The Sky Is Falling...?

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Sky Is Falling...?
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
Profile #250
quote:
Originally written by Maimonides:

quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony:
Time and such exist as useful concepts which we employ to measure the passage of events. Sequence is simply the way things have to be for a s4ensible existence(i.e. an existence where things are not both 'A' and 'Not A' simultaneously).
Time and such do not "exist" in the way that you or I or a planet "exists".

Your opinion on this matter is not widely held by working theoretical physicists.

Appeal to anonymous authority much?

quote:

quote:
The idea that "time has a beginning" still does not make sense though because the very act of the "beginning"(the "bang" or what have you) would itself require sequential linear time to accomplish.
It would not.
It would and simply baldly asserting "It would not" does not even begin to constitute a refutation. You have to explain to us HOW your speculation can even work.

quote:
quote:
This is another appeal to ignorance fallacy. You ARE presenting a logical contradiction and justifying it by an appeal to some imagined lack of understanding we have about time.
It is not. He is not. You are not "we"; SoT is not the one with a lack of understanding of time.
I suspect that you do not understand the posts you are responding to. Thus far you have committed a series of logical fallacies and nothing more.

quote:
quote:
quote:
Why does a beginning entail a moment before the beginning?
Because that is what "beginning" means. Can you have a "beginning" to a race if the cars have all been driving eternally in circles in infinite regress?! Infinite regress, by definition negates a "beginning".
An infinite regress is not the only alternative to a beginning with a moment before it.
Go on...Explain this other alternative to us please.

quote:
quote:
If time has "a beginning" then how can this be in the absence of sequence that comes with the existence of time(or more accurately the existence of non-static material objects for which events can transpire). In other words how was the "balloon" initially 'inflated' with no moment in which such could occur?
It does not appear to have occurred to you that since the "balloon" was spacetime, the "balloon" was the moment in which its own inflation occurred.
You are speaking in word salad gibberish now. The above entails a span of linear time in which the "balloon" does not yet exist(at least in an "inflated" state), followed by it's inflation. Hence your speculation is refuted.

quote:
The fact that you do not understand how time can expand is not anything more than a demonstration of your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics.
Whatever. As soon as you are able to explain your4self and make some sense, I will gladly concede the point to you. Thus far you are just saying "This is so because I say it is so and I think a bunch of other guys(unnamed of course) who know a thing or two about theoretical physics say so.".

quote:

quote:
"Beginning" DOES imply a preceding moment where the event(of said "beginning") had not yet occurred or the phenomenon did not yet exist. I explained why this was in a preceding post.
It does not. You did not.[/QB]
Yes it does and yes I did(several times now).

--------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi
Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #251
Tony...

The lecture is over. The podium has been removed. The keynote speaker already flew home. The next performance is Cats.

Why are you still ... doing this?

--------------------
Synergy - "I don't get it."

Dikiyoba - "Dang. I'm one firecracker short from getting a gourd potion today."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #252
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

As soon as you are able to explain your4self and make some sense, I will gladly concede the point to you.
When what someone is saying is making sense to everyone but you, it's time to consider the possibility that you're the one with the problem.

You want the name of an authority who believes that time can have a beginning? Try Stephen Hawking. If you haven't even read A Brief History of Time, I'm not sure why you're bothering to try and debate quantum mechanics.

quote:
Originally written by Stephen Hawking:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


[ Saturday, September 08, 2007 19:23: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
Profile #253
To all:

Re: "Beginning of time".

Simple inescapable fact here. for time to "begin" requires a moment in which such an event could occur. Hence time could NOT have a beginning since it had to already exist in order for the "beginning" event to transpire.

Thu8s far no one has even attempted to explain how this could be incorrect.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

[b]
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

"Beyond time"(not "above time") is a typical 'transcendence-rationalization' of many theists and such for trying to explain away the apparent paradox be of 'omniscience' and 'free will' and such. When I point out that an omniscient being himself could not have free will(and hence neither can anyone else which does away with the rationalization that HUMANS are to blame for "evil" which is the typical rationalization offered in answer to The Riddle of Epicurus/problem of evil), they posit that he is "beyond time" and that this somehow means he COULD simultaneously know the future and make decisions.
And this is why I’m saying you’re projecting opinions you’ve heard elsewhere here. God doesn’t know every single detail of the future.
According to the Bible and most Christian conceptions, he DOES know all, including the future. But if you worship some other god who lacks omniscience then so be it. He is exempt from this one disproof(the omniscience/free will paradox).

quote:

quote:
I do not deny the existence of things by virtue of me not understanding them. I logically rule out things which are NOT UNDERSTANDABLE(period). BIG difference.[/b]
Is “logically rule out” = “deny the existence of”? This is what I mean by having a problem with not understanding things. If you say something is unreasonable so you can’t accept it, I can understand. If you say because you don’t understand a thing it doesn’t exist, you are unreasonable.
Okay let me try again since you somehow missed this above. I do NOT deny the existence of things because I do not understand them. I rule out the existence of things which are rationalized as being "beyond" any capacity for understanding. This goes back to Sagan's Garage Dragon again. You can say that a 'garage dragon' exists in your garage, but since it is intangible, invisible and otherwise leaves NO effects to warrant the inference of such, it does not exist either way, regardless of the bald assertion that we simply do not understand it's existence.

I deny that 2 + 2 = 57 until such time as you can explain to me how adding two and two together can result in a sum of 57. Simply asserting that "God-math" is beyond my kin does not make your math work.

quote:
I think that is the major qualm that I and the others are having with you. It may be just be lack of clear communication or we’re missing your point.
It seems to be the latter for the most part.

quote:
If humans were a blind species, would color exist?
It would exist as "The visible aspect of things caused by the differing quantities of light reflected or emitted by them.", even if no creatures could see this and we could conceivably still perceive these "colors" even without eyesight.
But if you are going to ask what would exist for a species that hypothetically lacked ANY senses/ability to perceive data then you are asking nonsense questions since we would also lack the abstract thought to even care.

quote:
quote:
If you are going to assert something that is nonsensical to the human, rational mind then you are going to have to back this up.
Yes, but what have I asserted nonsensically?! Unless you qualify questioning your assertion as irrational assertion, I’ve done no such thing.
I was speaking in general and in regards to the positive assertions that things exist "transcendentally"(God etc.).

quote:
quote:
p1. In defining "existence", we must be able to differentiate "existent" things from "imaginary" things. To not do so leads to inability to communicate or establish any existential truth or understanding of reality.

p2.The means by which we differentiate existential things from imaginary things is by sense contents primarily and logic(including linear sequential constraint…

p3. "Transcendent" and "supernatural" are defined as being "beyond observation-capability" and/or "beyond logic/rationality/linear constraint/etc".

C1 - Ergo, "transcendent things/supernatural things do not "exist" except as imaginary entities and concepts.

p1. OK.

p2. OK, but ones logic and sense can be limited by lack of knowledge, experience, or ability. At the risk of beating a dead horse, it may seem nonsensical to some that 299,999m/s added to 299,999m/s gives us 300,000m/s, but based on current understanding it can.

p3. And this is why I said you define things supernatural out of existence.

