:100:

Whenever anyone mentions the word "God" I find the understanding of it to be constrained. God can be secular, and not, at the same time. It's God, after all. In other words, God can be not-God. So there you have it: You were correct before, and your new inclinations are likewise correct. And not. Carry on.

A different type of people, pioneers:

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/242809899_1237101963461508_4861156168586191973_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=xbP4D1rXvToAX8XDWPy&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=dbd4658619aa2c97ce5d54269e3f01a2&oe=6152913E

You two are just fun to pick on. Be well. — frank

:ok:

Climate scientist are as versed in, and likewise use the scientific method just as physicist do. There is very little controversy among the scientists. The controversy surrounds money. Follow the money. You will find Al Gore and Gretta Thunberg have shit for money compared to Exxon, et al. The controversies in physics don't threaten the pocket books of the billionaires.

https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/1333221973237886978/photo/1

One's a climate denier and the other either is one or tries to sound like one. So don't expect too much. — Xtrix

One aids and abets a virus. The other is just your standard, run-of-the-mill, tired old libertarian; you know, the one that sucks down the benefits of society while pretending to be apart from it. I remember some of them in Idaho who made their own license plates and said they were "sovereign." All while driving on our roads we built and paid for. LOL! The cuff links snap the same on all of us.

Didn’t help at all. — NOS4A2

It probably didn't help because you don't know what a non-sequitur is. Government regulating everyone under threat of violence is not a non-sequitur. It's the logical anticipatory argument to the tired libertarian whine about government ultimately relying upon violence or the threat of violence.

You stand corrected. Hope that helps. No? Didn't thinks so. Like I said, frank and your initial comments were fundamentally stupid.

I'm going to have to ask you to stop exhaling CO2 until you can prove it isn't dangerous (also all that hot air). — frank

Hi Frank and NOS: Your comments are fundamentally stupid on two counts:

1. The individual human biological contribution of CO2 has been factored into the environmental baseline for 200k years or more (millions of years if you count our predecessors). Thus, there is no new, elective straw being tossed on the camel's back by human exhaust. (Besides, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume.) Insuring/bonding are for non-baseline activities.

2. Individual action works at cross-purposes. If I save a gallon of gas, I increase supply, lowering price, stimulating demand so NOS can roll coal in his penis truck. The CO2 example works on the same principle. That is why it is necessary for government to regulate everyone under threat of violence.

Now, because I'm magnanimous, and in a tip o' the hat to the Republican misunderstanding of free-market capitalism, I offered the idea of bonding/insuring. You know, so the markets could decide if the industry is FOS when it says their actions are innocuous.

Hope that helps.

You know, I will repay you and your ilk for this contempt.
— baker

:broken: — Xtrix

:rofl:

Rather than place the burden of proof on climate science, how about we place the burden of proof upon those who do, and propose to do, that which has never been done before? Or post a bond. Or take out insurance. I mean, if you want to pump shit in the air, maybe you first prove there will be no harm?

:100: :up:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the virus and the stupid people won; what now? Just sit back and let nature take it's course? To the extent that is not what we do, but we take some alternative track, what's to say that a bunch of stupid (albeit possibly different) people don't just rise up against that track and it's protocols, rendering it/them impotent like they did on this go-around? Let's say all the stupid people in this thread had their way; what would they have done, and what would they do now?

Seems to me the stupid people and the virus have won. So, does winning make the stupid people smart and the smart people stupid? How does this work? Or does it even matter? I'm beginning to think I don't have a dog in this fight. Like the American vet returning from a lost cause, I know I stepped up and did my part, even if it turns out that I shouldn't have. Hey St. Peter, will that count for shit? I guess we leave the stupid people to their righteous indignation. Oh well, carry on.

Thank you Goshawk, for waking me.

Philosophy of Science? Unless you plan to get spooky with it. Than Philosophy of Religion. — Outlander

Both, and then some, I'd imagine.

And obviously we've put a barrier up. — CasaNostra

It's that barrier (real or perceived) which forms the basis for some of the environmental philosophy discussions that are often had. It's a broad field so don't be turned off by it yet.

