search results matching tag: because reasons

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.005 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (2)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (10)   

Pissed Physicist says "Follow the Science" is nonsense

TheFreak says...

Let's be honest, her premise isn't at all clear.

Like she's saying that science doesn't have opinions, so you can base your opinions on science but you can't SAY those opinions are based on science because science doesn't validate opinion?

You can't ask someone if they're basing their opinions on science because...reasons?

She's reading opinion pieces, conflating those articles with science and then complaining that you can't conflate opinion and science.

My head's spinning.

Why The Cops Won't Help You When You're Getting Stabbed

bigbikeman says...

Ok, so....

Cops should just jump on people they think *might* commit a crime because: Reasons .

Good call, citizens!

Due process. Due fucking process.
It exists for reasons beyond your cynical worldview...or even worst case scenarios. It exists to protect the rest of us. The majority.

The cops were right there to take the guy away once he did something stupid. They were also "correct" in not doing anything beforehand. Right before he pulled a knife and stabbed someone, he was just being an asshole, nothing more. That's not illegal. Sorry.

and no: you don't want the police "protecting" you. That's what the Mafia does.

So what's the alternative? Preemptive police takedowns? That happens too, and people scream all the same.

Difference is: I'd rather live in a free society where cops wait for somebody (maybe me) to actually do something wrong, than just leave it up to them to decide when you (or I) *might* be a risk, and then taze or shoot you or me dead.

The police are not there to keep you safe. For one, there is no such thing as "safe" in absolute terms, and in my opinion, if there was, you sure as shit don't want the state prescribing that "safety".

But...that's just my opinion.

Post-Truth: Why Facts Don't Matter Anymore

Spacedog79 says...

We live in a society that is still reliant on necessary lies to be functional. For example that the wars in the middle east are not about oil, or that working every hour of your day until you die is the key to happiness. Until we can solve our energy problem (eg with thorium) and our socially destructive economic issues then lies and fake news will inevitably rule over reason because reason is not compatible with our necessary lies.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

That, or they simply wanted to be clear about why the rule is of utmost importance - to preserve a public capacity.

In any case, in the end it made it into the constitution - most supreme law we have. "[Because reasons ...] right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They could have put in the bi-yearly training requirements right there. But they decided not to. They just left it at that. That description given by Hamilton is close to what eventually got to paper. Whether he was for or against it, ok (I searched for a quote that was along those lines, I could be thinking of a different guy). My understanding was that he didn't like any ideas. Military can be abused to impose tyranny, militia can be unmotivated and misbehaved (unless hyperbole).


I thought it was that paper, but I can't find it as I scan through, I thought he (or someone else?) wanted a subset of individuals trained in military arts, that could organize and direct militias should conflict arise, to take the burden of military-level training off of citizens.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

Note that the only reason to include the "motivation" at all is for it to be used to interpret the "rule".

"to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions (read evaluations), as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

So even those dissenting were fairly clear that to be "well regulated" in the popular parlance of the day requires training and at least twice yearly evaluations....and for that, regulations governing and delineating that training and evaluating.
Hamilton was dissenting, saying 1) that in his opinion EVERY citizen would be in the militia 2) that making that militia 'well regulated' was too much of a burden if it fell on every citizen and 3) that he thinks gun owners should have to assemble twice a year (at least) to prove that they are properly armed and equipped (and tested for basic proficiency), NOT be forced to be "well regulated" which would mean MORE training and testing than only twice a year. SO, if you used his more lax criteria (and we don't) there would be bi-yearly proficiency testing and firearm inspections for EVERY gun owner. I think people would LOVE that to be the case, but his idea didn't rule the day, so it's not law.

woman destroys third wave feminism in 3 minutes

Asmo says...

Hrm...

"whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for"

"I'm sorry, did I trigger you? Did I piss in your safe space? Aww."

Why is it that people that go out of their way to offend suddenly complain when it comes back at them?

I had a pretty reasonable response brewing to the post where you came up with the fuckhead bit, and trashed it because reasonable didn't seem what you were interested in. So why waste my time trying to reason with a person who is unreasonable right?

And hey, that's my presumption. Mebbe I caught you on a bad day, mebbe I'm being the ass here, it's entirely possible.

But this conversation is pretty much as pointless as vocal 3rd wave feminism. It's going around in circles, people occasionally getting mad, and the majority of the sift probably peaked in and decided they couldn't be fucked wading in among the 10 or so people dedicated to perpetuating the "conversation"... And of course it's not really accomplishing anything, we're all still being relatively civil to each other even if a bit terse...

