From tomb at byrneit.net Wed Dec 2 07:26:57 2009 From: tomb at byrneit.net (Tomas L. Byrnes) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:26:57 -0800 Subject: [debate] "Hacker" is a bit of a presumption. Looks more like a leak. Message-ID: <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A9382048@pascal.zaphodb.org> It looks more and more like this was a deliberate leak, with non-germane data redacted, by someone disenchanted with the stonewalling of the FOIA requests, and the totally unscientific behavior of the CRU "scientists". I, for one, am glad the data is out there. It's already spawned more openness from the climate change lobby, which can only be a good thing. What I find interesting (OK, appalling) is the total garbage code they are using. I host a friend's blog @ www.di2.nu that is hosting a deconstruction and analysis of the source code. If this truly is what they are using, there is no way it should be the basis of anything other than an interesting monte-carlo (nice way of saying random number) simulation. The code and deconstruction are here: http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ge at linuxbox.org Fri Dec 4 16:47:00 2009 From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:47:00 +0200 Subject: [debate] Obama speech argument map Message-ID: <4B193D04.9040709@linuxbox.org> Hi all. Here is the Obama speech argument map (incomplete, only first 7 minutes out of 35): http://gadievron.bcisiveonline.com/spaces/c5304ac938405caba473978338bf0ab017b10014/ From ge at linuxbox.org Sat Dec 5 13:16:54 2009 From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:16:54 +0200 Subject: [debate] new attempt at debate - different style Message-ID: <4B1A5D46.7000606@linuxbox.org> We tried formal debate, and it was too slow. We tried informal debate and it was too noisy. This time, the idea is to try what we will refer to as semi-formal. Where we will still put forth arguments in an organized fashion, but we able to discuss them openly. Also, I am introducing a format by which to write your emails, so that we can all easily follow your meaning, and start getting better at writing our arguments. Who goes first? RULES ===== PROPOSITIONS ------------ Anyone can send in a debate proposition. 1. Write 1-3 paragraphs covering: - The problem. - Why it is a problem. - Your proposed solution. 2. List (flag) your arguments by name. 3. Write a minimum of 2 arguments and a maximum of 4, in support of your proposition. Give them names and announce them both at the list above, as well as when you discuss them. Give any argument no more than 2 paragraphs. 4. List between one and three reasons, or proofs, as to why each of your arguments is true. Spend no more than 1 paragraph on each such proof. RESPONSES: ---------- Responses can come as follows: 1. Rebuttal: Pick ONE argument put forth by the proposition in any email you may send in, and logically explain why it's untrue, irrelevant, etc. Try and limit this to 2 or 3 paragraphs. Anyone may respond to a rebuttal, using the same rules. If the rebuttal puts forth more than one argument, pick only one. Limit yourself to 3 paragraphs for your entire email. 2. Counter-argument: If you believe the proposition is wrong, and would like to oppose, send in an email by the same rules as when proposing, as described above. Only instead of starting with describing the solution, discuss why there is a problem with the original proposition's solution. FURTHER DISCUSSION: ------------------- You may send in another proposition email on the same subject, discussing new arguments and proofs to support the case of the original proposition. Follow the same rules, but don't repeat unless you go deeper into a point they did not cover yet. Gadi. -- Gadi Evron, ge at linuxbox.org. Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/ From ge at linuxbox.org Sat Dec 5 17:59:29 2009 From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:59:29 +0200 Subject: [debate] This house believes the gay rights movement should oppose gay marriage Message-ID: <4B1A9F81.8050705@linuxbox.org> Rinat, a member of our group, brought the motion to my attention. While it is not necessarily my opinion I thought it would be interesting to try and defend it. As I am defining the debate, I chose to limit myself to only 2 arguments. Please follow the rules on structure of emails that I sent in my previous message, and feel free to support or oppose this motion openly, with no limitation on when. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The gay marriage movement in the past decade caused a strong counter-movement to appear against gay rights. For example, already back in 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed -- during a democratic administration -- which rejected gay marriage, and was supported by 68% of Americans. We believe Americans are sensible people who mostly support gay rights, but also fear for the erosion of one of the most important aspects of American society -- the traditional family unit, and the marriage which makes it happen, as well as other reasons such as what it might mean financially for the nation. While it is understandable some gays want to declare their love with marriage, gay rights should over-shadow gay marriage, and as the institution of marriage has deep traditional roots, what they consider an attack on it makes people resent all gays for trying to change it. Further, other options for starting a family are available to gays, such as civil unions. We will argue that: ------------------- 1. Foundational limitations from society are not what the movement is about. 2. By pursuing this, the movemeny causes a public de-legitimization of gay rights. Arguments: ---------- 1. Foundational limitations from society: (a) The gay movement has always been about "fighting the man", seeking freedom, and abolishing limitation. This shaped their development since the very beginning, and is an integral part of homosexual society today. (b) By fighting for gay marriage, the movement basically says that it wants to rejoin the establishment, and take on the limitations embeded in it. For example; monogamous relations between two partners, a man and a woman. While gays can choose to be monogamous, they don't have to, and the homosexual society accepts them no matter how they choose construct a family, with how many members, and of what gender. (b) This choice is limiting and goes against both what gays want from the lifestyle, as well as what the movement has always been about. 2. Public de-legitimization of gay rights: (a) By supporting gay marriage, a controversial topic, a society that is relatively pro-gay opposes the movement as a whole. Society thus opposes gays rather than just gay marriage. (b) Marriage is a tradition embedded in human society for thousands of years, literally biblical. While people are accepting of gays, by infringing on marriage which they hold sacred, the gay movement causes their position to be ridiculed, right along with their stance on gay rights. (c) As people associate gay marriage with the general fight for gay rights, it makes people who would normally support gay rights, strike at them. Thus hurting gays everywhere, and de-legitimizing their position with the public. For these reasons and more, we ask you to carry the motion!