Given your bullet reply I will do likewise. (even though I think that turns our conversation into more of an argument, and I hate arguments)

I) Both sides had only mathematical constructs with a central notion of understanding behind the numbers. What I mean is, there was no NASA or anything to go look...there was only math. The Heliocentric model was exactly that, a (very) complex mathematical model (of exceptions) to explain the motion of the planets based on observed phenomena. Geocentrism had data as well, but lacked the cultural bias for it to be accepted as a valid view point. Which adds to my point, not detracts from it; as my point what theories get mocked or accepted has more to do with culture than premise.

A) I bet you didn't read the link I posted, and I can't blame you (Quine on a weekday and all!). But what I wrote was a hasty, and perhaps, oversimplified version of Quines waxing and waning on the politics of science. You can see examples of this today where scientists and large hang on the breath of the great intellectuals of the day, like Stephen Hawking. Or, how quickly Einstein is falling out of favor now that quantum doesn't quite add up. More than likely, within our lifetime, you will stop hearing about space time curves and it will be supplanted by some other thing. The main difference between planet orbits and the general laws of the universe are that you can go outside and look at the orbit (with a rocket). You can't go just "see" the laws of nature and therefore have no reason to thing Enstein was any more right about space time curves than of fundamental forces. You can explain, using Newtonian language and adapting its math, relativity and motion. The reason we don't has more to do with culture and self advocacy than evidence. And to the point, that still doesn't address the primary problem, that of which, the PEERS that review are under the influence of culture, they are the rose colored glasses to which I was referring all along.

B) See, I understand a bit of that. But ultimately that seems like an undersell to how life works on this planet. No doubt, change will bring hardship on certain species, but wouldn't also create new opportunities for others? A lack of snow on the tundra is bad for snow foxes...but good for regular foxes. Change is one thing life on this planet handles well...as for individual members their fates are less certain.

C) I disagree on 2 counts. One is my first example. Simply put, even if you idea treads water, it can be framed in such a way as to be demeaned of any value, regardless of merit. You can see this in media smear campaign stuff, if you can frame someone as a nut job, it will discredit them. For example, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences" is a great read and has many, good observations....but is written by the uni bomber so not high on anyone's reading list. It isn't culturally acceptable to go...hey, the uni bomber is right, this is a problem! Same goes for here, it doesn't matter if it's 600 or 6000 scientists that disagree with the climate change model, if your ideas aren't popular, no one is going to be there to listen.

And second, you can't prove a negative. The only way the could prove that climate change isn't human caused is to completely understand the whole system and then point out how humans are trivial factors. In other words, they would have to be able to do the thing that no climatologist can claim, to know the whole truth about the weather and all its complexities. The burden of proof is actually on those making the claim, not the ones countering that claim. So really, the only thing they have to proof is nothing and just make the assertion that the doomsays math doesn't add up (and why). They just have to poke the holes in the boat in other words...which is what I think they are getting ostracized for. Get on board or get out kind of thing. But that is just an outsiders opinion.

Within the English language cult is NOT a synonym for religion. From a strictly dictionary definition, the difference is largely the number of adherents. In common usage the difference is also a distinctly more negative or derogatory connotation to cult as well.

I'm making the obvious point that the difference between the church of Scientology and the local church run soup kitchen goes deeper than semantics. What ever your opinion of most religions today, or religion in general, Scientology stands as more sinister than most, and by a large margin. From the secrecy it uses to hide it's beliefs to it's aggressive policy of hate and destroy your enemies it stands out as more vile than most other religions and cults around.

If you think other religions need to be bashed too, that's your business. I will however object to you elevating one of the worst(Scientology) by saying it's no worse than all the others. You aren't just smearing religion with that kind of comment. You are at the same time elevating the status of Scientology to that of other mainstream religions, no matter how low you may consider that bar to be.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.

Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.

Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

There are certainly levels of crazy, but they're all in the crazy 'region'.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
wait. what religion isn't a cult?

Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?
So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?
I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

I kind of see what he's saying but he generalizes too much for me to fully see what's he's getting at.

I agree with his notion of cynicism of green products, of purportedly charitable companies who are ultimately motivated by profit and positive brand image. Makes me draw to the comparison to how people who go to funerals aren't really honoring the individual so much as satisfying their own need for acceptance and release.

But he oversimplifies the issue. Yes, for example when food relief is dumped into country, and destroys local markets by drastically lowering the price to below cost, the effects are dependance and worse economic conditions in the long run, but in the example he gives, curing preventable diseases is hugely beneficial in reducing mortality rates, which tends to lead to lower birth rates, and higher standards of living for all over time.

Haha so you have done "research" yourself? What is your qualification? Maybe i am spoiled by treehugging hippies and the world wildlife fund, greenpeace and so on but i have never ever heard the argument we have to kill seals to stop them from killing themselves. The argument itself is so stupid it hurts. After doing what you call "research" myself (i.e. spending 10mins browsing the web) i find no clue that supports your argument. But hey, maybe wikipedia isn't scientific enough, there's no review etc. I'll give you that. But i trust Wikipedia more than i trust you and there is no mention that supports your statement. At least not in the German version (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robben#Moderne_Massenjagd). Instead i only read about the senseless killing of seals because of their fur and about the near extinction of their species because of stupid fucks that make up stupid reasons to kill them. But gosh, maybe you're right and we should go and kill puppies to save their species. And while we're at it we should also slaughter human babies because let's be honest 6 billion folks is enough.

