Page 297 of 381

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:51 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
Tyndmyr wrote:Granted, I doubt that this was actually an accident, but still.

Well, that's the point, isn't it?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:59 pm UTC
by SDK
In this case it was explicitly not an accident. Before he'd even chosen anyone he promised to make it 50/50 for gender with at least one from each region and something something immigrants and aboriginals. He followed up on his promise.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:53 am UTC
by elasto
Thought I'd post a good-news story for once:

Ethiopia has seen a massive cut in its fertility rate, from an average of seven children per woman in the 1990s to 4.6 currently. But how has it managed this?

Experts say the country has made this turnaround because of a combination of factors.

"Women stay longer in school, the standard of living is increasing so people don't want to have too many children and more importantly, family planning is becoming more popular," explains Faustin Yao, the United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA) representative to Ethiopia.

The country's economy is among the fastest growing in the world, and as the quality of life improves, people tend to have fewer children.

Muluwork Tesfaye, a nurse in Addis Ababa, says she could not afford to support a large family in the capital. The mother of two grew up in a family of eight and her parents struggled to provide for them. "My husband is the one who took me to college," she says. "I wanted a better life for my children."

In the capital, Addis Ababa, the fertility rate is estimated to be 1.7 - lower than the rate needed to keep the population steady. More educated women and a higher cost of living often mean fertility rates are lower in urban areas.

In Ethiopia, the availability of contraceptives has also played a big role. "The increase in contraceptive use during 2000-2011 emerged as the single most important source for the recorded decline in TFR (Total Fertility Rate)," said a UNFPA report. However, a quarter of all women who need contraceptives are still not able to get them.

Rural areas have also recorded a decline in the number of children per woman, albeit slower.

Ayenalem Daw, a mother of six living in Weyo Rafu Hargisa village about a four-hour-drive out of Addis Ababa, is in her late thirties. She says if she had heard about family planning earlier, she would have had four children.

Women in her village hold regular meetings called "shene" to discuss contraception and other health issues.

"Things are changing now. I think my children will have only two babies each," says Mrs Ayenalem.

Health extension workers also regularly provide health education in the villages, including information about contraception to those who need it. The programme entails home visits by government-employed community workers who engage families on a one-on-one basis.

The big leap in contraception use between 2000 and 2011 is largely attributed to health extension workers. This was also helped by an increase in the number of girls going to school over the same period.

"We go to the churches and mosques to talk to people about family planning," said one of the women in the village of Hunta, in the Oromiya region. While it is known that the major religions in Ethiopia - Orthodox and Muslims - do not openly approve of family planning, the health workers said religious leaders were generally supportive of their work.


I think it's a generally accepted fact that female education and empowerment lead to falling fertility rates - which is what the planet needs - but it's always good to have it confirmed.

link

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:23 pm UTC
by Mighty Jalapeno
elasto wrote:I think it's a generally accepted fact that female education and empowerment lead to the gradual extinction of the human race.

I mean, it's just math. Soon women will be so smart THERE WON'T BE ANY BABIES AT ALL!

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:04 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Sex trumps math.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:24 pm UTC
by Diemo
YOU TAKE THAT BACK

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:24 pm UTC
by HungryHobo
Zamfir wrote:Then again, real-life ministers are not usually bumbling idiots.


I think that's highly debatable.

The UK has had health ministers who believe homeopathy works.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... thy-works/

One of my friends is disgusted that her MP is regularly pushing the view that horrorscopes should be used in the NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/114 ... ry-MP.html

These people are the norm, not the exception.

You scoff at Yes Minister but it's all too true. The UK government had/has very few scientists and lots of people who studied useless status-symbol subjects like classics.

https://youtu.be/Tobxmn6A1SU?t=369

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:56 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
elasto wrote:I think it's a generally accepted fact that female education and empowerment lead to the gradual extinction of the human race.

I mean, it's just math. Soon women will be so smart THERE WON'T BE ANY BABIES AT ALL!


Nah, learning math is a great way for women to learn how to multiply.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:51 pm UTC
by Djehutynakht
In an apparent move to aspire towards Hollywood-style villainy, Indonesia has proposed to build a prison guarded by crocodiles.

Apparently he believes in the moral goodness of crocodiles and their apparent immunity to bribery.

I'm sure we'll find a way to bribe crocodiles. It's only a matter of time...

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:56 pm UTC
by Dauric
Djehutynakht wrote:I'm sure we'll find a way to bribe crocodiles. It's only a matter of time...


Easy, bribe them with a tasty looking inmate. Y'know, one that runs slower than you.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:12 am UTC
by Mambrino

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:59 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
So. Chipotle has closed down its locations in Washington and Oregon due to E. coli. I've got $20 on the source being an organic supplier. Let's say, idk, the spinach artichoke dip for the long shot. Anyone want to take that bet?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:03 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Do they use any non organic suppliers?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:20 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
They do, they just refuse non gmo food. But if the Seattle one only uses organic, my money is on the spinach or another leafy vegetable.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:34 pm UTC
by Mighty Jalapeno
CorruptUser wrote:They do, they just refuse non gmo food.

