There's not necessarily a contradiction. His critique of religious ethics boils down to 'you can't establish an 'ought (conclusion) from an 'is' (premise)'. And the right hand of his scepticism similarly boils down to 'you can't get a will-be from a has-been.'

Accordingly, neither predicted utility nor ethics are rationally founded, but the former relies on habit, which may be taken as a form of sentiment.

No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so. Words have to follow the world as servants and let the world dictate to them. Only then do they begin to be meaningful. All else is fiction, nonsense, confusion, or magical thinking.

Somehow I predict you would be a lot less eager to prolong this war if you had to make similar sacrifices. — Tzeentch

Where's your proof? :rofl: You know that's not even an argument don't you. But you repeat it as if it is a strong point. Even if you were right and I am a hypocrite, that does exactly nothing to show that I am wrong. It's a feeble ad hominem for which you have no evidence whatsoever, and just shows how weak your case is.

I don't want to prolong the war for a single minute you idiot. But allowing Putin to dictate terms for a ceasefire would guarantee that the war will be resumed at his convenience. and the evidence for this is that it already happened like this; he took Crimea, restocked, and attacked again. There is no peace available without security guarantees, or absolute defeat for one side or the other.

Dude I am 72 with epilepsy and a bad back. Only the Russian army would have me. I suggest We kick the US out of NATO for threatening to invade a fellow member, and invite Canada to join, and step up our military aid to Ukraine, because Russia is already falling apart militarily and economically, and is relying of N. Korea for both troops and weapons. Some super power! No, Ukraine cannot be totally defeated. Russia is overextended to the point that it cannot defend its own territory and has to send soldiers on crutches to the front line - as pathetic as it is disgusting.

After all, peace is appeasement, and Putin is Hitler. — Tzeentch

No one has said either of those things except you. Obviously, (except to you apparently), appeasement is not peace, but surrender. And equally obviously surrender is not a particularly good or necessarily peaceful outcome for those that do it.

And Putin is like Hitler in that he is an absolute and ruthless dictator with no respect for human life and huge territorial ambitions. And Trump is a wannabe.

Nobody is arguing that peace is unacceptable. You are trolling and this is unacceptable. — Amity

But one might argue that when the robbers and rapists are in your house, then peace is indeed unacceptable. I remember a peace-loving reverend was placed in this exact position, and decided that peace was the best option on the basis that his daughter being raped was a recoverable assault. He came to bitterly regret that choice in the aftermath. And what is true of one's home can apply also to one's neighbours and thus to one's country.

Weren't you a few comments ago implying peace is appeasement and Putin is Hitler? — Tzeentch

No. Putin, Trump, and Hitler are fascist dictators. The evidence that their words are not to be trusted is overwhelming, and therefore a peace without security guarantees from other parties whose word is a little more trustworthy is merely a pause in the aggression while sanctions are lifted and the aggressor consolidates their illegal gains and prepares for round 2. No, round 3 it would be.

So you have no proof? — Tzeentch

Don't be ridiculous, the proof or disproof of any prediction whatsoever has to await the event or non-event.

It looks to me as the choice for the US is between fascism and civil war. Either will produce a big decline in global influence and possibly economic collapse.

Russia is already collapsing - needing the support of N Korea even to give a semblance of continuing the war. China now owns the world, though it too has economic troubles.

The place to look is at the collapse of the Roman Empire into corruption, and possibly Europe has enough of a cultural memory not to succumb yet again.

But everything depends on the economy. Economic decline is always blamed on the government (in the UK's case it was the EU 'government'), until the fascists are the government, and thereafter on foreigners. Thus economic decline leads inexorably towards fascism. The only hope is to identify the real cause of decline - the climate. Our accumulated labour of buildings and infrastructure and cultivation, aka the manmade environment is being burned, drowned, or blown away, and we are poorer.

Unfortunately this coincides with the left in a major transition from being the party of labour to being the party of the disenfranchised. Labour as such, trade unions, have lost their economic power due to automation, leaving the left scrambling for the same tawdry populist garb as the right. Thus in the UK, labour are in power, but their policies are indistinguishable from rightwing policies.

Humans are even losing their importance in the conduct of war, which Ukraine is showing can be largely better carried out by robotic machines guided by AI. Now if humans en mass no longer have economic or strategic value, can their moral worth sustain them in a godless world, that has reduced morality to sentiment and mere whim? We are all foreigners now.