Besides: The content of this clip maybe oversimplified, but i also chose it because of the animation style which i find pretty neat.

I think that's oversimplifying it a little bit.

This war was begun by Bush. I'm not crazy about Obama's actions since taking office, but let's not forget why Americans were there in the first place.

But Ron Paul is right about this being a war of choice.>> ^blankfist:

Democrats. The party of war?

That is the whole point, they didn't engage the black bloc, but they did attack reporters and arrested peaceful protestors.

You don't think that's oversimplifying things a touch?

You've got the police lines on one side, the bloc block rampaging on the other, and a sea of protesters in the middle. The truth couldn't be that the few city police there were available to pursue the black bloc earlier were just inadequate and late? The truth couldn't be that the black bloc dispersed into the protesters before the city police could respond. It couldn't be that the black bloc fully planned on the police responding to their actions and intended to do their damage and then hide before the police response?

And yes, it is some kinda of crazy, because it was completely unexpected from Canadian government!

Oh right, now it makes sense. This is EXACTLY what the government wanted all along. The entire mess with the black bloc plays right into their hands. The only thing standing in Harper's way was finding someway to sway public opinion against himself and his government.

>> ^Xaielao:

There are certain diamond outlets that guarantee that their precious metals and gems do not come from conflict. I'm not sure which ones but I do know they are out there. A few google searches could probably tell ya.
On the topic this happens every day around the world. The rich and powerful bleeding third world countries dry for their resources. For example, you think Afghanistan is a terrible war now? They just discovered some of the largest deposits of gold and other precious metals like lithium there, at least a trillion dollars worth. So Afghanistan's war today will be the oppression and slaughter of millions over the next many years as rich mega-corps that care nothing for the people vie for the riches. And because Afghanistan is a broken, unorganized third world country, they won't become richer, they will become even more squalid as a nation.


Isn't that a rather oversimplified explanation though? Doesn't consumer demand drive the price of commodities and metals higher? And doesn't the increase in money for poor, relatively backwards countries encourage warlords? How could you guarantee something like that? Metal and diamonds are fungible, so it seems like any guarantee would be paper thin. Aren't the warlords ultimately failures of the governments of those countries more than corporations and demand for goods? Isn't the demand of goods from a poor country one of the only ways to break out of extreme poverty? If we aren't going to buy their goods, what hope do they ever have or raising the funds to combat local warlords?

I think the problem exists because the world is far less simple than you suppose. There is an interesting capitalist third world economist that talks about one of the real problems of poor countries is their lack of governments defining what private property means. This results in might makes right type of situations. Many third world countries need revolutions in ideas before they will ever achieve modern economic prosperity.

>> ^Issykitty:

It's a dark comedy that presents a female's perspective in the form of a simple video game animation. As a female myself, I found it using hyperbole with a ring of truth. I get that you are playing clueless broken record for your trolling act, but you know well that it's not a fucking literal dissertation.
>> ^westy:
you think that a video that dose nothing to clarify an issue and introduces its own false hoods through an over simplification of an issue is productive?




The video is sexist towards men by bing compleaty ignorant and reinforcing typecast of men that have been proven to be wrong.

evan though this video is intended as a light hearted jab and its expected that it will have flaws , that dosent some how make it ok or good to repeat the same tired old argument (especially an argument that's not beneficial to defeating sexism and is sexisist in its self) , simply placing it in a new context is not realy good enoughf especaily as like said in my first post you could easily use the game context to portray something in a far more acuret , amusing ohnist and clever way.

yes sexism exists towards women , but it exists towards men as well. its sexist to only attack one side of sexism again , the video follows the same oversimplified message as a vast majority of anti sexim tripe that is out there.

it appears that you have not bothered to register what I actually said and then go on to insult me.
your the one doing the trolling here , its not trolling to write a well formed argument with resions behind it , it is however trolling to accuse sum one of trolling bassed on nothing.

Edit: Nevermind.

>> ^westy:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.

Maby you are unaware of how oversimplifying issues and presenting something quite complex in a narrow minded and overly simplistic way dose nothing to clarify or communicate an issue, it just produces more morons on the other end of the spectrum.

Edit: Nevermind.

In reply to this comment by westy:
>> ^kronosposeidon:

^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.


Maby you are unaware of how oversimplifying issues and presenting something quite complex in a narrow minded and overly simplistic way dose nothing to clarify or communicate an issue, it just produces more morons on the other end of the spectrum.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.


Maby you are unaware of how oversimplifying issues and presenting something quite complex in a narrow minded and overly simplistic way dose nothing to clarify or communicate an issue, it just produces more morons on the other end of the spectrum.

As opposed to what country never being racist, exactly?

First, China is not acquainted with our western get-rich-quick-by-enslaving-black-people scheme, so they view her being black with the same kind of curiosity you would have toward someone with, say, blue hair. I'm oversimplifying here, but you get the idea: although their constantly pointing it out is not very subtle and out of place, it simply does not carry the same weight prejudice-wise.

Second, whatever the country, whenever someone different gets noticed in the media, you always get a number of negative reactions. When the newly crowned Miss USA happens to be both Arab and Muslim, for example. The fact that the racist remarks here triggered an uproar is actually quite positive. I'm not so sure that kind of 'rubes responses' would suffer a public backlash in many countries in Europe and Russia...

All in all, considering that China is a dictature where the government is constantly using censorship and propaganda to denigrate their actual minorities (Tibetans, Uyghur) and foster chauvinism, I'd say the Chinese are surprisingly open as a whole.