So they only use GMO food?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:38 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
I mean the only use non gmo food. Typo, on a phone. Not all of their food is organic necessarily.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:55 pm UTC
by Dauric
CorruptUser wrote: Not all of their food is organic necessarily.


I'm always amused by the use of 'organic' in this context. As if the alternative was "inorganic".

I know it's popular slang for foods that are not modified by direct DNA manipulation (as opposed to all the other forms of species manipulation we've engaged in over the millennia...) but I'm amused by the mental image of food made from rocks.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:59 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Dauric wrote:
CorruptUser wrote: Not all of their food is organic necessarily.


I'm always amused by the use of 'organic' in this context. As if the alternative was "inorganic".

I know it's popular slang for foods that are not modified by direct DNA manipulation (as opposed to all the other forms of species manipulation we've engaged in over the millennia...) but I'm amused by the mental image of food made from rocks.


Eh, not...exactly. GMO/non GMO isn't the same thing as organic/not organic.

A lot of it revolves around the not using of..."chemicals". Yeah, it still doesn't make lot of sense if you think about it, but it's basically naturalism writ large.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:50 pm UTC
by phlip
(Naturalism is the other thing... meaning as opposed to supernaturalism. I don't know of a good "-ism"-style word for what you meant, though... I've heard "chemphobia"/"techphobia" but not really a fan of those.)

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:53 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
phlip wrote:(Naturalism is the other thing... meaning as opposed to supernaturalism. I don't know of a good "-ism"-style word for what you meant, though... I've heard "chemphobia"/"techphobia" but not really a fan of those.)


Yeah. It's an awkward ideology. I was trying to use a more neutral term than "hippie luddites", but....yeah.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:22 am UTC
by KrytenKoro
Naturalisticity? After the naturalistic fallacy.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:28 am UTC
by CorruptUser
That's it. In the "organic vs GMO" debate, the only two sides visible are the hippie douchebag Whole Foods spiritualists and the mega-corporate McDonald's sociopaths. But what about those of us who actually like the idea of GMO food but actually do care about the environment and all those feel goody "social justice" issues but want to approach it from a scientific view? I'm creating a fast food joint that advertises that it uses GMO foods. Mostly Golden Rice and the Hawaiian papayas, because the bastards at Green Peace have put up such a resistance to GMO food that we can't have more nice things. But anyway, the uniforms will be lab coats, the burgers will be made by the robotic assembly line thing, and we will openly promote that we will adopt lattice-meats as soon as they are viable.

Would anyone here Kickstart me if I was serious?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:34 am UTC
by phlip
KrytenKoro wrote:Naturalisticity? After the naturalistic fallacy.
The naturalistic fallacy is, also, a different thing... related to naturalism (specifically, the applying of naturalism to ethics, which many hold as fallacious).

The two fallacies are so commonly confused that the Wikipedia pages about Naturalism have "are you sure you're not looking for [[appeal to nature]]?" all over the place in the lede...

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:35 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Phlip, are you used to a different wiki? A more rational one, perhaps?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:38 am UTC
by phlip
No, just spent so much time getting the terms wrong myself, and being annoyed at how confusing they are... it's grown into a pet peeve of mine.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:50 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Nono, I mean the formatting. Anyway, I too have a history of getting the two confused. Indeed, fucking annoying...

Also, just fixed the wikipedia page to include the confusion at the top...

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:37 am UTC
by Diadem
phlip wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Naturalisticity? After the naturalistic fallacy.
The naturalistic fallacy is, also, a different thing... related to naturalism (specifically, the applying of naturalism to ethics, which many hold as fallacious).

The two fallacies are so commonly confused that the Wikipedia pages about Naturalism have "are you sure you're not looking for [[appeal to nature]]?" all over the place in the lede...

Just because some philosopher over a century ago used a term in some specific way doesn't mean no one else is ever allowed to use it ever again in another way.

Honestly using the term 'naturalistic fallacy' for an appeal to nature ("x is natural, therefore good") is a much more logical use of the term than what Wikipedia describes. Not least because that is not a fallacy at all. It's a nice trick though. I wonder, is there a name for the fallacy where you fallaciously call your opponents argument a fallacy in an attempt to discredit them?

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:03 am UTC
by bigglesworth

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:40 am UTC
by Diadem
No. That's: "You say x -> y. This argument is fallacious. so y must be false" in cases where the argument really is fallacious.
I'm asking about "You say x -> y. This is fallacious" in cases where the argument isn't fallacious.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:35 pm UTC
by Diemo
I don't think we read the same link. . .

Anyway you should call it a fallacy fallacy, cos repeating words is cool!

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo!

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:39 pm UTC
by bigglesworth
Diadem wrote:I'm asking about "You say x -> y. This is fallacious" in cases where the argument isn't fallacious.
Ah, I see. Well in that case is it not just a fallacy? Since you're making a point about the argument. If you're using a false fallacy in your argument, then "Argument from False Fallasy" seems to fit.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:30 pm UTC
by KrytenKoro
phlip wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Naturalisticity? After the naturalistic fallacy.
The naturalistic fallacy is, also, a different thing... related to naturalism (specifically, the applying of naturalism to ethics, which many hold as fallacious).