The battle for equality isn't won, but it's pretty close (well, at least in the west, just forget about the majority of the worlds women who still live in conditions that make the 50's seem blissful...). 3rd wavers aren't fighting massive social injustice anymore, they are battling things like #gamergate and feedback against Sarkeesian, Tucker Max or that Return of Kings mob (who seem to be the biggest trolls on the planet but w/e).

Seriously, they are spending a lot of time and energy arguing with the lowest common denominators (who by and large love the attention). There used to be a time you could safely ignore the village idiot because, hey, he's a fucking idiot. Now, any dumbass can post on the internet and people will descend on them like the proverbial plagues of Egypt, followed shortly by supporters showing up. Not because those one offs are indicative of even a significant minority in broader society, but because it generates plenty of online hype to see "some guy" say something fucking awful and then the sides line up to start yelling at each other...

So I'm not overly concerned if we end up agreeing because in the grand scheme of things, it's also fairly pointless. We're both entitled to our opinions and they seem to be vaguely in the same park aka "equality good, hate and oppression bad", seems like a good place to stop.

Babymech said:

Being dismissive and pretending that everybody who disagrees with you is angry or 'bailing out' will not get us closer to agreements. I don't think.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate

ChaosEngine says...

Ya know what, @Trancecoach is right. I could rebut all your points, but you've taken an ideological position that is unsupported by evidence, so clearly this is a waste of my time.

You probably genuinely believe what you've written, despite it being obvious nonsense.

One thing I can't let slide is your last little fantasy about the lone scientist against the establishment. That hasn't been true for a long time, and even then, it was generally religion or business (cf. Edison and Tesla) and not scientific consensus that impeded progress. Most major advances in science have come about by people working together, sharing results and bouncing ideas off each other. In fact, most of the time, the people we credit with great ideas (Newton, Einstein, etc) were only a step ahead of other scientists working toward the same ideas.

Yes, evidence trumps consensus, but scientists are not idiots, and there isn't some lone genius who has understood climate change when everyone else hasn't. If there was, the scientific community would recognise it.

There simply isn't any evidence to support your position that isn't easily dismissed in a few paragraphs. Read http://skepticalscience.com

The whole climate change denial (and no, I won't dignify it by calling it scepticism, that's an insult to scepticism) is marketing.

So I'll leave you, trance and the republicans in your little fantasy world where scientists and environmental campaigners have engaged in a massively profitable (please explain how, still not clear on this one) scheme to fuck up the world economy (because??? reasons, I guess) and the heroic oil companies are going to rescue us from a fate worse than a clean planet.

Meanwhile, I, the scientific community and the other humans that don't believe the earth is flat will accept the reality of climate change and move on.

coolhund said:

rantings

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

rebuilder says...

@mgittle:
Not to get into semantics too much, but the word "moral" comes from the latin "mores", meaning the generally accepted customs of a society. Morality is what people fall back on when reasonable argument fails. Reasonable people do disagree on a lot of issues, sometimes quite radically. I believe killing is usually immoral, yet it is quite possible to imagine a person truly believing it is OK to kill others, in a wider variety of circumstances than I might find acceptable. I can, of course, provide any number of rational arguments for my point of view, but so can the other person, and in some cases the conflict is simply irresolvable. Our moral views differ. In some cases, no amount of reason can change that, it is the essence of morals - they are the customs you grow up with, the societal norms you accept from outside, usually coming from some kind of higher authority, whether it is a deity, a strong leader or simply the society itself as a conglomerate.

What makes genocide possible is our ability to dehumanize others. I feel having a strong sense of morality makes this easier, not harder, because morality in general has a strong component of groupthink to it, which combined with the kinds of us-versus-them situations genocides usually rise from can be quite dangerous. If you believe you are right, not just in some rational sense, but also in a moral sense, then is it not your duty to do everything you can to eradicate opposition to your views?

That extreme consequence of the logic of morality is what makes my hair stand on end whenever I hear people proposing some kind of system for determining right or wrong. Mr. Harris, I'm sure, has the very best of intentions, but people en masse tend to latch on to certainties a bit too much. I admit I may be getting caught up too much on semantics here - if we were talking about ethics, a more personal kind of judgment, I would probably largely agree with what is being said. Trying to apply reason to find out for oneself what the best way to live one's life would be is a wonderful idea. Trying to use reason to figure out the best way for others to live theirs, less so. Not because reason is bad, but because you end up telling others what to do, and that is damn hairy business. So I guess I'm arguing for less morals, more ethics.

