Justice is, unfortunately, a slow process. Even at the snails pace it sometime seems to move we, as a species, still do not always get it right. I think it is better that way and why vigilantism has too much risk of falling flat on it's face when someone acts out against a perceived wrong when they do not have all the information pertaining to that situation.
You're right, and, in the end, I agree. I'm just saying I understand the frustration. The justice system is often flawed, but it beats lighting shit on fire, even if it doesn't look as cool.
Regarding global warming, the article you posted is a pretty heavily biased interpretation of new data analysis techniques that reconcile the discrepancies between surface thermometer readings and tropospheric satellite readings. The new results do, in fact, show a warming trend, but that warming trend happens to be smaller than some previous analysis have estimated.
Here's an MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/) article that quotes some of the same people as the T&F link you posted. And since I know you likes your science, here's some of that. (http://www.techcentralstation.com/120304F.html)
Also, here's an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=962) that is of interest more for its distinction between consensus on data and certainty of conclusions than for its discussion of global warming itself.
My understanding of the GM crops issue is that it is widely recognized as being impossible to prevent migration of many such crops out of test fields, which is also true in different ways about many agricultural chemicals and their migration into ground water and drinking water supplies, as well as their effects on plant and animal life as they break down. I'm not up on the science of it all though.
There's not as much consensus on the long-term effects of all of these things on humans, true, but that they do happen and that there are risks is pretty certain. It seems to me that since there is a possibility of dire consequences, the more intelligent course of action would be to cease using such products until the risks can be fully ascertained.
It seems to me that we go about these things backward - putting GM crops, for instance, out into the world before we know without a doubt that they will do no harm, and then defending that decision by saying we're not certain they don't do harm. That's idiotic.
Technically, the above falls under the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy you posted, but it seems logical to me. These issues are all about the potential consequences, and the fact that thse consequences have not been adequately determined.
Terrorism: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
So the only difference between terrorism and any other form of political violence is that it's illegal. That's just silly. Legality is hardly a proper metric by which to judge the moral rectitude of an action.
no subject
You're right, and, in the end, I agree. I'm just saying I understand the frustration. The justice system is often flawed, but it beats lighting shit on fire, even if it doesn't look as cool.
Regarding global warming, the article you posted is a pretty heavily biased interpretation of new data analysis techniques that reconcile the discrepancies between surface thermometer readings and tropospheric satellite readings. The new results do, in fact, show a warming trend, but that warming trend happens to be smaller than some previous analysis have estimated.
Here's an MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/) article that quotes some of the same people as the T&F link you posted. And since I know you likes your science, here's some of that. (http://www.techcentralstation.com/120304F.html)
Also, here's an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=962) that is of interest more for its distinction between consensus on data and certainty of conclusions than for its discussion of global warming itself.
My understanding of the GM crops issue is that it is widely recognized as being impossible to prevent migration of many such crops out of test fields, which is also true in different ways about many agricultural chemicals and their migration into ground water and drinking water supplies, as well as their effects on plant and animal life as they break down. I'm not up on the science of it all though.
There's not as much consensus on the long-term effects of all of these things on humans, true, but that they do happen and that there are risks is pretty certain. It seems to me that since there is a possibility of dire consequences, the more intelligent course of action would be to cease using such products until the risks can be fully ascertained.
It seems to me that we go about these things backward - putting GM crops, for instance, out into the world before we know without a doubt that they will do no harm, and then defending that decision by saying we're not certain they don't do harm. That's idiotic.
Technically, the above falls under the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy you posted, but it seems logical to me. These issues are all about the potential consequences, and the fact that thse consequences have not been adequately determined.
So the only difference between terrorism and any other form of political violence is that it's illegal. That's just silly. Legality is hardly a proper metric by which to judge the moral rectitude of an action.