Nevertheless, it's the cloth that counts. — CasaNostra

To us, anyway. :wink:

I'm a bit disappointed. I thought it was about how the planet can be saved from people destructing Nature on its surface. — CasaNostra

Don't be disappointed. That is in there too. It's usually wrapped into discussion about whether we are part of or separate from. And Christopher Stone's "ontological problem" asking, generally, whether it matters if we fuck the planet, since Ma Nature is going to press on with or with out us, and she won't bat an eye. The White Rhino, however . . .

the University of Oregon. — Tanner Lloyd

Good outfit. I used to attend their Western Public Interest Environmental Law Conference for years back in the 80s. Learned a bit and met some interesting folks.

I can’t think of any man good enough to be another’s master. Can you? — NOS4A2

"Any man" is singular. I think the U.S. settled that back in the 18th Century. We opted instead, for men, now women too.

Speak for yourself! — Daemon

LOL! I'm speaking for you, whether you like it or not. LOL! How does it feel?

I argue that an objective, neutral third party (God?) would view Homo Sapiens, on most but not all fronts, as an inferior species. This is evidenced by three proofs: 1. He must copy other species in order to survive; 2. He feels insecure, and compelled to over-compensate in the imitation; 3. In addition to, or as part of his tongue and brain, he has evolved an incontrovertibly idealized view of his species.

It has been said that Man can copy animals but animals cannot copy man. This is improper phraseology designed to assuage the fragile insecurities of man. The proper way to say it, and the way which would be understood by an objective, distant viewer is this: Man must copy animals to live. Animals do not need to copy man. This phraseology more accurately states the objective facts.

It has also been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Animals do not flatter man. This is not good for man’s fragile ego and feelings of insecurity. Thus, man does what he always does, and spins this the best way he can, by using the terms “can” and “can’t.” Every direction he turns, he finds himself copying animals, but they don’t flatter him by copying him. He thus devalues animals and marginalizes them to something inferior; when the truth is quiet the opposite. Man over-compensates, and thinks that over-compensation is better. He tunes animals out and refuses to listen to them, except for what utility they might provide in helping him shore up his inherent weaknesses. He learns how to cover his naked self; he makes a knife for tooth and claw; a plane to fly like the bird, a submarine to swim like the fish, etc. All more than is necessary, and he calls this good. To the extent he overcompensates, he shits in his own nest. And in the end, he still cannot fly and he still cannot breathe water.

This comparison might better be made to intraspecific relations. After all, man thinks he is the measure of all things, so the best way to reach him is through himself. Consider the United States of America: The richest, most powerful nation on Earth. Many Americans look at other countries and perceive them to be “lesser” than us. It is suggested they be like us if they want to have what we have. We suggest this as if we would not look down upon them if they would only flattered us, and if they only tried to be like us. But then if they do try to be like us, and if they approach success in their efforts (China/capitalism) they become enemies. If they stand up to us, eschew the petrodollar, using the petroeuro, or barter system, then we again make them enemies, and invade or sanction them.

This example of the United States vs the world is like mankind vs the animal kingdom. We have spun our myths for so long, and told them so well, that we have convinced ourselves of their irrefutable truth. Everyone, if they only knew better, would be like us. There is no way anyone could be satisfied with their lot in life unless it is our lot. This is the height of arrogance.

As Jose Ortega yGasset opined:

“In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is man’s supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of its own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted.” Meditations on Hunting.

Wild animals not only refrain from flattering us (save maybe the dog, and, well, they are dogs; we love them as long as they know their place, don’t get uppity and continue to beg), but they refuse to compromise their superior endowments in order to be like us. How humbling for a creature who refuses humility; who celebrates himself as a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world. We are God. LOL!

Animals would not envy us. They would laugh at us, or feel sorry for us, if they weren’t so superior, so humble, so grateful, so gracious, so generous, so secure in who they are.

If the tooth and claw are not tools, then neither is the brain or tongue. It’s really how they are used that generates a distinction with an evolutionary difference. But not a better one. Animals use tooth and claw to procure food. We use our brain and tongue to create tools that animals don’t need to procure food. We make machines for strength because we are weak. We then tell ourselves a we are strong because of it.

We should pump the breaks, live in grace with the Earth because, ultimately, everything we are or ever have been or ever will be is the direct result of her. Not us, in a vacuum, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. No. That is a myth. We are of the Earth. We are not better than the Earth.

As opined elsewhere, I think man can hold his own, and maybe even surpass other species in the creative and performing arts. As to the rest, I am doubtful.

Thank you feet! Oh, what I have put you through! And to think, you actually like it. Awesome.

Well since you guys seem so much happier arguing against the entirely fictitious position that "we shouldn't trust experts" rather than saying anything substantive about the actual position that variance in degree of support within the cohort of experts is not well correlated with a theory's predictive power, I'll leave you to it. — Isaac

Where the variance in degree of support within the cohort of experts is not well correlated with a theory's predictive power, then the lack of variance may be well correlated with a theory's predictive power. Regardless, I just don't think you have the chops to make sense of any variance or the lack thereof; nor do you have the ability to discern whether any variance rises to the level of a distinction with a relevant difference. We leave that to the experts. You should be so humble.

I tried to understand your post but I admit, I did not try very hard. I started to bog down and my eyes started to cross at the feeling that you said too much. That's why I can't debate you point by point. I will say this, though: Whenever I hear the term "good" I immediately ask "for who" or "for what'? Likewise, evil. I don't believe in evil. I think there is always something underlying a "bad" act or thought. And even then, I'm brought to "bad for who" and "bad for what"?

Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. There are also unrelated third parties that benefit from the misfortune of others, intentionally or incidentally. Even if that is a microbe that chows down on a rotting carcass, or a shrink getting paid to listen to a victim work out their shit.

wut — frank

Just saying, WHO is right and you are wrong. At least according to my research. :lol:

And one of the mistakes we made was trusting the WHO. That's just a fact. — frank

I did my own research and read the following article on the interwebs and it disagrees with you. There are opposing opinions in the world and therefor my confirmation bias tells me that you are wrong and WHO is right. That's how science works, right?

https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/world-health-organization-and-pandemic-politics

No one is arguing perfection. — Xtrix

:100: This is true. People who nit-pick fluctuations/change, and then use them as evidence that science or government should not be trusted, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how the scientific process works. They need perfection from their government (which is relying on science) to be 100% right 100% of the time. It's like some General said about terrorists: They only have to be right once; we have to be right every time. This is understandable when dealing with simple-minded anti-intellectuals whose motives are political and based on emotion and confirmation bias.

I'm reminded of the simpletons who pointed out that masks are not 100% as reason not to wear them. My response analogy was automobile emissions control technology: just because it does not capture all pollution does not mean we remove the technology from cars. Perfection is the enemy of progress.

I'm also reminded of Fauci initially saying masks were not needed, and then saying they are advisable. This was during a mask shortage for health care workers and essential workers, and shortly after the anti-social people had their run on toilet paper. On the one hand, Fauci always knew masks were helpful, but he also knew how anti-social and selfish the simpletons are. Had he lead with mask efficacy, but requested they be reserved for health care workers, he knew the selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful people would not care. They would have taken all the masks and the doctors and nurses would have had none. So, the very people who pretend to demand openness, perfection, and truth from government and their experts are the same people who can't be trusted. It's not government that cannot be trusted; it's the stupid people.

Had Trump spun up the war-footing production from day one, this would not have been an issue.

But alas, I am near convinced that the stupid people have won and this fight is no longer worth having. Let the chips fall where they may and let Covid fix stupid. If a lot of smart people have to die along with them, I guess that is the way of the world. When the remaining smart people re-set, we'll just have to listen to the stupid people say "We told you these draconian measures were coming." :roll: It's like one wag said "Those complaining about the new mask mandates are responsible for the new mask mandates."

The WHO and the CDC have all been dealing with science, which is a learning process, and the politics of those who would hamstring them. I lay 100% of the blame on the latter. Digging at the former is a vindictive child's angle.

Popper was a very interesting person. A doctoral course with him was much better than a hundred books. Books do not answer simple questions. A dumb problem is a big problem until someone guides you. — gikehef947

I remember an edumacated man once telling a rancher that his fence plyers didn't exist. The rancher just nodded in agreement and asked the man if he could hand him a few more staples.