Find the flaw: I hereby call all fruit “apples.” Therefore any fruit that is not an apple does not exist.
You still misunderstand. I am not offering tautologies here. I am not defining "supernatural" as "non-existent" to make my case. I am explaining why "supernatural" is a nonsense term with no comprehensible meaning and obviously contradictory. The ONLY answer you can have to this is to cough up ONE example of something known to exist which does so in contradiction to naturalism.

quote:
Is it illogical to say there could be entities with a nature very different from our own?
Depends on how you define these "entities" and their "different nature".

quote:
If not why? If so, is it possible we cannot fully grasp this nature? If not, do you believe that baboons know the nature of bacteria? Do bacteria not exist for baboons?
A false analogy. Baboons are known to exist as natural things. Bacteria is known to exist as natural phenomena. Neither are known to exist as "transcendent" or "supernatural".

quote:
C1. Does not follow logically.
Sure it does(until you can show otherwise).

quote:
Yes, there IS a fallacy(or three) you committed above and you add another one here. You are citing a SUBJECTIVE text(the Bible) as if it were some OBJECTIVE source. The Bible, as all holy scriptures, is interpreted and everyone has their own interpretations. NO where does it explicitly say "Use reason" or anything like that. That does not stop you from interpreting it to say such but this is due to psychological quirks such as pattern recognition behavior in humanity.
Cite the fallacy. You say reason is not a foundation of religion.[/quote]

IIRC I contended YOUR assertion that CHRISTIANITY is founded on reason. What you should have said was that YOU have a specific interpretation of Christianity that YOU believe is founded in reason. Then we could examine your reasoning.

quote:
I say that is too broad of a statement. To support my position I cite a religions textbook viewed as the foundation for Christianity.
You cited an ambiguous, subjective text which can be interpreted to say ANYTHING by individuals. You did NOT cite any passage wherein God or Jesus said "Use reason for it is the foundation of the faith".

quote:
Proverbs 14:15 Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.
Case in point. ;)

quote:
Acts 17:2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references
Chalk this up to translation and also note the context. You are also committing the circular reasoning fallacy again. If the Bibkle had a passage wherein God says "Know this; that those who believe in Christ are masters of reason!" would not in any way even begin to suggest that Christianity was founded in reason.

quote:
Romans 12:1 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.
Again, what relevance does this have?! When God describes the earth as being flat(a disc resting on pillars and such) they do not seem eager to assert that Christianity is founded on flat earthism. But the mere mention of the word "reason"(a wholly different usage than how we are suing the term here) in specific translations = "Christianity is founded on reason"?!

quote:
One cannot have Biblical faith without reason.
False. The opposite is true. one cannot have REASON in Biblical faith. It is impossible.

quote:

quote:
Reading the Bible is a leading cause of atheism amongst critical atheists for example. The Bible simply cannot be justified as reasonable.
Reading the Bible does not guarantee understanding it. Disbelief is not evidence that something doesn't exist. Some people read the Bible and are convinced it has all the answers and is what it claims to be. It is perfectly reasonable to them. What conclusion would you draw from that? [/qb]
That they are not apt at reasoning/critical thinking. Creationism sounds scientific to someone who knows nothing of science.

quote:
quote:
It is blatantly silly and bears all the earmarks of man-made doctrine. it makes perfect sense when we assume that it was written by nomadic sheep-herders of 2,000+ years ago(what with it's morality fables of children being slain for teasing bald men, tower of babel etc.) but makes no sense at all if we assume an omni-max deity inspired/wrote the thing.
But it was not just written by shepherds, that’s a major fallacy and it that betrays the claim that one has read the Bible critically.
You are missing or intentionally dodging the point above. The point being that the Bible makes perfect sense when you recognize what it is. The storytelling/myth-making of primitive peoples. It makes NO SENSE if you assume it was inspireed/written by God.

quote:
If you had you would know that the penmen of the Bible included military generals,
Such as...?

quote:
kings, high ranking imperial officials, lawyers, physicians, priests, judges, and tax collectors.
An irrelevant conclusion fallacy and bald assertion.

What would you expect from a book written by God that is not in the Bible?[/quote]

I would expect, for starters, NO Rube Goldberg mechanisms such as what is described in Adam & Eve & Jesus' myths. I would expect things to make some sense and NOT be so obviously the product of primitive HUMAN biases. I can understand how a HUMAN suffering from baldness might come up with a cautionary tale about children being killed by God for teasing people about baldness but cannot see how a real God would bother himself with such pettiness.

quote:
What do you see in the Bible that conveys it is man-made?
The whole thing SCREAMS that it was man-made far more clearly than the worst book on all the past NY Times bestseller lists! What sort of real omni-deity creates humans who cannot outwit talking snakes, waits for them to be conned by a talking snake, then reacts in outrage at the humans for being so duped and decides that a fitting punishment would be to curse, torment and make suffer all their lineage. But then decides to change his mind and forgive them but cannot do so unless he can rape a human virgin and have his son tortured and put to death to appease his own anger at a man and woman 4,000 years dead?!

And yet humans still suffer shortened life spans, disease, torment etc. to this day?

The answer is that God is an imaginary thing and imaginary things have no power over disease, longevity and tsunamis.

quote:
In all fairness we should probably take this to another thread. I have a suspicion it may get closed by the powers that be, but we could give it a go.

http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004455#0000 00[/QB]
Will do.

--------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi
Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #254
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

To all:

Re: "Beginning of time".

Simple inescapable fact here. for time to "begin" requires a moment in which such an event could occur. Hence time could NOT have a beginning since it had to already exist in order for the "beginning" event to transpire.

Thu8s far no one has even attempted to explain how this could be incorrect.

You say this. Stephen Hawking disagrees. Even if I don't understand how time could have a beginning, who should I believe: the leading quantum physicist of our time, or someone who believes that the word "thus" is spelled with a number?

[ Saturday, September 08, 2007 19:27: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
Profile #255
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Sarcasmon:

Tony...

The lecture is over. The podium has been removed. The keynote speaker already flew home. The next performance is Cats.

Why are you still ... doing this?

I have been without an internet connection for a few weeks now and I am responding because a few people offered responses directed toward ME. You are free to ignore these since they hold no interest for YOU.

I just have this thing called courtesy. If someone asks me something I try to answer them.

--------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi
Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #256
Just how much did this make the news? I wonder how many people who didn't read a blurb about this kind of thing in a little paragraph on page nineteen of their paper are still believing and quoting some of these "facts" as absolutes because they saw it in a provocative film which felt so compelling, and the people saying it sounded so sincere?

Nine inconvenient untruths.

Did anyone hear this on television news, or was it largely buried and ignored?

-S-

[ Tuesday, October 30, 2007 17:11: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 2123
Profile #257
I am actually writing an essay for my English class on this.

--------------------
Rahhar...
Posts: 228 | Registered: Monday, October 21 2002 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #258
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Nine inconvenient untruths.
The documentary contained nine false or misleading statements. Now, it's 94 minutes long. Average human speaking speed is 175 words per minute. Let's suppose that Gore spends half the film speaking. That means he says 8225 words throughout the course of the film. Now, if each false statement is, say, 20 words long, that means that 97.9% of what Gore said was completely true. I'd call that a pretty good average, as politicians go.

[ Wednesday, October 31, 2007 03:26: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #259
Eh... drawing attention to the minor errors in the film has its place, I guess, but, as was duly noted in the articles you linked, the main thrust of the argument is not at all in question.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #260
Some of those statements had significant power to affect the lives of masses who take in propaganda, I mean, movies without much filtering. Claiming the seas are in imminent danger of rising and flooding coastal cities of the world, when in reality, it would take much longer than Gore claimed, is fear-mongering used for political leverage in manipulating the gullible masses. This is not insignificant.

We sure are forgiving when we like what the sloppy scientist/offender has to say overall, aren't we? Another point is that when you see someone supposedly credible using bad science to make his political points, don't you begin to find anything he says and his integrity (or hs sources at the least) possibly suspect? How do you decide how much to trust him or his intentions?

