@A-Winston @lantern53

Here is another fantastic wikipedia article that i highly recommend you read closely.

Note that not a single scientific institution is in any doubt about the points made on that page about climate change. The last group that rejected any of the points (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists no less; one of the most biased-looking on the page and in clear opposition to the consensus) had to, in 2007, accept that the evidence was making them look foolish, and took a "non-committal" stance... whatever that means. A very unscientific conclusion to make - the conclusion should state what the results stated and most importantly be free of opinion. For example you'd get roasted alive for writing "95% probability, so it's quite likely!" in a university science report - italicised bit is clearly an opinion, and is scientifically meaningless.

Read the bit about consensus. Read the bit about peer reviewed research being conducted by lecturers and students at universities around the world.

I'm genuinely trying to help you understand how scientific consensus works, please give this a look. If you're worried about wikipedia you can check the citations, i've given it a look and the sources look reliable, and you can let me know if you've got any doubts about any and i'll take a look for you and discuss it with you in private if you like. Genuinely want to help if i can.

@A-Winston @lantern53

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

I'll simplify it for you - those who are not well educated in a subject greatly overestimate their ability at the subject, because they don't know all of the things that they don't know.

Those who are better educated in a subject greatly underestimate their ability at the subject, because they know how complicated it is.

Now you two don't know about science, and that's ok - that's not an insult and i don't want any of this to be insulting. But it is meant to be a reminder that you are talking about one of if not the most technical and complicated abstract subjects that we as a species pursue. If you don't even understand the "scientific method" (a distinct term) and how the "scientific community" (another distinct term) works and comes to consensus, how can you possibly hope to decipher fact (science) from fiction (propaganda)?

I keep having to post this, but i'll do it again. The scientific community is made up of all kinds of people such as university lecturers and students (yes, your kids might be part of the community), amateur scientists, people at research institutions.... anyone who cares enough to approach things methodically and systematically, anyone interested in finding out as much as we possibly can about everything we can. Real science does not get paid based on results - the funding is provided for the research and the research finds whatever it finds. You can't lie about science, because other anal bastards (far worse than me) are just waiting to find something wrong with it and pillory it. That's how the scientific community works, it's like internet comments only worse. You can't get away with doing bad science for long.

Most people in scientific research do not have a lot of money, do you understand that? I can tell you right now - i contribute to scientific papers and such, so that makes me part of the scientific community. I'm just a post-grad student living on a student loan and doing something that i enjoy. My lecturers make a living, but they are not well-off by any means. We also suffer tax when politicians take our evidence and twist it in front of our faces. And we're left standing here, exasperated, wondering why you'd listen to non-experts over experts. If your doctor said you had diabetes, you wouldn't ask a politician to confirm it? If you want a scientific opinion, consult the scientific community.

I would love you to ask yourself the following question; "What do i really know about the scientific community and the scientific method?" Because if you took half an hour one day to go to an accredited university and ask the science department about how science works, how consensus is formed, and what makes good scientific practice, you'd be able to rid yourselves of these myths that somehow all scientists (i.e. average people, doing scientific research for the sake of science) are in some kind of club or gang or being paid to say that humans are causing climate devastation. The reason the majority of people say that is because the science speaks for itself and is not open to interpretation. The facts are facts.

Are you really thinking this through?

I want to show you one final thing, and it comes from the wikipedia page on Scientific method (which i recommend you read to avail yourself about which you speak, please don't speak from ignorance).

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

The science speaks for itself, and i recommend you start listening to real scientists. Why prefer the opinion of a few individuals who are either flawed in their scientific reasoning or flat out being paid to lie? The scientific community is in full agreement.

Edit: Sorry for the long post, but you're talking about something you don't understand and it exasperates me. You wouldn't come here and talk about the details of internal medicine, but you're quite happy to tell a scientist, to his face, that he doesn't know science.

@Trancecoach - they respond in literature all the time. A scientist's response is to prove it, scientifically. They do, and are, all the time. But most people do not understand science and those that do still find scientific papers daunting and difficult to follow. People like the two i mentioned above, they don't have a hope in hell of understanding the source of the information, and they sadly look to the wrong people to explain it to them.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-uk-government-are-opening-thousands-of-secret-files-to-the-public

Cold war propaganda, Nazi prosecution files, Winston Churchill's secret recipe for baked beans... this is better than Disneyland!

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

-O'Brien to Winston, Room 101

About a week ago I opened my wallet at a bar or a bank or something, and I received a compliment for having a library card in my wallet. O.G. Huntington Beach and Westminster Library card holder representin'!

Before the internet, the common man was dumber than shit and my edge was that I read books at the library. In fact, it was NOT cool to know things about things.

Now I'm comparitively dumb because motherfuckers be like "3rd law of thermodynamics, pssshhh, I know EVERYTHING bout that." /ALTAVISTA

I mean, that's cool that people know things now --but, damn, having that edge was really nice.

And then I had the internet and no one did, and my edge was even huger. I made bank designing shitty ass webpages for shitty ass old people with shitty ass businesses. Now everyone gots it and the people with money laid down the pressure and it's a machine of controlled behavior and wallet squeezing. (I squeeze wallets for a living but it's more in sync with Winston Smith working for big bro.)

