moved towards the federal government. It's how we roll now, and it turns out it works pretty well in a lot of cases. It would work better if the country was a little smaller. States' rights would work a little better if the states were bigger.

1. federal government takes money from states and redistributes it "fairly" resulting in a net loss for states with high taxes (usually blue states) and a net gain for states with low taxes (usually red states). this is bullshit because you are stealing from those who earn to fund those who aren't willing to raise their taxes to fund social programs. ironic though that democrats love social programs and they go to fund republicans, but the point is that it's wrong.

This is a gross misrepresentation of how this actually happens. Super wrong, but yes, it happens. The solution, of course, is federally mandating the process, solution, and taxes. oh wai-

2. war on terror, war on drugs. wasteful government spending resulting in inflation and a weak dollar. also a loss of american lives for israel/halliburton.

Yeah, sorry, war isn't one of the responsibilities you can delegate to state rights. The decision to go to war has been federal since the very beginning. You wouldn't have fixed this.

3. social security/medicare/medicaid. the closest things america has to wealth redistribution and universal health care also happen to be its bleeders in terms of finances. heavy reform necessary and these should be on the state level not federal level precisely because wealth redistribution from #1 to fund these.

Yes. And the reform needs to happen inside the industry, and the industry is interstate, not intrastate (international, really). I see a problem.

we must progress toward worsening living conditions so that we can usher in meaningful reform. once it gets so bad that everyone agrees that we need change, then we can agree to pass legislation.

Before you can get rid of the termites, you have to burn the entire house down.

This is stupid. You do not have to actively make things worse. If you are right, and people don't listen to you, things will get worse on their own. And then things getting worse may or may not drive people to listen to you completely naturally.

This does not mean you should be carrying a torch and actively setting as much of the economy on fire as possible to get attention. As a matter of fact, that has the opposite effect; your ability and tendency to run things into the ground will make people not want to listen to you. Justifiably.

But we have ideas that seriously work at fixing this problem without having to hurt anyone. That doesn't mean we should swap those for ideas that hurt people, then fix things less, on the off-chance that people will find being hurt persuasive. That is scare tactics, and it's currently everything that's wrong with political media. Though, it's awful hard to beat it by not doing it yourself.

[Username17]

I think it's important to underscore how intellectually bankrupt Conservative positions actually are. Consider, our local conservative delegation is Tzor, PR, and Doom. There are others of course, but they haven't laid out their reasoning in any detail and we can't tell if they have a point or not.

But let's go through this. Tzor wants things to be illegal but cannot actually bring himself to name a punishment that would be acceptable for breaking the law he wants made. What does he want, a non-binding resolution that people should not do late term abortions? He can't bring himself to actually lay out any specific punishment for people doing abortions anyway because his position is untenable.

Doom backs up his ideas with crazy counter-factual fringe views. He cites "Shadowstats" (a fringe account that believes inflation to be hovering near the double digits all the time based on some thing he heard once rather than actually checking price data) for his economics reports, and "The New Dumbness" for his discussions of education. As in: he is literally incapable of finding someone who is even as mainstream and willing to document credible sources as Glenn Beck to back up his views. Absolutely everything that Doom ever makes a case for is always justified with a perplexing conspiracy theory that is basically one step removed from lizard aliens.

And finally, PR. He already admitted that a bureaucrat could make a decision that saved money and saved lives and that he would be in favor of or opposed to that decision solely on whether doing it advanced his political goals. That the same lives and dollars saved would be counted a good or bad thing exclusively based on whether it made the government look good to do it. He also openly acknowledges that following any of his suggestions on any issue will in every objective sense make the world a worse place. And he demands we do it anyway because he is certain that if we tear down everything and replace it with a system that does everything his way, that things will somehow work out better.

PR is like an evil gardener, who acknowledges that whenever you reduce the water you put on the plants that the plants suffer. But still stubbornly insists that the root of the problem is that there is any water there at all. What magic kicks in such that if we enact all of PR's plans, that all individually make our country more like a 3rd world hell hole, will make us emerge like a butterfly with an unblemished economy? How the fuck does he think that will work?

Of course, it doesn't work. The reason you guys have to resort to implausible data and implausible mechanisms to justify your plans, is that you guys have stupid plans. Conservatism doesn't have the answers. They tried to invoke their tax cut magic, and it didn't fucking work. It never worked. And it will never work.



That is why the conservatives called the liberals the "Reality Based Community". Because in order to continue to hold to conservative plans, you have to ignore reality.

-Username17

[K]

There are days I want to force people to read this.

Hell, there are days I want them to read the whole damned website and require them to take a test on it every year to keep their right to vote, drive, and breed.

[Doom]

Consider, our local conservative delegation is Tzor, PR, and Doom.

Oopsie, not a conservative here.

Doom backs up his ideas with crazy counter-factual fringe views. He cites "Shadowstats" (a fringe account that believes inflation to be hovering near the double digits all the time based on some thing he heard once rather than actually checking price data)

Oopsie, explained this in detail, you missed it. Repeatedly. Please stop repeating this blatantly inaccurate misconception of yours.

. Absolutely everything that Doom ever makes a case for is always justified with a perplexing conspiracy theory that is basically one step removed from lizard aliens.

Oopsie, complete lie. I extensively documented and proved my assertions using the BLS data, and every data YOU provided, even backed up my case, and I even showed you by hand how the calculations work. Is basic arithmetic also a conspiracy theory to you?

But you were absolutely correct when you said gold at $1400 and silver at $30 was wildly overpriced there's absolutely no way it'll go higher, so carry on.

[Doom]

Yeah, that wasn't a grammatical/linguistic jab. That was a "so far this guy sounds like a moron jab." I'll forgive you the lack of comprehension here.

So let me get this straight. You criticise a guy for using a word in a sentence, you think he sounds like a moron for using the word.

It's a real word, used properly, and your criticism only comes from ignorance.

You're shown it's a real word. You're shown it's used properly. You can no longer claim ignorance.

Instead of just shutting up about it, you stamp your foot and say you're still justified in criticizing a guy for using a word properly in a sentence.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and still you carry on. The rest of your post is more arguing for the sake of arguing, and filled with the intellectual dishonesty that is your hallmark. You're still not ready, we'll try again later.

As for Farragut, it says in the Wiki he was a prize master at 12 (I won't bother defining "prize master", you're not into reading definitions). Other biographies also mention this, eg,

"Farragut served under Porter aboard the frigate Essex in the War of 1812; this vessel captured so many British whaling vessels that Farragut, then age 12, was put in charge of one of the prize ships."

So yeah, at 12 years old, he's in charge of a vessel. It must get tiresome being wrong so consistently, but enough trying to correct you, it's just not worth the effort until you're ready to start thinking a little. In the meantime, maybe Frank will come in and help you out by stating dictionaries and history books are all conspiracy theories too.

For everyone else, Gatto explicitly says he's not proposing a conspiracy theory; it's no more a conspiracy than when I used BLS data to show BLS 'inaccuracies'. I easily concede the book is not well writtten--Gatto is using a thesis/antithesis/synthesis style that just isn't going to be effective on a reader that can hardly handle 2 paragraphs' worth of information at a time. The scholarship in the book is poor, and only an idiot could think his book is a scientific research paper (and only an idiot twice over could hold him to such a standard, as he makes no such claims).

The book is a collection of essays and opinions from an award winning teacher with 30 years of experience, and while some may shrilly say he couldn't possibly know anything about teaching...I think it's possible he does know a thing or two.

I don't agree with everything he says, but he advances an interesting thesis as to why it's so common to see apparently intelligent people that simply cannot believe a man can make soup without the beneficent oversight of a legion of bureaucrats 1,000 miles away, why people honestly believe before the age of Big Government everyone lived in caves and banged rocks together all day long, and why a guy can post "just give all debt to the government, it'll solve everything" on even a gaming forum and nobody will take him to task for such inanity.