This, together with your non-responsiveness elsewhere, And that you like to opine without making clear what you are talking about - which I doubt you even know - proves to me you have no genuine interest in your own topics, that you are deeply disingenuous, and are only interested in preening your own opinion of yourself, in short being a waste of time on TPF. You can remedy this by making clear just how truth is reality, what that means, and going back and answering some other, similar questions. — tim wood

:100:

But in natural units, c is 1, reducing the formula to E=m which doesn't sound very bangy at all. Energy is proportional to mass, but has different units. — noAxioms

This, on the other hand, is excellent evidence of someone who does know what they are talking about. And therefore it is ignored. Those interested in understanding something of natural units might try looking at this: https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/NaturalUnits.pdf — but please don't ask me to mark your homework.

A momentary irritation on my part with reading a thread mired in confusion. I'm not really a great burner of books, or even threads.

For instance, causing offence =/= committing an offence. And what does and does not constitute committing an offence varies from place to place, just as what causes offence varies from person to person. I imagine in some countries it might well be an offence to burn a holy book. And there it might be a revolutionary act to do so, and a brave one.

But in London in front of a mosque? Actually it might be considered a hate crime and an incitement to violence. We're funny about stuff like that. And it did incite violence. What you burn in the privacy of your own incinerator is your own business except that London has strict anti pollution laws, so you would have to use smokeless Korans, Bibles, or Fifty Shades of Greys.

Christians are of course famous for turning the other cheek, and being tolerant of others with other faiths, as long as you totally ignore all of history completely. And the secular are even more tolerant because they have neither books to be burned nor axes to grind. That's right isn't it?

I wish I could burn this thread. Imagine all the smartypantsonfire! Would y'all be offended? violated? the great god Ego desecrated? Perhaps some moderator will try the experiment, and see who instructs their lawyers/sharpens their hatchet first?

This is certainly the heart of the challenges that we face. And this site faces, for example here.

But the threat to decency and wisdom is at every level, from UN to government to every social group to each individual. 'Flood the zone' disrupts every agency as can be seen. I don't think it can be resisted until 'stupid' learns the hard way. I know that sounds pessimistic, but that is what I see - that the world has gone mad from top to bottom, and most of us will be dead before it comes to its senses. Like WW1, but worse.

As I sip a glass of wine, I am conscious of the cool yet warming liquid, the taste unfolding, the memories of youth spent at the grape harvest, and thoughts of long forgotten friends.

How easy it is in thought, to list the things I am conscious of — a world, a body, thoughts, and feelings, time passing, and those senses - a drone of light aircraft, and the warmth of winter sun, the faint pulse of an aching back. Yet these thoughts are not themselves conscious, until another lends them life in reading, for a moment.

How hard though for consciousness to be conscious of itself; conscious of the inner space that contains everything one might be conscious of. For that one must be very, very quiet, and listen to the sound of silence.

The internet eventually formed the best way for the stupid to be louder than the wise, and they are constantly loud because they have time for it as they do not engage with knowledge with the time and care that the wise are. — Christoffer

I agree. A similar thing happened with the invention of the printing press, which played a major role in a Europe wide witch hunt over the course of the following century or so.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/social-sciences/printing-press-witch-trials/

We seem to have somewhat adapted or learned the pitfalls of printed matter; perhaps we will eventually adapt to the internet. Or is it that the internet is exactly that witchcraft that the ancients were so afraid of? :scream:

Please watch this YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, and think about whether it applies to climate science. — Agree-to-Disagree

It does, but not in the way you think. Rather, the institutions, academic and governmental, downplay and even outright reject the more pessimistic papers and predictions, despite their having been proven accurate. Thus it is the voices I post here and below, that are marginalised and ignored in favour of more reassuring IPPC positions that everything can be sorted out in a few decades time.

More Chinese solar power, now with added sheep!

I thought this was my home.
— unenlightened

Not unless you own it. — Arcane Sandwich

I cannot let this piece of elitist capitalist ideology stand unchallenged. :wink: Home is where the heart is. You may have your heart in your wallet, but not necessarily. Most of us do not own our own home. But "Everybody's got to be somewhere."

Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good. — EnPassant

:100: I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me.

This is a comment from Mikie to Agree-to-Disagree from a week ago: — frank

If I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned @Mikie too, several times. I might even have deleted some of my own posts. If you are trying to make an argument that the standards are very low, too low, I agree. If you are trying to argue that Mikie is the main problem here or in the other thread, well that would be another matter entirely.

In general, I would be more tolerant of occasional flaming from a decent poster, than prolific low quality posters.

But, you can only get such a setting in your own home/on your own site. — Patterner

I thought this was my home.

I'll let that be my final comment on this topic.

Then your point is that they should ban Agree-to-Disagree? — frank

Yes.

I think he's the only person who posts on that that thread with any regularity (other than yourself). — frank

That seems to indicate that at least one of us making the thread uninteresting to others. But @Mikie also posts. I think he mostly ignores @Agree-to-Disagree these days.

His posts aren't really bad enough for banning. — frank

"Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision.", as was Disagreeably said to me a few posts back.

Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision. — Agree-to-Disagree

I make the decision for myself, and I express it with evidence in support. The site owner and the volunteer moderators are the ones entitled to make the decision for this site. My opinion might inform or persuade, or it might not. They might ban me instead.

You want to be able to post anything that you want to, but you want to deny other people the same privilege. You want to delete people's posts that you disagree with or don't like. That sounds like the sort of thing that a dictator would do. — Agree-to-Disagree

No. I don't want anyone to be able to post anything they like; and I would be happy to be banned from any site that was run like that. I was an admin for several years of the predecessor of this site, and I did not enjoy at all deleting peoples' posts or banning them, nor did I enjoy the abuse and tedious accusations that were routinely made like those you have made above. I did those things to preserve something I consider valuable — a community of communication. Such cannot exist without standards and discipline.

Why not make a new thread devoted to climate change links, like a reddit style listing. — frank

This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage.

And here is some more detail. This is a bit long, sorry. But worth your time, I think. The comparison with the decline of the British Empire is particularly telling.

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving. — Mikie

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement.

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

Is it an ideology that the mods are in charge? Is the rule an ideology? shall we debate forever the terms of the debate?

I think any debate needs some ideology in the form of a commitment to honesty, and an acceptance of the terms of the debate. I think therefore that this forum has such an ideology and sets the standards for participation. If you as moderator think that belief in climate change, or that shit smells is an ideology, or a matter of opinion, then I will have to consider my position as contributor.

I have been putting up videos of careful explanations of scientific papers, and then having to deal with quotes and citations from petrol-heads, disreputable sensation-monger press, and click-bait sites, and I am mightily dis-chuffed with wasting my time on them. If you find the topic too controversial to deal with such nonsense, I will seek a site where sensible discussion can be had without constant interruption.

Limits to growth came up in the climate change thread recently. Here is the US trying to overshoot the limits as described some math dude trying to reason with politicians.

I would prefer that we have certain standards, such that we do not discuss creationism, flat earth, climate change denial, normalisation of pedophilia, and probably a few other topics. I am not a fan of the idea that every point of view is valid.

It is difficult in these times to draw these lines, and I would think that they ought never be absolute. But if such topics are to be allowed, at the least, high standards of rigour in evidence and argument should be required. What is hard to take in the topic under discussion is the disruption of what is otherwise a slow and hopefully educational development of the topic, by low quality and disagreeable posts, from people who think themselves clever and hilarious - aka trolls.

I certainly do not want to discuss climate change denial with anyone and would not participate in such a thread. And I do not believe anyone else would want to present their views there either; it is the attention that results from disruption and conflict that is craved.

The solution? Nonsense should be deleted, and trolls should be banned. Shimples!

He was on the forums talking a lot about how meaningless his life felt, asking others to convince him that life is worth living. (These forums are a really bad place to come for that! — petrichor

I think I remember the handle, it was a long time back - on the old site? There are plenty of worse places to go, but if you can't find meaning in life, then words are not going to help, any more than a sign post can help when you don't know where you want to go.

(All one ever encounters is the inside of the head) — PoeticUniverse

When the hand touches the hot stove,
The arm pulls it away before
The head knows anything about it.

The brain is like the government,
pretending it is in control
and claiming all knowledge and power.

But the heart leads the dance
And conducts the music of the spheres.

There ought to be a special section for retired staff to complain about how things have gone downhill, and there are no proper discussions any more, and the mods don't seem to care, etc. Enjoy your dotage @fdrake. And thanks for all the fish.

On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them...

So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

It would allow you to understand their conflict better. I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again.

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way. — Arcane Sandwich

One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. Plastic pollution is a serious environmental problem, but it is not a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The Earth is warming because of the insulating effect of changes in the atmosphere, mainly the increase of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the increase of methane from various sources, farmed cattle emissions, natural gas leakage, permafrost melting, etc. Plastics actually function to lock up carbon long term and so function in a minor way as a carbon sink. But do not take that as a vote in their favour.

So the issue for this thread at least, is the burning of fossil fuels rather than their transformation into plastics, unless those plastics are incinerated. Petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, coal, natural gas, are all hydrocarbons whose combustion add to the insulation that warms the earth.

Pollution has some importance too, because it degrades the ability of the living environment to absorb carbon dioxide, and rebalance the atmosphere. But the major impact comes from oil and coal burning, and that is what needs to stop.

Of course things get much more complicated as one goes into the details, and we can talk about positive feedback and tipping points and sun-cycles and Milankovitch cycles, and bees, and krill, and plastics, and so on and on. But please understand, our total addiction to fossil fuels is the big problem and if we don't sort it, the world will heat up until we either do sort it or the heat sorts us.

Prog rock never dies.