You're not very bright, are you? — counterpunch

On the contrary. I am rather bright,

You failed to understand my basic idea of a disparity between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality. When I explained it again, you burst into floods of tears. — counterpunch

Not at all, not willing to engage with you does not mean I am crying in a corner.

I think your basic idea is mistaken, that is one. Two, even if your basic idea would be correct it still does not do what you want it to do, namely provide a normative ground for action.

Do you think philosophy is easy? Do you imagine that you'll never have to go back and re-examine something?

No I think it is rather hard... point?

Get over it, you fucking pussy! — counterpunch

Ohh dear... you naughty moose!

Is there any of your business here? I don't think so. — counterpunch

Khaled call you out for being uncivil. I think that is allowed no, on a forum such as this?

There is not scientifically valid reason to build and atomic bomb I agree with you. Then again there is no scientifically valid reason not to either. I said they are both products of science. through science we acquire knowledge of the world and we can use that knowledge for a variety of different reasons. One is to wipe out enemies. Science has nothing to say about it except perhaps warning me about the consequences of my actions, but that's it. — Tobias

Okay, but you're talking about science as a tool. I'm talking about science as a understanding of reality - as opposed to ideology. Do you realise that human beings used science as a tool to create 70,000 nuclear weapons because two groups of people disagreed about how to organise an economy?

The problem is, people draw their identities and purposes from overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies, that are invested with the most extreme sacred significance; such that they justify utter irrationality. Alternatively, science is rational, sane, matter of fact - the same for you as for me, and it works!

Only the whole environmentalist movement since the beginning the 20th century.... — Tobias

Not so. The climate crisis is largely attributed to over-population - and has been since Malthus Essay on Population in 1798, as the godfather to 'limits to growth' theory. Both are incorrect, as is the whole carbon tax this, stop that, cycle to work and eat grass approach to sustainability. It's scientifically false. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them - which is why we need more energy, not less. We need to mainline magma power, not subsist on windmills and happy thoughts!