Getting back up would indeed be worth some gratitude. And a video recording. :lol:

Thank you teachers, for your patience.

Popper was trying to define what the scientific method is all his life. — gikehef947

Too bad he didn't have my sixth grade teacher. Or better yet, Google. It's your friend.

:up: :smile: Thank you, likewise.

Thank you, Apishapa. Good country.

There is no such thing as "science", only sciences. For a mathematician, physics is not completely a science. Biology is not a science at all. Psychology is like voodoo. And sociology... what the fuck do sociologists do? — gikehef947

There is no such thing as "religion", only religions. For a Druid, Islam is not completely a religion. Hinduism is not a religion at all. Judaism is like voodoo. And Christianity...what the fuck do Christians do?

It would be difficult to see a lion going up against a Nile crocodile. They must pray less than they do. — gikehef947

If hope is not a strategy, then neither is prayer. Prayer has fuck-all to do with it.

P.S. Science is the scientific method. Sixth Grade, I think it was.

After watching the video, I have concluded, along with the wicked Darwinists and science, that 1. Size can matter; and 2. Stay in your lane.

Google the plethora of videos where the cat kills the croc in water when: 1. the cat is = or bigger in size; and 2. where the cat kills the croc that has ventured onto land.

Thank you me, for taking a break.

No other animal I know of does that, right? — TheMadFool

I am not sure. Could be we are the only ones. But it could also be that we are the only ones who want and need more than what we have. We might be the only animal dissatisfied with ourselves, and life as it is. I mean, look at us! Can you blame us for being so insecure? Physically we are awkward and clumsy and vulnerable. So we invent ways to distract ourselves, we create stories about how great we are, and we make a virtue of our searching, wanting, exploratory efforts to escape ourselves. We make a virtue of achievement, invention, subjugation of the rest of the world. And then pat ourselves on the back, and make us the measure of all things, in our minds.

No other animal may copy another animal. I don't know. But I imagine a Raven is pretty content. He can fly from the arctic to the equator, eating anything that is not nailed down, and thrive. What's to want? What's to need? If he, for some strange reason, wanted what fish have, he still doesn't have the opposable thumb to build a submarine. But why would he want to?

I once had a conversation with the single most brilliant man I know. He was constantly engaged. He was engaged with people, or in a book. Constantly soaking up knowledge. He wondered how I could go so long without people, without anything to read, no music, no tent, no food; just being. He said it would drive him nuts. I said that it's possible that he could not stand to have himself around. He smoked on that for a while, and then confessed I was probably right. That is the nature of man. We see it as a strength. That story about how great we are is so long engrained it has become truth. In our minds anyway.

:up:

Another unwarranted assumption surrounds the words "need" and "want." Our homocentric view, our anthropomorphism, has us thinking they must need or want what we think they would want if they only knew as much as we do, and if they only knew they needed it. Hell, if they were smart they would be like us. :roll: We do it to each other all the time: "If only those people would be like us they wouldn't be the way they are."

Having argued that a bad life is worth living, I wanted to play the devils advocate and argue that a good life is not worth living. This made me ask questions about the word "worth." To say a good life is "worth" living is like saying a loaf of bread is worth $1.00. There is a price to be paid. The price for a loaf of bread is $1.00. The price for a good life is living. Thus, living, like a $1.00, is the value to be paid. Ergo, living has value. Living is what you pay for a good life. Apparently you would not give up living for a bad life because a bad life is not worth living. So you keep your living and refuse to trade it for a bad life. Embrace the suck and tell a bad life to go fuck itself. You simply will not trade living for a bad life. It's your living. Keep it.

One of the other limitations I perceive in the line of reasoning is an apparent requirement for guarantees. Does there have to be an absolute guarantee that I child's life will be good before bringing it on? Can't we have some Vegas odds?

And what of hope? Is hope not a consideration? For instance, the only reason many people with bad lives don't kill themselves is that nagging hope which runs contrary to all experience to date.

And never sleeps. — 180 Proof

:100: :lol: