Originally posted by WajomaAnd that you did. You provided the title of a book as proof of an argument. What sort of uncritical dimwit accepts an argument on the basis of an assumed truth to be gleaned simply from a book title?
I provide the title and author of a book that has sold over half a million copies, you provide a poor attempt at wit.
Enough of your dumbed down cynicism and lowered expectation fatalism. If you can't even bother to extract from that book a cogent idea that even half explains what your dismissive tone suggests then don't bother.
"You provided the title of a book as proof of an argument. What sort of uncritical dimwit accepts an argument on the basis of an assumed truth to be gleaned simply from a book title?
It's a short book and an enduring book, first published in 1954 it's as relevant as ever. One of the lies exposed in the book and which I pointed out was to offer up two unrelated stats side by side as if one were causing the other. Huffs book spells it out concisely and with humour, do yourself a favour if you're going to state stats find out a little about how they are abused. They are invariably compiled with an agenda in mind, they cost money, time and effort to compose and run, those that commission them are looking for an angle otherwise they do not invest resources in them.
"Enough of your dumbed down cynicism and lowered expectation fatalism. If you can't even bother to extract from that book a cogent idea that even half explains what your dismissive tone suggests then don't bother."
I did, you chose not to look.
"In this day and age to still be hiding in the closet!"
That's exactly where you should be, making such stupid assertions as "...if they kill off all the trees..." but instead you want to drag it all out again, no worries, we can do that.
"I am making choices and not letting it all be decided for me. Somethings start in little ways. A word here a concept there and before you know it ideas snowball and people say hey politician what you're going to do about it."
If only you knew what those words meant "I am making choices and not letting it all be decided for me." but you then go on about getting a pollie to force those choices on others so clearly you do not understand your own words. If these ideas you speak of had any merit they wouldn't require 'enforcement' they wouldn't require pollies, and to the credit of the vid you linked in #1 post, they make no such inference.
So how about it kmax, show us the merit of your ideas with out resorting to force and threats of force, become a productive individual, buy a cattle ranch and convert it to a crop.
Again with the "fatalism", negative or otherwise I am not, given the chance i.e. given the freedom to act on his own reason, each man is the master of his own destiny. It's you the control freak who thinks man can not be trusted with his own life.
Originally posted by WajomaI was going to bother, then I changed my mind.
[b]"You provided the title of a book as proof of an argument. What sort of uncritical dimwit accepts an argument on the basis of an assumed truth to be gleaned simply from a book title?
It's a short book and an enduring book, first published in 1954 it's as relevant as ever. One of the lies exposed in the book and which I pointed out was to offer up t ...[text shortened]... the control freak who thinks man can not be trusted with his own life.[/b]