They would do much better if they responded to the skeptics in the scientific literature. Short of that, "OMG Climate Change!" will get exactly zero traction in terms of pragmatic solutions and remain a political football for the foreseeable future.

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

You completely misread my post (big surprise). This is another one of those distinctions that make no pragmatic difference. What does distinguishing between"believers" and "deniers" do for cleaning the air (and cleaning the environment)? Do "believers" contribute less to smog, greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc.? I remember driving to NYC from Boston and noticing the filthy brown/grey cloud enveloping the city as visible as you approached it. Is that because all NYC dwellers are "climate change deniers?" How about the L.A. smog? These are real problems, much more so than some "climate change believers" whose predictive models keep proving to be inaccurate.

Of course, as is pointed out here, "denier" is simply a shaming slur, and "climate change" is yet another tool in the hypocrite's toolbox to "prove" how much we need the rulers to save you from the weather.

Meteorology has many many variables that need to be considered, making it next-to-impossible to conduct experiments under controlled conditions in order to prove or falsify your theories. The pragmatic response then, is to ask what are you (going to) do(ing) about it (with it being whatever the article says)?

(In other words, it looks like the Prius came into being about 135 years too late.)

Bottom line is, if "man-made catastrophic climate change" is not happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites. If "man-made catastrophic climate change" is happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites if it wants to put a stop to it. And also take a good look at their own behaviors and contributions to waste and pollution because "belief" or not makes ZERO DIFFERENCE; only actual behavior makes a difference.

"The other day I saw a film called The Edge, which I regarded as the best thing to come out of Hollywood since The Silence of the Lambs. Perhaps not coincidentally, this flick also starred Anthony Hopkins. In one scene, Hopkins and his co-star, Alec Baldwin, seem in an absolutely hopeless situation, lost in the Arctic, stalked by a hungry bear, without weapons, seemingly doomed. Baldwin collapses, and Hopkins has a magnificent monologue, talking Baldwin out of his despair. The speech runs, roughly, like this: "Did you know you can make fire out of ice? You can, you know. Fire out of ice. Think about it. Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

This riddle has both a pragmatic and symbolic (alchemical) answer. The pragmatic answer you can find in the film, explicitly; and it might prove useful if you ever get lost in the north woods; and the alchemical, or Zen Buddhist, answer is also in the film, implicitly, and only perceptible to those who understand the dense character Hopkins plays in the story. It might prove useful whenever despair seems to overwhelm you. So, to those who at the end of this book still can't understand or sympathize with my Nietzschean yea-saying, I quote again: "Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

Who was that Prometheus guy and why did he give us fire in the first place?"

~Robert Anton Wilson

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

"Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life."

48 %

This argument is certainly dumber by far. On this logic, we should never have invented vaccines or penicillin, after all, these medical advances, and countless others, means we are bereaved of thousands of opportunities to fuel our happiness with tragedy every day.. Trying to justify tragedy by Gods pragmatism is nonsensical on so many levels.

And yeah, there is more than one Christian denomination, and many of them contradict each other, I'm pretty sure Harris is aware of this fact. However, he is arguing against a common or at least widespread interpretation, and the logical consequences of such an interpretation. I believe this video is from a debate with William Lane Craig, who is a catholic, which may explain why it seems to be focused on classic catholic themes (Suffering of Jesus, threat of hell etc.) If you don't believe in hell, then obviously many of the arguments in this video does not apply. Fine. Many believe in hell, thus the arguments applies to those people.

As a referee the ref does make us look bad. He's just not used to this sort of situation, he's used to players screaming and crying for everything in the world even the smallest stupidest of perceived slights. He probably has whiplash from jerking his head around to listen to whiny players.

At this level though especially you should be able to feel the temperature of the game and the expectations of players. He could've let this go and been pragmatic but he didn't and that's a shame. No doubt this was a long conversation after with him and his coach and ARs so he's likely to never make this mistake again. Also it shows a great example to referees like me to be mindful of these sort of situations.

What if the issues Democrats and Republicans agree on prove that both parties agree on basic principles that virtually everyone else agrees with, too (even libertarians), such as equality, fairness, public safety, prosperity, and freedom?

What if where there are disagreements between the two parties, it's because these basic principles are in conflict, and each party prioritizes different values when they're in conflict generally speaking?

What if the reason that politicians cross over and/or meet in the middle is because both sides often decide that their prioritization of values wasn't going to work best in that particular situation, and favored pragmatism over political dogmas, and that neither conservative nor liberal ideologies work 100% of the time, and you have to some degree adapt your ideology to address new societal issues that couldn't be foreseen?

What if having a starkly different choice that's unpractical and doesn't work when the rubber meets the road in public policy, such as applying libertarian principles 100% consistently to everything, is worse than what we have now?

What if the solution to the broken political system is to replace failed somewhat pragmatically formed policies with different pragmatic policies arrived at with ideas based on reason, facts, and open mindedness, not blind following of principles of any political ideology?

What if the reason why our current political culture is broken is precisely because the divide between the parties has become increasingly bigger, to the point that at least one side would rather the government not function than let changes they don't like go into effect? What if it's increasingly the case that choosing to vote for a Democrat or Republican actually is more of a "real choice" than it has been for quite sometime, and that deflates this entire argument of Americans not having any "real choice" between the two?

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

Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the skyhook and space elevators - but this could be seen as pragmatic stop-gap that would actually work now. You could slingatron the carbon nanotube cable into orbit for the skyhook. ;-)

@ChaosEngine, I'm a big Moore fan, too. He's pretty great, isn't he? Curious what you thought of the Watchmen movie. And if you watched the Ultimate Cut or not. Now on to the more unpleasant stuff...


You wrote: "The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance."

First off, I'm not sure small "l" libertarianism creates a utopia, idyllic or otherwise, It makes very little promises in that area, because the pragmatic argument is: freedom is dangerous. And libertarianism doesn't seek to create a perfect socially engineered society. It knows human problems are messy and complex, and there's no way to solve them from a monolithic, and often clumsy, top-down approach.

As for redressable damages (wrongs being righted), well, most small "l" libertarians still believe in civil courts and even administrative roles for government, believe it or not. Even Moore thought the government would work best in an administrative role, and he was a bonafide anarchist. This video is about the more extreme anarchist perspective of voluntaryism, which is a political philosophy of non-aggression, and couldn't be leapt into overnight. So, if someone pollutes your air, you have a grievance even in a libertarian society.


You wrote: "The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate..."

Really? I could argue that the two party system holds our electorate system hostage, but let's just assume that's not true. Bush ran on a platform in 2001 that completely contradicted his policies while in office. So has Obama.


You wrote: "It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved..."

Right. Because anarchist aren't utopians. And small "l" libertarians don't want to replace a bad socially engineered political system with a new socially engineered political system. They really just want to leave it up to the people.

I do have some anger issues-The crux of that issue perhaps possibly, my perception that I might be living in an era of mass-hypnotism of the planet's inhabitants through technologies envisioned originally to afford power now hi-jacked (and historically so) by charlatans posing as world leaders?

Another obvious turd lodged in my craw? How about a social-evolutionary path akin to Bradbury's "Fahrenheit" or Orwell's "84" turning an entire continent of what formerly consisted of self-determined, practical, and classically educated hard-working sorts into a cast of extras from "Idiocracy?"

Yeah, it pisses me off that so many people are distracted by what they are being told about some illusory process in which the common citizen might take part to imagine some bright future for mankind falling somewhere between the golden rule and the code of Hammurabi. The planet is being hi-jacked by a new breed of criminals frighteningly similar to the most egregious of old-For everything there is a season my friend, Solomon's wisdom in Ecclesiastes 3 it just as pertinent today as it will be for humans for the next 10,000 years-"a time to kill and heal, a time to break down, and a time to build up."

I'd like to imagine the new-construction-upon-the-ashes to include projects both organic and nano-technological in nature with the transformation of our specie's bodies, minds, souls and spirits as a prime objective.

You are living in these wonderful and frightening times, consider this incarnation your most favorable having been born when, where, how, why, and what you are-You are an amazing collection of cellular consciousness manifest in the wonder of flesh.
It's pretty fucking cool actually, and these are the ideas upon which I try to meditate upon every waking hour.

Oh yeah, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore, Hail Satan, Hail Eris, Jesus Saves.


(BTW, to answer your inquiry as to the "knowledge" that administrations keep in the dirty-little-secrets folder? Do you really have to ask about need-to-know information that would end the lives of yourself and everyone you know, because that's what the United States can do for you alla-Hoover, alla-Bush, alla-New World Order Über Alles.
What you think you know you don't, and you can't form an opinion or come to a conclusion on a subject for which you have incomplete data with which to arrive at those opinions or conclusions. Simple deductive reasoning or even a pragmatic model of the scientific method should make this screamingly clear to anyone who distrusts the anemically hostile Babylonian system .

Really? So if Iran had a military base in the US would it just be about the threat to the US governments power or would there be a principle of non-interference, autonomy and, I hate to say it, national pride at stake?

Besides, it is now impossible to differentiate Al Queda from the exclusive entity it was pre-911 to the inclusive, against-the-West-and-you're-in animal it has become. Until 2003-4 it had no stance on Israel until it needed to recruit more people and used it as propaganda to get more people on board. With Saudi Arabia it had very achievable and pragmatic demands pre-911- get US forces out. In 2007 all but 20-40 troops exited. I feel that even with the complete withdrawal AQ would still find something else to protest in order to warrant their actions.

I truly admire Richard Dawkins, but the question is philosophical, and the way he answered that question is nothing to look up to.

Most religious people believe in a "higher power" for pragmatic reasons as well, it's emotionally comforting for them, and gives them a sense of purpose. If pragmatism was enough, religion could justify its faith in god the same way.

For example, one of the twelve steps for recovering addicts is "recognizing a higher power". Whether or not that's factually true, the belief is therapeutically useful.

I think a better answer should go along the lines of establishing what "justify" means, then explaining that the alternative, NOT believing in the scientific method, allows knowledge to be arbitrary, or impossible.

At least that's how a philosopher of science would start to answer that question, but I guess "It works, bitches" makes for a better sound bite.

Something that I don't get about Tywin (book or movie version):

He's cold, logical, practical, intelligent, cunning. His relationships with his children mostly make sense given the way he operates.

Cersei advanced his family name by marrying King Robert, which was good. But she makes stupid decisions, takes unnecessary risks, and arrogantly thinks that none of this will catch up with her. Tywin correctly identifies her key weakness being that she thinks she is much more clever than she actually is.

Jamie could be a reasonably useful chess piece in Tywin's arsenal, but by Lannister standards he isn't as cunning and "big picture" intelligent as Tywin is, or even Cersei. I'd say Jamie knows his own limitations in that regard way better than Cersei though. During the Targaryen reign, his position in the Kingsguard would have been potentially useful, but that turns for the worse when he sullies the family name by becoming the "Kingslayer", even if his actions were justified. His Kingsguard position and skillset in general become much less useful during Robert's rule, which further hurts his relationship with Tywin. All still makes sense from a cold, calculating perspective.

Then you get to Tyrion. Tywin has an antagonistic relationship with Tyrion, and seems to refuse to see that Tyrion is the best bet to take over the reins of House Lannister after Tywin himself is gone. I know that it is suggested that Tywin's bias against Tyrion comes from the combination of A) him "killing" his mother in childbirth and B) being born a "freak" dwarf. I have a hard time with that because I see Tywin as being too cold, logical, and pragmatic to let either of those issues cloud his judgement.

So Tyrion "killed" his mother (Tywin's wife). Perhaps that event had a profound effect on Tywin, but considering the way he plays his children as pawns on his chessboard, it seems more in his character for him to have viewed his wife that way also. Especially considering the normal state of noble marriages being primarily chosen to maximize political gain in the setting. Plus, mothers dying during childbirth probably wouldn't be an exceptionally uncommon thing in the setting either.

And Tyrion being a dwarf? So what -- Tywin only cares about what you can do to advance the family name. Tyrion could easily be groomed to take over as family mastermind while keeping Cersei, Jamie, or one of Cersei's children as the public face of the family. Pay no attention to the man, er, dwarf behind the curtain.

I guess I just find Tywin's relationship with Tyrion to be the one thing about his character that feels ... off, at least to me. I feel like Tywin would be more ready to give Tyrion some opportunities to prove himself, and less subjective about judging his performance in those situations.