[Psychic Robot]

This is an idea which can be objectively measured. We have done so. We found it lacking. Printing money in certain circumstances is super-effective at getting the economy going again, and then your money starts buying things again.

Universal "NO PRINT!" is a bad idea, and is not a better way to increase purchasing power.

allow me to amend the statement: stop printing money like a retard with a copy machine.

Again, rights are what we say and enforce as a society. We moved towards the federal government. It's how we roll now, and it turns out it works pretty well in a lot of cases. It would work better if the country was a little smaller. States' rights would work a little better if the states were bigger.

okay well I'll still vote against it because I don't think the federal government should have that authority

This is a gross misrepresentation of how this actually happens. Super wrong, but yes, it happens. The solution, of course, is federally mandating the process, solution, and taxes. oh wai-

no it's allowing the states to fund themselves

Yeah, sorry, war isn't one of the responsibilities you can delegate to state rights. The decision to go to war has been federal since the very beginning. You wouldn't have fixed this.

I wasn't say that this needs to be delegated to states' rights I was saying it's an example of the needed reduction in the size of the federal government.

Yes. And the reform needs to happen inside the industry, and the industry is interstate, not intrastate (international, really). I see a problem.

I don't even know what you're on about now, social security is not an industry but it is an example of how the federal government is bleeding us dry

Before you can get rid of the termites, you have to burn the entire house down.

This is stupid. You do not have to actively make things worse. If you are right, and people don't listen to you, things will get worse on their own. And then things getting worse may or may not drive people to listen to you completely naturally.

This does not mean you should be carrying a torch and actively setting as much of the economy on fire as possible to get attention. As a matter of fact, that has the opposite effect; your ability and tendency to run things into the ground will make people not want to listen to you. Justifiably.

But we have ideas that seriously work at fixing this problem without having to hurt anyone. That doesn't mean we should swap those for ideas that hurt people, then fix things less, on the off-chance that people will find being hurt persuasive. That is scare tactics, and it's currently everything that's wrong with political media. Though, it's awful hard to beat it by not doing it yourself.

yes. at this point the termites are everywhere. think about it this way, you're a liberal would-be socialist. in your opinion, how many republicans can you name that are working for the good of america? let's pretend that even 5% of them are good, and let's suppose that 95% of democrats are good and working toward a better america (lolno). that means that roughly 50% of the politicians (and roughly 50% of the population) are actively trying to shit up america for their personal gain. do you think this is something that we can fix through voting?

no, we can't. in the republican camp, we still have voodoo economists claiming that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy and bring more money into the federal government. this isn't something that is going to change anytime soon. yes, the house needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt.

[Doom]

There are days I want to force people to read this.

Hell, there are days I want them to read the whole damned website and require them to take a test on it every year to keep their right to vote, drive, and breed.

An excellent read, although not a scientific research paper, either. I do wish the essay made it more clear that the tragedy gets worse when you give the resources to a democratically elected government, which is itself a commons. It's quite flawed to assert "we can't trust people to do good things, so we should let the government control them."...governments are run by people, it may as well assert "people are bad, so it follows they'll be good if we let people control them". I note one of the comments cites a book shredding that flawed assertion.

The essay would do well to back itself up with actual, instead of theoretical, examples. One is to compare the thriving lobster industry in Maine (where actual people are given rights to regions of the sea bed), to the dying lobster industries everywhere else (where the sea bed is taken as a commons).

[K]

The essay would do well to back itself up with actual, instead of theoretical, examples. One is to compare the thriving lobster industry in Maine (where actual people are given rights to regions of the sea bed), to the dying lobster industries everywhere else (where the sea bed is taken as a commons).

Really? It took me a few seconds to find an article on how the Maine lobster fishing is heavily regulated to prevent collapse due to overfishing.

The point of the non-scientific site I linked was to show non-scientists that people often make selfish and irrational decisions, hence the need for regulation.