You guys would be savagely all over any one of those points if someone like me had made them in support of an argument you disagreed with. I think you are demonstrating hypocrisy. Color me wholly unimpressed.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
Profile Homepage #261
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Nine inconvenient untruths.
The documentary contained nine false or misleading statements. Now, it's 94 minutes long. Average human speaking speed is 175 words per minute. Let's suppose that Gore spends half the film speaking. That means he says 8225 words throughout the course of the film. Now, if each false statement is, say, 20 words long, that means that 97.9% of what Gore said was completely true. I'd call that a pretty good average, as politicians go.

Correct, if we assume that every 20-word group he uttered was a significant "statement," and that the so-called "nine inconvenient untruths" are the only such untrue statements. I realize that the numbers you provided are very roughly estimated, but what you said would apply to a list of statements much more than a regular speech, documentary, book, etc.

--------------------
"We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot
----
My poetry
Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #262
quote:
You guys would be savagely all over any one of those points if someone like me had made them in support of an argument you disagreed with. I think you are demonstrating hypocrisy. Color me wholly unimpressed.
Show me a politician who isn't a hypocrite and doesn't use bad science to make his points and I'll show you a politician who'll never be in office. In a political climate where whoever lies most outrageously wins, the only way for things to work is for everyone to lie equally outrageously and hope the truth will out in the end. If, as you say, the target audience is "people who take in propaganda without much filtering", it would be simply irresponsible for any side to stop producing alarmist propaganda and leave the other side's alarmist propaganda to stand unopposed. However good one's intentions, the effect of attempting to provide an honest and evenhanded presentation of the facts is to make oneself politically irrelevant.

This moment of honesty will likely cause you to ignore anything I have to say in future, which will only serve to prove my point: you can't even be honest about being a liar.

[ Wednesday, October 31, 2007 14:51: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #263
I am a liar...or am I?

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
Profile Homepage #264
What Thuryl said just now may be hard to accept, but it is the truth. Welcome to America.

--------------------
"We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot
----
My poetry
Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #265
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

You guys would be savagely all over any one of those points if someone like me had made them in support of an argument you disagreed with. I think you are demonstrating hypocrisy.
The point is (yet again) that his conclusions are not in doubt. The overwhelming mass of evidence is overwhelming. If there are hundreds of facts, any one of which is convincing on its own, and roughly ten of which are unverified, there are still hundreds of convincing facts.

This is why making arguments via redundant evidence is useful: you have fall-backs in case some of the evidence is eventually discredited.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #266
You misunderstand my interest in making a point of this. I'm concerned about the unknown number of people who sadly probably already sold and moved away from their perfectly good home near the ocean in the last year, because they saw, and took to heart as gospel truth "An Inconvenient Truth" which has been receiving virtually only worship by the press. Where do you suppose the critical voices were from knowledgable scientists in the field who were trying to say, "Ummm, no, that is not correct!" Drowned out...as usual. Public policies get made over hype, noise, and hysteria more than science. I feel bad for people who fear needlessly and are convinced to do something unfortunate and unnecessary based on these things.

Those who suffered needless fear and hysteria over Y2K were recent, similar victims. I'm observing how easy it is to create an inertial mass over issues which has a life wholly apart from any actual reality.

It may be recalled that I don't claim that the earth is not warming and that climate shift is not happening and coming. The cause and nature of its unfolding I continue to find quite debatable. When the masses and media for a year did not uncover what bogus science the claim that Kilimanjaro and drowned polar bears were demonstrably linked to global warming, or how the oceans rising is expected to occur over a millennium, not in the next few decades...well...that should show us how the snowball works. And for every example that makes it to a high court or other authority to actually force us to take notice, you can be sure there are numerous others that slip through for much longer.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #267
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I'm concerned about the unknown number of people who sadly probably already sold and moved away from their perfectly good home near the ocean in the last year, because they saw, and took to heart as gospel truth "An Inconvenient Truth" which has been receiving virtually only worship by the press.
There has not been a mass exodus away from the coasts. Your concern is hilarious, not least because anyone who performed the actions that you describe would be an idiot anyway and not worth your concern.

Also, by "the press," you presumably mean a particularly small segment of the left-wing press. You will note that the press is considerably more diverse than this, and you are making a patently false generalization.

quote:
Where do you suppose the critical voices were from knowledgable scientists in the field who were trying to say, "Ummm, no, that is not correct!" Drowned out...as usual.
Drowned out by what?
quote:
Public policies get made over hype, noise, and hysteria more than science.
Uh, non sequitur much? Where did "public policies" come into this? We're talking about a documentary and public and media response, not political action (a related but separate issue).

You just like delivering "O mores, o tempora" speeches. You lack substance.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #268
Yeah, I gotta laugh at the notion that people are leaving the coasts for fear of the the steady 1"/year rise in sea-level over the next 100 years. Or whatever the fear may be. All of my family lives within 100 miles of an ocean. California, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine. One uncle owns to the high tide line, and three other relatives can see the ocean from their windows. Not that that is statistically significant, but they also understand global warming and drive those silly looking Prius cars.

And if some people are leaving Florida or the Gulf coast, then I say good. Those places were never meant to be inhabited by humans anyways! :P

--------------------
Vogel - "10% off on all of [our] products for the month of October. ... this discount applies to games, CDs, bundles, and even already discounted products."

Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #269
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

There has not been a mass exodus away from the coasts. Your concern is hilarious, not least because anyone who performed the actions that you describe would be an idiot anyway and not worth your concern.
I cannot agree. Every human being on this planet, whether you deem them an idiot or otherwise, is my concern. It would be a shame if even just one person believed and was misguided by some of Al Gore's "science," based on the perception of favorable reception and credibility his film has received.

Also, by "the press," you presumably mean a particularly small segment of the left-wing press.

I'm talking about all the various, random press I have noticed in the last year without frequenting or looking at or for anything in particular. I am talking about secondhand feedback I get from hearing various random people around and their attitude toward the movie and its "truth." A particularly small segment of the left-wing press does not have this common affect upon general media as a whole and upon public perception, that I am observing. I have seen nothing critical of Gore's work, short of Fox news, which would be a given by default to some degree, and what you would describe as "small segment." As if might makes right, and popular opinion, even in science, implies truth.

quote:
Where do you suppose the critical voices were from knowledgable scientists in the field who were trying to say, "Ummm, no, that is not correct!" Drowned out...as usual.
Drowned out by what?

The usual noise of popular opinion and popular media, which has a life and weight of its own. I suggest that this is what the voting public consumes largely to form their opinions. Do you imagine otherwise, that the average person is a college student immersed in science, or a scientist, or one who has the means to even ascertain the truth of others in such fields? Again, it all comes down to belief, intution, and whom you choose to cast your lot with as reliable. You have lived most of your life so far in an academic setting, but most of life is not lived in such a setting or awareness for most people. Our schools are designed to teach so-called "facts", to teach us what to believe, not how to think and question for ourselves, and to find our own answers. By definition, this is agenda. Vested interests want us to believe their view on all kinds of things about life, beginning with our parents.

Where did "public policies" come into this?

They are coming, and Al Gore's film will have played a part. Whether you see this as a non-sequitor or not at the moment will be irrelevant. Everything plays a part in something, and nothing occurs in a vacuum.

You lack substance.

Thank you. This goes along comfortably enough with your generous attitude toward the idiots in the world. Please, as a scientist of whatever sort you become, do not do anything that will affect the welfare or the policies that will affect the welfare of humanity, and especially that of the idiots. Hitler had his minions develop policies to deal with idiots in their world, but I can't say I like the results.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #270
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Our schools are designed to teach so-called "facts", to teach us what to believe, not how to think and question for ourselves, and to find our own answers. By definition, this is agenda. Vested interests want us to believe their view on all kinds of things about life, beginning with our parents.
"I should question for myself and find my own answers" is a belief. Therefore, a school that teaches students to think for themselves is still teaching them what to believe.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #271
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

There has not been a mass exodus away from the coasts. Your concern is hilarious, not least because anyone who performed the actions that you describe would be an idiot anyway and not worth your concern.
I cannot agree. Every human being on this planet, whether you deem them an idiot or otherwise, is my concern. It would be a shame if even just one person believed and was misguided by some of Al Gore's "science," based on the perception of favorable reception and credibility his film has received.

Eh, chalk the uncharitable sentiment up to general irritation, but you haven't actually addressed the point: People didn't start moving en masse away from the coasts solely on Al Gore's say-so. In fact, probably no one did.

quote:
You have lived most of your life so far in an academic setting,
You bring this up in every discussion. Would you like me to remind you that not every person fits into your demographic category, too? Would you like me to remind you every five minutes? It's annoying and serves no purpose.

quote:
Our schools are designed to teach so-called "facts", to teach us what to believe, not how to think and question for ourselves, and to find our own answers.
This is not true.

quote:
Hitler had his minions develop policies to deal with idiots in their world, but I can't say I like the results.
And now you've proven that this discussion cannot be taken seriously.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 10578
Profile Homepage #272
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

[b]Our schools are designed to teach so-called "facts", to teach us what to believe, not how to think and question for ourselves, and to find our own answers.
This is not true.[/b]
There are a number of classical schools that exist to teach the upcoming generation to reason for themselves. I do not see the public school system (in general) promoting this. We are indoctrinated from all angles, at all times, from the professors on campus, to the news radio in the car, to the TV you watch at home. Again, welcome to America. "O Tempora! O Mores!"

--------------------
"We were meant to live for so much more. Have we lost ourselves?" - Switchfoot
----
My poetry
Posts: 432 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2007 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #273
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Eh, chalk the uncharitable sentiment up to general irritation, but you haven't actually addressed the point: People didn't start moving en masse away from the coasts solely on Al Gore's say-so. In fact, probably no one did.
America’s a big place. Don’t be so sure some have not or will not soon. But let’s say you are right, and no one has. How many people now live in dread about the doomed future of their once celebrated home by the ocean they hoped to pass of to future generations, or has been a family homestead for generations? Whether they have yet left or not isn’t the only unfortunate shift that can come from believing a mistruth. Ruining aspects of the quality of life for people needlessly is pretty high up on my list of selfish, foolish, and obnoxious things a person in a position to influence over others can inflict. I spent my whole childhood in a degree of dread about the end of the world soon to come based on stuff in the Revelation, thanks to the foolish beliefs of those around me, as I was growing up. What a waste. Those who indoctrinate us in any way have tremendous power to shape our life experience and the quality of our lives until we learn that no one else can hand us our truth about anything ultimately.

quote:
Hitler had his minions develop policies to deal with idiots in their world, but I can't say I like the results.
And now you've proven that this discussion cannot be taken seriously.

Who said this discussion should be taken seriously? Serious is tedious, tra la la. It’s just a discussion with nothing more at stake than anyone chooses to put there — perhaps ego, let’s say. I think we take discussions too seriously overall, as if their outcome determined our value or validity. There is nothing on the line here, as far as I am concerned. It’s all an experiment: life, exploring our truths, deciding what we are going to believe and value...and why. I enjoy the process of processing, and there is an inherent absurdity to almost any discussion, because, for starters, it is forced to be held through words, which are shadows and imitators of realities at best, frequently leading to miscommunication and misunderstanding, as much as to clarify anything.

But I did have a serious point made in a seemingly absurd context. Attitudes towards any we consider inferior to ourselves are the seeds that ultimately entertain and justify genocide and “mercy killing” in the world.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #274
You didn't need to revive a long dead topic if you were just going to complain aimlessly. Just start a new topic like the rest of us do...

[ Thursday, November 01, 2007 15:29: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00

Pages