But I digress... Shhhhh, I'm on my iPhone -- nope, A BOOK.

Bring it back! Don't let Barnes & Nobles close dooooowwwwn. You may dis on the B&N, but that's part of the levee of popular opinion; how assholes of the future will monetize. If our corporate overlords and money trading thugs realize that books ain't selling, they won't hesitate to shut down a library. For the people. For the taxes. For God. You got a book. It's the bible now STFU.

Then we'll only have the internet and information will successfully be filtered down into an easily manipulated data stream -- which it is, but it's not fully there yet. We need to INTEGRATE FACEBOOK WITH EVERY ASPECT OF EXISTENCE.

Shut down all printing presses. When you pick up a book in the future it will turn to dust in your hands and then the CAVE PEOPLE WILL DEVOUR YOU.

Brains. Brains. Nom. Guts and gore. Your children will be eaten alive; torn to shreds, while blood flows out of their arteries into the machines of death.. Force fucked women of your sub-species impregnated by the semen of the dead in order to make more food. More foooooooooooooood -- YOUR PROGENY ARE FOOD.

And all because of the system which interrupts a motherfuck for reading a book.

It's all about the in play! (Subtle Ray Winstone reference).

I would love to have a laugh at this once it's on Netflix. Why does Anthony Hopkins always sound like he's phoning it in? Such an overrated actor.

And where's Ridley Scott? Thought he was married to Crowe?

I wonder if they'll go into the shipbuilding technology required to build a single super large vessel capable of surviving a world-wide flood?

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

The alternative, as far as I am familiar with the counterargument to this viewpoint, would have been to loosen the requirement of "unconditional surrender" of Japan, and possibly to demonstrate the bomb by dropping it on an unpopulated area. Inviting Japanese scientists to a staging ground for a controlled demonstration was also on the books.

Now, assuming the US top brass were convinced Japan was not going to surrender, the argument presented here is quite valid. Bombing a live target certainly had the most shock value, and the bombs were likely in quite limited supply. (I confess, I don't know how many there were at the time.) A continued conventional war would have been horrendous.

But... Were the Japanese really unwilling to surrender, and if so, why? According to what I've read... Well, let me just quote the story, I've seen this in a number of texts:

"At the conclusion of the conference, Roosevelt and Churchill held a press conference. Roosevelt said that he and Churchill…

…were determined to accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany, Japan, and Italy…

Churchill said later that he was surprised by this statement. Churchill adds that he was told by Harry Hopkins that the President said to him:

…then suddenly the Press Conference was on, and Winston and I had had no time to prepare for it; and the thought popped into my mind that they had called Grant “Old Unconditional Surrender,” and the next thing I knew I had said it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/jonathan-goodwin/roosevelt-demands-unconditionalsurrender/

It was Jonathan Glover who I first read giving this account of events, but I don't remember what his source was. The argument he and others make, though, is that the Japanese did signal their willingness to surrender, but were not willing to do so unconditionally. This is because they feared the emperor might have been deposed and put to trial, which was simply unthinkable to them. If this is true, then dropping the bombs may have been unnecessary and even before the bombs, the war effort in the Pacific could have been ended through diplomatic means.

All this does leave one with some disconcerting questions. Would Allied leaders really have refused to reconsider their demands of Japan simply due to prestige and the need to show resolve? Was there no diplomatic backchannel? Certainly the fog of war must have played a part in the decisions made. I haven't been able to find a source beyond hearsay for what, exactly, the Japanese diplomatic position on surrender was. Considering this debate still goes on, no such source is likely to surface.

What stands out here, to me, as the saddest thing is: it seems countless lives were lost for lack of solid information and communication between enemies. Had Japan and the Allies been able to negotiate further, had the allies dared show their nuclear hand, had they made it possible for the emperor (while not a nice guy by any means) to be protected, how many lives could have been saved? Unfortunately, no-one has the benefit of hindsight when it's most needed.

I can't help but think of the Cuban missile crisis - what would have happened, had a similar failure to communicate occurred at that time? It was very close...

@Sniper007 Fine if you weren't being literal, but framing candy as a vice seems a bit of a big moral statement; I'm not a fan of classifying things that way.

Half the vices which the world condemns most loudly have seeds of good in them and require moderate use rather than total abstinence.
- Samuel Butler

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
- Winston Churchill

It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.
-Abraham Lincoln

Poor Ol' Winston has got a baaaaaaaaaad case of the itchy butt blues.

My vote for best film I saw this year was Dredd. Proof you can make an engaging, exciting action film which makes sense and has a strong protagonist without it being three hours long.

In the year I decided to return to the cinema I rarely saw anything that was really exciting or elevating. But I was surprised how dull and bloated some of the blockbusters turned out. Prometheus followed by Dark Knight were my main disappointments.

I saw some older films. Salt with Angelina Jolie was surprisingly fun. The Proposition with Guy Pearce is an outstanding Aussie Western which does bring me back to Django - it probably isn't as funny but I'll bet it's more powerful. It even survives having Ray Winstone.