On a personal note, please stop trying to pass off the rantings of insane people as inspirational philosophy or innovative ideas. It makes you look crazy and makes everyone else uncomfortable. Your fallacious appeals to authority are equally pathetic considering the guy is clearly unbalanced. They don't try to yank your license for being revolutionary... they do it when they don't think you should be trusted to be near children.

I realize that people tend to imprint on the first person they find that questions the status quo, but you really are better off reading some Nietzsche or some pop-culture loony like Timothy Leary. At least then people will not question your grip on sanity.

[Doom]

Apologies, apparently things have changed in Maine since last I was there.
Of course, when the article says stuff like "To the north, on Georges Bank, and continuing up into Maine, lobster populations remain relatively robust....In fact, the modest temperature increases that have been seen in the Gulf of Maine, might help to explain the remarkable population boom experienced by Maine lobster stocks,..." doesn't exactly prove the lobster populations are dropping in Maine, but if you want to read it that way, you can.

On a personal note, please stop trying to pass off the rantings of insane people...

Anyway, no latching on to the first person to question the status quo; like I said, I don't agree with everything the man has to say. I just find your Appeal to Megalomania unconvincing. I acknowledge that you may well have the ability to accurately diagnose serious psychological problems just by reading a few paragraphs, but a man with successful award winning career ("Teacher of the Year" for the state of New York), multiple award winning books and a 20 year successful speaking career and other successful projects, even if, as you say with such absolute authority, is insane, still might be correct despite your Ad Hominem.

But I respect that you have an opinion, of course.

[K]

Apologies, apparently things have changed in Maine since last I was there.
Of course, when the article says stuff like "To the north, on Georges Bank, and continuing up into Maine, lobster populations remain relatively robust....In fact, the modest temperature increases that have been seen in the Gulf of Maine, might help to explain the remarkable population boom experienced by Maine lobster stocks,..." doesn't exactly prove the lobster populations are dropping in Maine, but if you want to read it that way, you can.

Yes, populations remain robust because of heavy regulation.

Good job of taking a quote out of context.

On a personal note, please stop trying to pass off the rantings of insane people...

Anyway, no latching on to the first person to question the status quo; like I said, I don't agree with everything the man has to say. I just find your Appeal to Megalomania unconvincing. I acknowledge that you may well have the ability to accurately diagnose serious psychological problems just by reading a few paragraphs, but a man with successful award winning career, multiple award winning books and a 20 year successful speaking career and other successful projects, even if, as you say with such absolute authority, is insane, still might be correct despite your Ad Hominem.

But I respect that you have an opinion, of course.

Here's a quick primer on Appeal to Megalomania and Ad Hominem attacks: they function by saying "this person is crazy and/or bad, therefore you should not listen to their ideas regardless of their merit."

I am saying "this person has crazy ideas that prove they are crazy." The merit of his ideas are the thing calling into question his sanity.

See the difference?

I mean, the actual writings say that he's not using evidence. He says that all written history is propaganda and then goes on to use history as the barest support for his ideas. He draw inappropriate conclusions. His mastery of facts borders on the sadly pathetic (seriously, pretending that being in charge of a captured whaling ship as an officer cadet for a short time during a war is the same as a command is pretty pathetic).

Here's another primer: an Appeal to Authority is "believe this person because they are an authority on this subject." For example, you are assuming that because he won some local awards from his school twenty years ago that he must be a great teacher and therefore his ideas on teaching must be great, and ignoring that he might have gotten those awards for working on educational committees for free or some other political maneuvering so common to educational institutions.

You are assuming that because he lectures and that a number of libertarian organizations (some accused of falsifying research) have given him awards, he must be trustworthy. The real question is why no non-libertarian organization has given him any awards if he is so great?

Ok, you know who other successful speakers are? Snooki from the Jersey Shore, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin... the list of people with truly bad ideas who get paid to speak about them is long.

Seriously. Stop pushing crazy. Making money out of bad ideas makes you a con-man, not a revolutionary.

[Doom]

Yes, populations remain robust because of heavy regulation.

Possibly, but they at best have the same federal regulation as everyone else...and they don't have the commons, also.

The article you linked says lobster populations are dropping, but not in Maine, due to the water warming. The article says the populations are going up in Maine, due to the water warming.

I'm just saying maybe this argument isn't very coherent, and that it's reasonable to think maybe the water warming isn't the problem/solution at all...did you intend this article as a joke?

I am saying "this person has crazy ideas that prove they are crazy." The merit of his ideas are the thing calling into question his sanity.

I certainly agree you're saying that. But that's pretty much where it ends, and you're still simply attacking the man personally, and still saying that you alone have the God-given power to diagnose severe mental illness just from reading a few passages. You misinterpreted my pointing out that hundreds of thousands of other readers seem to lack your special ability as an "Appeal to the Masses".

(seriously, pretending that being in charge of a captured whaling ship as an officer cadet for a short time during a war is the same as a command is pretty pathetic).

And reading this much into a single comment is flat out apeshit insane. "Command of a vessel" is how the phrase is written, feel free to type it into Google and see for yoursel, hopefully one of the nigh 22 million hits will convince you.

For example, you are assuming that because he won some local awards from his school twenty years ago that he must be a great teacher and therefore his ideas on teaching must be great,

I'll certainly accept your opinion that the State of New York is a 'local' place, the population is what, 200, 300, tops, I imagine. I bet it hardly counts as a state at all.

Say, can you do me a favor, and see where I used the word "great" in a previous post regarding Gatto? Thanks.

Also, is there any living human being that you respect? I'm curious if this person can meet the odd standards you have here.

You are assuming that because he lectures and that a number of libertarian organizations (some accused of falsifying research) have given him awards, he must be trustworthy. The real question is why no non-libertarian organization has given him any awards if he is so great?

Your knowledge of such things truly dwarfs my own. Can you give me a link showing the State of New York is a libertarian organization?

[PoliteNewb]

There are days I want to force people to read this.

Uh...you did read the comments, where the author admits (to multiple commenters) his conclusions are not conclusive, right?

[K]

There are days I want to force people to read this.

Uh...you did read the comments, where the author admits (to multiple commenters) his conclusions are not conclusive, right?

The author got dogpiled by libertarians and conservatives, and rather than argue with them he repeatedly said "good point" and tried to move on.

I don't blame him. His blog exists to promote his book, and not to fight fundamentalist ideologies. It's not like anyone in the comments actually said anything that discredited what he wrote, so anyone reading the comments won't judge him for not engaging them.

[hyzmarca]

I don't even know what you're on about now, social security is not an industry but it is an example of how the federal government is bleeding us dry

I think you fail to understand how insurance works. You see, it is a risk distribution system that works by pooling wealth and investing and then distributing it in the event of injury, such that an injury to one will have a minor impact on everyone instead of a catastrophic impact on one.

It works pretty well all things being equal.

Social Security is merely a form of insurance against retirement, disability, and unemployment. It's something that you'll probably benefit from eventually, if you live long enough.

[tzor]

I don't even know what you're on about now, social security is not an industry but it is an example of how the federal government is bleeding us dry

I think you fail to understand how insurance works.

Whether or not he understands how insurance works. Social security is not "insurance." It can be, at best, thought of as a pension system, until conress looted the surplus and gave it worthless scrap of IOU notes that it cannnot redeem because it simply cannot pay back any of its debt, now and forever, AMEN.

Because of this (and because even if congress didn't steal the money the only thing the fun could invest in was government bonds that gave crap returns) social security can best be described as a PONZI scheme that only works if every adult couple had 5 children. Since they don't the system is guarenteed to fail. Perhaps not today, perhaps not in five years, but it's guarenteed to fail. To add to this fail is the fact that the system depends on people dying and they seem to not want to do that anymore. The result is EPIC FAIL.

[K]

Yes, populations remain robust because of heavy regulation.

Possibly, but they at best have the same federal regulation as everyone else...and they don't have the commons, also.

The article you linked says lobster populations are dropping, but not in Maine, due to the water warming. The article says the populations are going up in Maine, due to the water warming.

I'm just saying maybe this argument isn't very coherent, and that it's reasonable to think maybe the water warming isn't the problem/solution at all...did you intend this article as a joke?

I'm just going to attribute this to your low reading-comprehension levels rather than deliberate misdirection. It's not your fault that you can only see the parts that don't actually support your point and miss the ones that do support my point.

Hint: the article was support for regulation. About half of it is about the various regulations they have in the industry to prevent overfishing, some as extreme as banning fishing in large areas for years at a time.

I am saying "this person has crazy ideas that prove they are crazy." The merit of his ideas are the thing calling into question his sanity.

I certainly agree you're saying that. But that's pretty much where it ends, and you're still simply attacking the man personally, and still saying that you alone have the God-given power to diagnose severe mental illness just from reading a few passages. You misinterpreted my pointing out that hundreds of thousands of other readers seem to lack your special ability as an "Appeal to the Masses".

Yes, thousands of people miss the signs of mental illness. Charismatic leaders have been getting people to miss the signs of mental illness throughout human history.

I'm sure that if we handed this off to a dozen trained psychologists, they'd probably agree with me. The trick is whether we could find anyone to take him seriously long enough to actually read his book.

(seriously, pretending that being in charge of a captured whaling ship as an officer cadet for a short time during a war is the same as a command is pretty pathetic).

And reading this much into a single comment is flat out apeshit insane. "Command of a vessel" is how the phrase is written, feel free to type it into Google and see for yoursel, hopefully one of the nigh 22 million hits will convince you.

Actually, I invite you to do the same.

He was allowed him to sail a captured whaling ship to port, probably as a means of giving him something notable to do in order to get him a promotion down the line and as a favor to his dad. He did not get a battlefield promotion or any other change in rank (he was a midshipmen, which is an experienced sailor OR an officer cadet). He was also a prizemaster, a role that as far as the internets says means that he divided captured pools of money into 8ths.

So he sailed a ship once on a milk-run to port and occasionally did long division. That is a far cry from a permanent command where he would be in command of men, given a rank and appropriate pay, and expected to go into battle.

Check out wikipedia. It lists his first command in his twenties as "Took command of the Ferret." Sailing a captured ship once is not considered by anyone to be a command. Further internet research will not help your point.

Defending this makes you look stupid. Just saying.

It also actually makes your hero look worse that he thinks sailing a ship is a big deal. He should go down to his nearest marina so that he can idolize the teenagers piloting leisure craft around the harbor. Perhaps they can give him intuitions not based in evidence about how all history is propaganda.

For example, you are assuming that because he won some local awards from his school twenty years ago that he must be a great teacher and therefore his ideas on teaching must be great,

I'll certainly accept your opinion that the State of New York is a 'local' place, the population is what, 200, 300, tops, I imagine. I bet it hardly counts as a state at all.

Yes, within a four year period he won teacher of the year from his school, and once for his state. The same state and school also tried to later yank his license twice and fired him. I'd call this a wash.

After he wrote his crazy book, several libertarian organizations of no note or disrepute gave him awards.

This is not a resume to inspire confidence. Bill Cosby has a better resume as a thinker on educational issues, and he was an actor for most of his career.

That you think that these count as qualifications says more about your mental health than anything else.

[K]

Because of this (and because even if congress didn't steal the money the only thing the fun could invest in was government bonds that gave crap returns)...

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

[Doom]

I'm just going to attribute this to your low reading-comprehension levels rather than deliberate misdirection. It's not your fault that you can only see the parts that don't actually support your point and miss the ones that do support my point.

Well, the article does say lobsters are dying off south of Maine because the water is warming and that lobster population is increasing in Maine because the water is warming, while completely ignoring another important difference regarding the seabed being a commons south of Maine and being in a sense owned by individuals in Maine...so you are joking about the article actually meaning much, right?

I mean, the first article you linked was about how you need regulation, and second article you linked gives an example how regulation fails and in fact, isn't the answer at all. You supported my point, so I thank you for that.

Both Maine and South of Maine have the same Federal regulations; both have warming water. But Maine also doesn't have the commons, and is thriving.

You conclude the regulations are definitely the difference between the two, even though both operate under the identically same regulations...I respect you have unusual powers of perception, but I think the difference in having commons is more reasonable to consider as a possible reason for a thriving industry in Maine as opposed to elsewhere.

Yes, thousands of people miss the signs of mental illness. Charismatic leaders have been getting people to miss the signs of mental illness throughout human history.

Yes, and you have a superpower, an ability no other human possesses, and you see things that no other person can see. I should respect your Appeal to Megalomania, and back away slowly, but I feel the need to ask more.

What other magical powers do you possess? Do you think making such claims does much for your credibility?

I'm sure that if we handed this off to a dozen trained psychologists, they'd probably agree with me. The trick is whether we could find anyone to take him seriously long enough to actually read his book.

Actually, Dr. Chad Osborne, among others, is a psychologist whose examined Gatto's work. Alas, he doesn't have your magical power, and doesn't consider Gatto insane. I guess I could cite others, but I imagine you'd only accept other psychologists with superpowers as being legitimate.

Actually, I invite you to do the same.

Feel to to see for yourself; these are the pictorial archives for the history of the US Navy. I'll quote some...

David Glasgow Farragut, born at Campbell's Station, near Knoxville, Tenn., 5 July 1801, entered the Navy as a midshipman 17 December 1810. When only 12 years old, he was given command of a prize ship taken by Essex, and brought her safely to port.,,

Seriously, apeshit insane to argue this point so fiercely...it's how the word 'command' is used. I'm real sorry you don't like it much, but the word means what it means.

The US Deparment of the Navy also disagrees with you, see for yourself.

Do you feel that the US Navy is part of some grand conspiracy by using this word? Honest, it's just how the word is used.

Gatto is using the same word in the same way as the US Navy adn 22 million hits off Google...and yet your magical powers let you discern that Gatto is misleading in some way. Fascinating.

Defending this makes you look stupid. Just saying.

Yes, I get it. The US Navy is a tiny organization filled with Libertarians. Whatever, dude.

In all seriousness, you are demonstrating delusions, somewhat paranoid, and an inability to understand words in context. You're only further demonstrating your need for psychiatric assistance by projecting a belief of insanity onto someone else.

[K]

I'm just going to attribute this to your low reading-comprehension levels rather than deliberate misdirection. It's not your fault that you can only see the parts that don't actually support your point and miss the ones that do support my point.

Well, the article does say lobsters are dying off south of Maine because the water is warming and that lobster population is increasing in Maine because the water is warming, while completely ignoring another important difference regarding the seabed being a commons south of Maine and being in a sense owned by individuals in Maine...so you are joking about the article actually meaning much, right?

I mean, the first article you linked was about how you need regulation, and second article you linked gives an example how regulation fails and in fact, isn't the answer at all. You supported my point, so I thank you for that.

Regulations aren't magic cure-alls. Holding them to that standard is disingenuous at best.

You specifically pointed to Maine as someplace where the lobsters weren't dying and attributed it to the fact that they don't have the commons.

So which is it? Are heavy regulations making Maine a great place, or are the failing to make it a great place, or are they unable to save Maine's failing lobster industry as the article concludes?

Yes, thousands of people miss the signs of mental illness. Charismatic leaders have been getting people to miss the signs of mental illness throughout human history.

Yes, and you have a superpower, an ability no other human possesses, and you see things that no other person can see. I should respect your Appeal to Megalomania, and back away slowly, but I feel the need to ask more.

What other magical powers do you possess? Do you think making such claims does much for your credibility?

I'm sure that if we handed this off to a dozen trained psychologists, they'd probably agree with me. The trick is whether we could find anyone to take him seriously long enough to actually read his book.

Actually, Dr. Chad Osborne, among others, is a psychologist whose examined Gatto's work. Alas, he doesn't have your magical power, and doesn't consider Gatto insane. I guess I could cite others, but I imagine you'd only accept other psychologists with superpowers as being legitimate.

Delusions

Psychosis may involve delusional beliefs, some of which are paranoid in nature. Karl Jaspers has classified psychotic delusions into primary and secondary types. Primary delusions are defined as arising suddenly and not being comprehensible in terms of normal mental processes, whereas secondary delusions may be understood as being influenced by the person's background or current situation (e.g., ethnic or sexual orientation, religious beliefs, superstitious belief).[4]

Thought disorder

Thought disorder describes an underlying disturbance to conscious thought and is classified largely by its effects on speech and writing. Affected persons show loosening of associations, that is, a disconnection and disorganization of the semantic content of speech and writing. In the severe form speech becomes incomprehensible and it is known as "word-salad".

This is not magic. It's simple science.

Your writer has two of the three classic symptoms. I'd leave it to a panel of medical professionals to actually evaluate him.

Feel to to see for yourself; these are the pictorial archives for the history of the US Navy. I'll quote some...

David Glasgow Farragut, born at Campbell's Station, near Knoxville, Tenn., 5 July 1801, entered the Navy as a midshipman 17 December 1810. When only 12 years old, he was given command of a prize ship taken by Essex, and brought her safely to port.,,

Seriously, apeshit insane to argue this point so fiercely...it's how the word 'command' is used. I'm real sorry you don't like it much, but the word means what it means.

Your author uses "command" to mean some giant responsibility given to a 12-year-old that we would now reserve for an adult when it was instead a temporary and routine bit of seamanship that a cadet could be trusted with in wartime.

I think most people will hear the word "command" and expect "command promotion and a military craft and crew of their own" and not "sailed a non-military craft once on a trip to port." By the second criteria, children of all ages are given "command" of ships all the time. By that criteria, I was commanding ships as a child.

[DSMatticus]

So let me get this straight. You criticise a guy for using a word in a sentence, you think he sounds like a moron for using the word.

Yes, that is correct. I am insulting his writing for both style and deceptiveness. I am also insulting his conceptual understanding of the topic, in that he has no such conceptual understanding, and the use of the word 'dumbness' demonstrates this very, very effectively.

If he had said, "the mass lack of education which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of..." the obvious response would be to laugh until our lungs hurt, because arguing that public schooling did not raise the average person's level of education is pretty hilarious. Arguing that public schooling does not continue to raise the average person's level of education is also pretty hilarious. But he used the word dumbness, because he doesn't want us thinking about the actual function of an education system; education. He wants to incorrectly imply that the function of education is to combat stupidity, as opposed to spread knowledge. Those are related but separate.

And that's why he's either a dumbass or asshole for using the word dumbness in that context; it is irrelevant and a distraction from what the actual argument is about.

As for Farragut, it says in the Wiki he was a prize master at 12

We have discussed this already. That is not a commander of a ship.

"Farragut served under Porter aboard the frigate Essex in the War of 1812; this vessel captured so many British whaling vessels that Farragut, then age 12, was put in charge of one of the prize ships."

The vessel in question is a non-combatant British whaling ship. His command lasts for the entire direct trip back to friendly port through enemyless water. If I'm not mistaken, he was travelling back to port along with other such vessels commanded by superior officers and possibly a few military vesels as well, but I'm not completely sure. And as soon as the task was done he was taken back to the Essex to resume serving as a subordinate officer.

The actual story is that the vessel he was on, the Essex, captured so many such vessels that they started running out of officers to take them back to dock, and that is how young Farragut received his first command.

Any attempts to portray him as having meaningful responsibility at the age of 12 fail. I'm sorry, but the only way to make him sound like he did anything important is to grossly misrepresent and/or ignore the actual facts of what he did. Which you are doing. Stop that.