Christopher Hitchens Responds to Fundamentalist Apologist

bcglorf says...

So was that the only thing about Hitchens I got wrong? He's still a fat, rich, pompous git who advocates war against Iran right?
Actually as far as Iran goes he seems generally hopefully that the internal reform movement will succeed, and to my knowledge has NOT advocated war against Iran since that would harm the reformists. What Hitchens' has noted about Iran is that if the fundies at the top of the government get nukes that too could effectively end the reform movements ability to retake their country. He is fat, rich and pompous, and I think happy to add alcoholic to the mix, he's also still one of the best informed people on the middle east's biggest players.


Making fun and calling them names, instead of discussing the issues.
Completely unnecessary for Hitchens to personally attack the questioner.

Completely unnecessary to label the questioner a "fundamentalist apologist".


If you ask a stupid question...

I mean for him to overlook reasons 1 and 2 (which is the meat of the questioner's question) and look at reason 3 (as claimed by hitchens) for osama to hate the west.
Because reasons 1 and 2 differ so greatly in their nature? Your grasping at straws because you can't address the argument that Hitchens presented.


Religion may be the enabler of suicide and of taking extreme acts they would not contemplate in a rational state of mind, but the initial antipathy comes from genuine grievances. Whether it's seeing members of their nationality or ethnicity being imprisoned wrongly or tortured, or whether it's directly or indirectly suffering from violence inflicted upon them by the US or Israel, whether it's violating national hegemony or flat out staging coups, there are a range of genuine reasons for resentment.

The questioner has a point that a lot of the "religious violence" does come as a result of poor international relations choices, and that should be acknowledged by both sides.

As Hitchens would likely respond, NO!

Those arguments are lies and you should know better after having just watched Hitchens annihilate them. Simply look at some of the groups that have suffered the most from American actions. While Saddam was gassing the Kurdish people not only were the Americans allied to him, they even blamed the atrocity on Iran. Iranians suffered even more from the last decade of American interference. If your arguments hold then the people from those regions might be the ones you'd expect to be rising up against America, no? Instead you see the Kurds and the Iranian youth being bigger fans of America than Europe.

It's also apparently necessary to repeat that Hitchens clearly showed that the reasons stated by fundamentalist groups for hating America have little if anything to do with the atrocities America has committed, but instead with the ones it has PREVENTED!

But if you refuse to see and hear the distinction that's on you. I'm glad there is someone as informed, eloquent, aggressive and vocal as Hitchens out there calling out the wrongs being done when he see's them, regardless of who commits them.

How Much Is Enough

smibbo says...

stuff like this is always preaching to the converted. The selfish don't share because they don't want to - just like a toddler they have to be forced to do so because reasoning with them doesn't work. The concept that "we are one" simply doesn't fly with them because it incorporates the concept of the future - after you die, in fact - which selfish people especially refuse to think about. If you can get people to stop being afraid of death and loneliness, you can get people to consider what happens on earth after they are gone.Once they care about life beyond their own time, then the idea of sharing isn't so terrible.

And me personally, I think he misspeaks; it's not "we are one" it's "we are strands of a tapestry - pull one and eventually the whole thing will shred" and although he says it's not economics, he's wrong. It IS economics. Economics is all people ultimately. Economics is a tapestry too and each person is a thread in it. Just like government and all other aspects of society.

Okay Everyone, We Need To Have A Chat About Snuff & Iraq (Sift Talk Post)

Krupo says...

I often pipe in late in a big conversion to summarize and make my own observations. Farhad's pretty much said everything I had to say, though.

I will say, though, that two levels of NSFW, garden-variety NSFW and extreme-but-allowed-because-reasonable-per-this-thread GRAPHIC makes sense.

The observation that a better than term than "graphic" would appropriate isn't a bad idea, either. Which term you use is another brainstorm in itself. "GORE"? no.

"ULTRA REAL" or something along those lines.

"UNCENSORED" or something like that is also a possibility.

"RAW" is another possibility, and less misleading than uncensored, which could be uncensored. Local TV station CityTV had/has a feature called "in the raw" where they just post the raw news footage they've recorded of some events.

Ok, so "RAW" is my proposal.

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon