Mr Deity On Evolution

Dearest Dr Carson

This one's been making the rounds:



Just wanna home in on the PC Police bit.  First, there're good reasons for Godwin's Law, and even better reasons for the First Corollary (whoever mentions Nazis first loses).

But second, there're actually some pretty good reasons for what these jag-offs call "PC".  And I'll put the main reason to Dr Carson in the form of a question:  Dr Carson, if somebody walked up and called you a 'nigger', would you at least consider kicking him in the nuts for being the racist asshole he obviously is, or would you shake his hand and congratulate him for having the great courage to be such a stalwart Freedom Fighter?

Today's Tune

Today In Absurdity

Ms Forlano mentions something about mammography and a recent study that the authors have said suggests annual screening isn't as vital as we've been told.  I haven't found a lot about that study, so I'm kinda talking out my ass here, but when you're trying to make a judgement call on practically anything medical ya gotta look at the outcomes first, and then work your way back thru all the treatment options.  Outcome is what matters, and evidence - what you can prove - is what has to drive those treatment decisions.

The study, which included nearly 90,000 women ages 40 to 59, is the latest to question the value of routine mammography. The researchers found the same number of women died of breast cancer over 25 years, regardless of whether they underwent yearly mammograms or not.

I'm always gonna start from a skeptical viewpoint. eg: The Cancer Treatment Industry has a dog in this fight, so there's some probability for us to see at least a little self-promotion on their part when they push back.

Of course, it's all a shitload more complex than that.  Take a ride thru The Placebo Effect some time and tell me it didn't make you just a tiny bit dizzy.  (Try this one too)

The more we learn, the more we understand how little we know.

Today's Pix

 

  

Logical Fallacy #5: The Slippery Slope

Per Wikipedia:

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but is usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related eventsculminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).

Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

A Tune For Teacher

hat tip = JR

Death And Taxes

Wanna get a good close look at where all the money goes?

Here it is.

A few screen shots:

Today's Wingnut

Steve Swanson via RightWing Watch, via Addicting Info:



Almost right from the start, Mr Swanson tries to bring the warning home; basically saying, "If I were the devil I'd buy Disney..." to make that standard leap-of-stoopid: Gay is bad; Disney is Gay; and so Disney must be bad.

BTW - it wasn't all that long ago that Disney was one of the mainstays of the Christianists' version of USAmerica.  But then, of course, Disney went all shove-the-gay-down-our-throats by recognizing that gay money spends really good too, and there's a lot of it, so let's try not to treat the customers like shit - and that's what ruined it for everybody.

BTW #2 - with all the Princess Fantasies and the show tunes and the pixie dust, aren't Disney and Teh Gay just kinda the perfect fit?  Seems like the classic no-brainer if you know anything about bidness.

Anyway, how do we know Swanson isn't the devil?  Satan's supposed be all wily and sly, and really good at fooling us into thinking he's the good guy so he can get us to do all those horrible things that Swanson says Disney's doing - seems maybe Swanson's actually implying we should do something to gay people and then blame Disney for it(?)  Gets a little complicated.

Just wonderin'.

Saying Good-Bye

Say Something --A Great Big World w/ Christina Aguilera