Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Lyrics:

Playhouse pals
Dial now
Playhouse pals
We're waiting

Playhouse pals
With barks and meows
Playhouse pals
We're waiting

first heard about you
we thought that maybe your were blankfist
Now we know better, but you've got the right to feel kind of pissed

But you're our ...

Playhouse pals
Dial now
playhouse pals we're waiting

Playhouse pals
The whitest clouds
pretty flowers and
baking

Playhouse pals
Dial now
Playhouse pals
@ant's waiting ...

It's so sad. People who live that weather, and I used to---they should know better. The truckers, the professionals, most of all, right?

If I didn't know better, that crow had a few people say that to him, and it just repeated as a greeting. I especially like how its feathers puff up when he says it.

That said, crows are supposed to be quite intelligent.

eh, its buzzfeed. Most likely their target audience are white american youths, who would know JD.

I had a friend who hanging out at someones house. they were passing around a sipping scotch, i don't know what brand, but it was supposedly expensive and could peel paint with a splash it was so strong. They ran out of sipping glasses, so they poured his in a normal shot glass. He didn't know better and shot the thing in front of them all. They all gasped and said "NO!! DON'T SHOT IT!" lol he said it was the most excruciating sensation ever had drinking something. everyone had a good laugh after it.

The Dunning Kruger effect relates to peoples inability to assess their competence at a task they are already doing.

You might correctly assume that you can't speak Japanese or perform surgery, but once you start learning either, you will almost certainly overestimate your own ability early on.

The other thing that's important to note is that it doesn't necessarily relate to stupidity but competence. Stupidity is inherent, competence is learned. As you become more competent with a skill, you are better able to accurately rate your own ability.

In other words, even smart people will tend to overestimate their abilities until they know better.

For example, I've been aware of this phenomenon for nearly a decade. I've never driven a race car. Intellectually, I know that I'm not the next Senna in disguise, but even then I will catch myself looking at F1 or even the muppets on Top Gear and thinking "I could do that".

You may think that, I think in most instances it's neither only stupidity nor solely delusion, but it can be just complete ignorance. I point to miracle surgeons in South America that convince uneducated people that they can reach inside their body and pull out organs. They believe it because they don't know better and they're delusional usually. If they knew basic physiology, it would be much harder for them to delude themselves.
As to 'Another language, I can speak that.', I point to Peggy Hill (and those real people like her). With her, it's ignorance of the subject paired with ignorance of her own ability, at least as I see it.
I have actually known people who said things like 'calculus, probably something I can just do.' that quickly dropped AP calculus when they learned differently. They were completely ignorant of what it was, or the base math knowledge needed to learn it and maybe deluded about their own skills. When the ignorance was cleared up, the delusion evaporated.
My point is, delusion is far more difficult if not impossible without ignorance.
EDIT: please see above for how I see dumb and stupid as different.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

@lucky760

Oh, I totally agree--it is a difference of philosophy. But which philosophy is going to lead to a better world?

Look, you don't care some guys got shot after committing a crime. I do. Why? Because it's all directly connected to the rest of us. Why did they commit the crime? How did they get to that point in their lives where they felt it was okay to put others in harm's way? Most importantly, how do we help prevent other people from ending up in that place, so that we're not the ones being put in harm's way next time?

A philosophy of indifference is unlikely to get one to seek answers to those questions: those guys got shot because they were "dumb" or because they were "scum" or some other simplistic answer that leads to no change happening in the world.

But on an even more fundamental level, getting shot hurts pretty bad (I've had friends who have been shot and survived) and on just that level alone I empathize with the guys. We're biologically wired to empathize with other people's pain (mirror neurons) but we can also override that biological response and act callously toward our fellow humans.

I believe compassion is the only way we are ever going to solve the world's major problems, particularly violent conflict. Lack of compassion--even for people who should know better or people who disregard their own safety--is only ever going to give us exactly the world we have now.

What I got out of the video is that 'like a girl' is most often derogatory and that it starts to impact women through their (for lack of a better term or for lack of knowing better) formative years. It can then be a self-fulfilling prophesy and make them feel lesser. All of this is not good and we should try not to use these terms.

However much the video is contrived to make an impact is unimportant. This concept does exist and is well known. I know I've used the term to describe a man that ran 'funny' and I know it was a shitty thing to do. Probably making me feel better in the moment.

I think that as we grow up, we do a lot of shitty things because we don't know better. As I grow older, I want to become better and understand things more. Now into my 40's, I still think I have room for improvement. And when it comes down to it, does it really matter if girls, in general, can't run as fast as guys? I think it matters more that if you want to run fast, you try and do the best you can and you don't even have to have the goal of being faster if you simply enjoy running. There is always going to be someone faster than you unless you are the fastest man or the fastest woman.

Anyway, what's your take on my comments as far as mansplaining goes?

I think Brand is in general, a reasonably funny guy who doesn't have a clue about politics, and should shut the fuck up about hand-wavy, airy-fairy notions of revolution without anything solid to back them up. I disagree with @Sagemind. Revolution is meaningless without a goal. That's why occupy failed (and if you think it didn't fail, please enlighten me as to what they actually achieved).

Destruction can be a wonderful catalyst for change. You can't make an omelette, etc. But if you don't actually make an omelette, all you're left with it is raw eggs and shell.

Now, all that said, Brand is completely in the right here. He actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to drugs and in particular rehabilitation from them. Current drug policy is an abject failure by every metric imaginable.

And Snow should know better. As hard as it is for those of you accustomed to the likes of Fox and MSNBC, he's actually a respected journalist.

Don't give me that false equivalence BS, you don't have a different viewpoint, you have a demonstrably bad viewpoint.

I don't hate you, I pity you. I'm not the one that hates homosexuals and minorities,

people like you and lantern who judge people on the basis of skin color, and sexual orientation....

...are not good people, it's that simple. You are relics of the past.

It is socially acceptable to shame and call out people like you and lantern when we catch you voicing your antiquated ideas. Your social viewpoints are becoming less and less acceptable with each day. Even the right is slowly backing away on their attacks on minorities and homosexuals.

Your ideas...don't work, they never did.

I've told you and your pal lantern many times that you are free to be as backwards thinking as you want in the privacy of your own home and your own brain. But when you voice your bad ideas in public, expect to be called out and shamed.

You can play the victim card all you want. but you know it's not just me picking on you. Long before I ever showed up, you've been called out and shamed by many others here and you've been reprimanded by the staff of this website on multiple occasions. I'm willing to bet that unless you live in a hole in the ground in the deep south, you know better than to voice your ideas in public in real life since you know you'll get in trouble. Being an anonymous troll on a website is the only place you can voice your bad ideas, isn't it?

I understand that you're angry. The world changed on you and you're too set on your old ideas to change with it. Well you better hang on, because it's going to keep on changing and people who share your viewpoint will keep dying of old age. As it should be.

As I told lantern, start taking your own advice. You keep claiming that gays and minorites need to "suck it up".

Suck it up bob, suck it up. Why don't you practice what you preach about "rugged individualism" and quit whining? Take it like a man, right?

If you don't like it, go find a website that shares your viewpoints. Freedom of speech does not exist on a private website.

Deal with it. Your prejudice is only going to keep getting called out and you will continue to get shamed.

The American Government education system is an anti education system.
Kids today get a less quality education than before.

I don't mind these dumb kids today because it means added job security. You are too dumb to know better. Someone needs to serve me lunch and sweep my floors.

You must be one of them. You were taught and firmly believe that Liberalism is good and capitalism is evil and must be destroyed. The fact of the matter is the exact opposite, Liberalism is evil.



And yes educators do want this dumbing down of students. They have been doing this for years. Finally the education is controlled by union controlled liberals. They have been in control for decades. We are not #1 or 8th, we are down in the middle of the pack down at 20. For all the money we spend per child and to be in 20th place.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/11/15/Mom-Furious-After-Son-Makes-Honor-Roll-With-C-s-and-D-s

http://worldtop20.org/

Did they put someone in jail? Are they stopping them by force?

Sorry but they are not a threat to free speech, they are voicing their opinions. Come back to me when someone puts you in jail for your opinion and I'll do something about it.

Freedom of Speech is alive and well in America, for example when the Guardian was forced to destroy all their computers and hard drives with the Snowden leaks on it in Britain they weren't here. Britain may have asked but the US Government knows better, they can't do it and not because of some law but because of the principle on which that law stands. That and we'd fucking riot like hell. Free speech is something we constantly have to fight and look out for, but it's not under threat from bored mothers. Even if they are a bunch of cunts.