The two fallacies are so commonly confused that the Wikipedia pages about Naturalism have "are you sure you're not looking for [[appeal to nature]]?" all over the place in the lede...

I know, but it's still pretty similar, and I thought "appealtonaturism" sounded awful.

We've already got naturism meaning nudism and naturalism meaning empiricism, I don't think we'd be much hurt fudging the connotations a bit.

Not sure if that makes it any better, though.

I don't think we read the same link. . .

Anyway you should call it a fallacy fallacy, cos repeating words is cool!

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo!

Just don't get it confused with the Phallusy Fallacy, where the opponent insists their evidence is on an NSFW site, and you're still at work.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:45 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
I thought the "fallacy fallacy" was "X -> Y uses fallacious argument, therefore not Y".

For example

Person 1:
Apple has 5 letters
Fruit also has 5 letters
Therefore an apple is a fruit

Person 2:
That uses terrible logic
Therefore apples are not fruit

Is a fallacy fallacy.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:12 pm UTC
by Suzaku
I believe CU is correct regarding the 'fallacy fallacy'.

The other situation you mention, Diadem:
Person1:
All swans are white.
Odette is a swan.
Therefore Odette is white.

Person2:
That argument is fallacious.
Therefore something.

Person2 has not (necessarily) committed a fallacy, which is an error in logic. In fact, neither person has. Both have committed errors of fact ("All swans are white," is not true, nor is person2's statement).

If person2 says:
That argument is fallacious.
Therefore you're wrong.

Then they commit both an error of fact, and the fallacy fallacy.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:47 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Ah, the difference between being logically valid and logically sound...

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:15 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
CorruptUser wrote:That's it. In the "organic vs GMO" debate, the only two sides visible are the hippie douchebag Whole Foods spiritualists and the mega-corporate McDonald's sociopaths. But what about those of us who actually like the idea of GMO food but actually do care about the environment and all those feel goody "social justice" issues but want to approach it from a scientific view? I'm creating a fast food joint that advertises that it uses GMO foods. Mostly Golden Rice and the Hawaiian papayas, because the bastards at Green Peace have put up such a resistance to GMO food that we can't have more nice things. But anyway, the uniforms will be lab coats, the burgers will be made by the robotic assembly line thing, and we will openly promote that we will adopt lattice-meats as soon as they are viable.

Would anyone here Kickstart me if I was serious?


Toss in rewards like tasty science food, and I'm on board.

Sorry for accidentally starting a digression on fallacies. The "nature is best" thing isn't...exactly a fallacy. Just a strange worldview. Plenty of poisons are natural as shit. Nature has all kinds of elements we dislike. So, I view the outlook as kind of stupid...but a person with such a viewpoint can of course construct a logically correct argument. Plenty of good things in nature, too, after all. The issue is with their focus, and how they filter which topics to consider and construct evidence from.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:52 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
I don't think it's stupid to not want to be a guinea pig for demonstrably wonderful new stuff that doesn't have a very long track record. Demonstrably wonderful new stuff often has unforeseen negative consequences, some of which aren't discovered for years.

My brother-in-law's grandfather had heart problems in the 1960s, and his doctor told him to replace all the natural fats in his diet with vegetable shortening. I.e., trans fats. In retrospect, the change to a trans-fat-laden diet may have hastened his demise. Not his fault for following the most up-to-date medical advice of the time, and not his doctor's fault, either...and not even the fault of the scientists who developed trans fats. It's the fault of some consequences of new developments not being immediately recognizable.

So yeah, plenty of "natural" stuff is harmful, too. But scientists have had a longer time to document problems with that stuff. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:57 pm UTC
by DSenette
is that with regards to GMOs? because...we...as humans, have been generally GMing the SHIT out of Os for, I dunno, thousands upon thousands of years.

just because SOMETIMES that's done in a lab, doesn't change the effective safety of the products.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:01 pm UTC
by doogly
The main concern I would have is that the corporations involved may not have a lot of integrity and diligence with testing and reporting. Genetic engineering of foodstuffs is less of an issue in general. More that Monsato et al may be evil, or at least a bit dishonest. There is no data that suggests GMOs are unhealthy, but we may not be collecting or seeing all relevant data.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:14 pm UTC
by Whizbang
ObsessoMom wrote:Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.


I'd like some people's opinions on the above expression.

On the one hand, any information is better than no information (which is better than bad information). So, taken in that light it is better to base your actions off the limited information at hand. In the case of the trans fat scenario above, the obvious right choice was to follow the science of the day. The reason it was the right choice was not because the conclusion (trans fat = good for heart) was true, because it wasn't, but because that conclusion had a greater likelihood for being true than uninvestigated alternatives.

On the other hand, staying on the bleeding edge of research and invention is just asking for trouble. Obviously new science is new and so there is a large chance that not all variables were accounted for or long term effects weren't measured or whatever.

So where is the preferred/recommended line between keeping current with new science and recklessly taking action on underdeveloped science?