Big brother government is watching you, especially if you're Wal-Mart. And apparently staring means counting. I'll explain those two statements in commentaries below.
First, the Massachusetts pharmacy board has that Wal-mart must carry the "morning-after" pill. (This pill is a form of abortion because conception has already occurred...it is not "emergency contraception" as the liberal media would have us believe. After all, how can it be prevent conception if conception has already occurred? But I digress...). The issue I'm dealing with here is whether the board can force Wal-Mart--or any retailer--to carry a particular pill. And the answer to that question should be no. The last time I checked, this was the United States and not the Soviet Union. The government in a capitalist system (as opposed to the Soviet's command system) is not supposed to tell stores what to carry on their shelves, whether the store is a pharmacy, a grocery store, or a bookstore. Can you imagine the government telling a bookstore that it had to carry a particular book? No, that seems silly, and in the same way, requiring Wal-Mart to carry the contra-pregnancy pill is foolish as well. Wal-Mart is within its rights to decide what it will and will not stock. If a woman wants to find the pill, there are other pharmacies that sell it. Neither Wal-Mart nor any other store should be forced by the government to sell anything. This is plain and simple a case of the government forcing its will unfairly upon a corporation. [Sigh] America is becoming more and more like Europe every day. Let me know when techno and discos starting showing up again and when believing in Jesus Christ will be hate speech.
The second item deals with the third in a string of absurd conclusions that a few scientists have made in the past few years about counting. A few years ago, a small group of scientists concluded that dogs could count. Last year, another group decided that monkeys could count. Now, a group has used the same flawed reasoning as the other two studies to conclude that babies can count sooner than we previously thought. The problem with all of these studies is that the reasoning used to determine when a dog (or monkey or baby) is "counting".
In each experiment, the subject is shown a picture (or hears a sound) of a certain number of things. With the dogs, it was pictures of food pellets. I forget what it was with the monkeys. With babies, it was the sound of 2 or 3 women's voices saying, "Look". In each case, researchers found that the subjects stared longer when the same number of things were present than when a different number was present. For example, the dogs stared longer at the food pile if the same amount of food was there as in the picture, and the babies stared longer at pictures of women that matched the number of voices that they heard. In other words, the likelihood of something being counted is directly proportional to the time that the viewer looks at it. 1...2...3....Say what?!!!!!!!!!!!
That is one of the worst conclusions I have ever heard! It makes no sense! Logically, why would anyone (or any animal) stare longer at something that matched its expectations? If something is as expected, don't we spend less time looking at it? So, why the reverse assumption? I don't know. It doesn't make sense. The conclusion is logically flawed at its core, and I'm amazed that any serious researcher would actually make it. If anything, I think their findings disprove their hypothesis. [Double sigh]
No comments:
Post a Comment