In other words, "yes". I regard you as a person who enjoys seeing others suffer.
You are now joining the doomsayers to predict nuclear holocaust? Seems contradictory to your previous condemnation of environmentalist doomsaying.
It is a fact that the mujahedeen are trying hard to acquire a nuclear weapon, and they fantasize of using it against the hated kufir. The mujahedeen have been fairly successful in their terrorist attacks. It is also a fact that environmentalists have been preaching doom for decades, and many of their astounding predictions have failed spectacularly. I suppose the difference lies in what we see as real risks, so your accusation of my doomsaying has merit depending on one's point of view (since you likely view the mujahedeen as a "nuisance" at worst).
I notice that you took no exception to my labeling of those who are too weak to stand up to Islamic fundamentalists as cowards.
Wow, I'm not sure where that came from.
It came from years upon years of mindless and moronic corporation bashing from people who axiomatically define corporations as "evil".
Perhaps you meant to ask for some material backing that particular statement about corporate misdeeds?
I notice you didn't also quote some government misdeeds, but surely you dislike them equally.
No, I'm not Ayn Rand.
Where does Ayn Rand state that you should try to harm other people? I'd like to see a specific quote. No, I'm not a Randroid, but I think your characterization of her philosophy is dishonest.
You keep trying to equate my lack of compassion for cowards with a desire to do them harm.
No, you already indicated that you were too lazy to actually do it. I think you're still quite content to see other people do it.
As for self-righteousness, if you can't see it in yourself I doubt I can point it out to you, but I'll try anyway.
What you see as "self-righteousness" in me is actually a combative desire to take pompous assholes down a notch. Despite what you may think, you are not better than me in any way. Nor am I better than you. But I am not going to stand by and let you walk all over me.
Maybe you see my deigning to disagree with you as "self-righteous".
How do you figure your opinion matters on this issue? It's because you are a self-righteous (and abusive, as amply demonstrated just now) and arrogant person.
Just because I wish to debate and have an opinion does not make me arrogant. It is the false belief that you know better and are better than other people which makes you arrogant. That is your nasty quality, not mine. And I don't see how calling a spade a spade is abusive. It certainly isn't equivalent to your cruelty and lack of compassion.
I'm convinced that my belief system is fundamentally correct, and that others would benefit from having the same beliefs.
I am willing to change my beliefs when I receive new evidence, which flies in the face of the notion that one's one shallow, limited, subjective beliefs are "fundamentally correct". I believe such peole are called "Fundamentalists" and they do horribly immoral things, regardless of the flavor of fundamentalism (Christian, Leftist, Progressive, Islamic, Environmentlist, Mormon, anything). I do not believe that others would benefit from having my beliefs because they may very well have different values and my beliefs would seem immoral to them.
It is your fundamentalism which makes you arrogant and unlikeable. I think your values suck, your beliefs are stupid, and your behavior is atrocious. I strongly dislike you.
If you're not familiar with it, Larry Wall has a famous quote on the three attributes of great programmers: laziness, impatience, and hubris. I think a similar observation could be made here; if you think your opinion matters, you've got to be self-righteous enough to think you know what needs changing and arroga
When Reagan shot down this law, he paved the way for the new breed of media we see now, where editorial is intermixed with journalism
I think this has always been the case. Were you going to argue that journalists were some special breed of human which is magically incapable of bias? Whether or not this bias in "reporting" has become more egregious is another discussion, and one where you and I will likely agree.
and we have 24-hour propaganda networks and extremist talk radio.
That's a rather unfair statement for you to make given the site you linked to. It is blatant and shameless left-wing propaganda. For example, from the article:
"Even the president jumps on the bandwagon with statements like, 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'" (Okay, accuses the president of black-and-white thinking.) "Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and thousands of other partisian pundits were free to spew their slanted take on the world" (And there's some black-and-white thinking by the author himself -- Politically, Bill O'Reilly is quite different from Michael Savage, but if you're not adequately "progressive" then you're a FASCIST NAZI!)
"Liberals, representing the moderate voice of the mainstream" (Only Liberals are in the mainstream!)
"didn't have the resources that mouthpieces for big-pharma, insurance, finance, oil and defense contractors, and as a result, found themselves literally drowning in a sea of pro-big-business propaganda," (All corporations, business, and capitalism is of the Devil!)
"So now you have pundits-o-plenty on the airwaves, representing the agenda of the richest corporate benefactors." (Only the right-wing represents the interests of the Evil Rich!)
And now we get to the core disagreement in our philosophy. You write:
The mainstream media must be forced to revert back to responsible journalism
Absolutely not, and shame on you for suggesting such a repugnant, unconstitutional, anti-American notion! No one should be FORCED to say anything! The "Fairness" Doctrine is a direct violation of the First Amendment which guarantees I am free to say (and NOT to say) anything that I wish. I believe that you view "responsible journalism" as something that only the Left can provide, and if the audience doesn't want it, then you aren't afraid to use the deadly FORCE of government to make it happen. I really am disgusted by Christian, right-wing zealots who wish to make my life a living hell, but you outclass them in villany when you start talking about FORCING people to say what you want to hear, particularly since I think socialism sucks at least as badly as evangelical Christianity does.
an idea, that has no track record of being practical nor desireable when you look into the reality of a world where everyone is left to fend for themselves.
Libertarianism is not "everyone left to fend for themselves." It is, "everyone left to fend for themselves if they choose to do so." No one prevents you from helping someone else, giving money to someone else, caring for someone else, or in any way providing what is called "charity" to someone else. The notion that "people NOT being forced to care for other people" == "everyone left to fend for themselves" is false.
so they can pollute the environment, release un-tested drugs, and not have to worry about getting caught or sued
I've heard this before. It sounds like, "Corporations are defined as evil and they follow their evil, machiavellian machinations because they're evil." I don't think that giving you any information about how frequently corporations get sued and how much they spend on litigation tactics will alter your axiomatic belief.
Your argument rests upon the values that people won't get what they Need(TM) unless others are forced to give it to them, and that corporations are evil. In other words, you're not arguing against libertarianism on logical grounds. You're just laying a value judgement against it.
And I think your values suck as badly as you probably think mine do. My values are individualism and reason. If you'd like to convince me that Libertarianism is a sham, then you're going to have to appeal to those values of mine.
I had to remove one of my foes to friend you
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for your response. It's interesting how much time and effort you and I have put into this discussion. For me, I see this as an opportunity to turn my thoughts into words and improve my debating skills. I also see it as an opportunity to learn to share mutual respect despite a difference in values. What's in it for you?
Regarding Occam's Razor: I understand your wanting to use it in the absense of data. The danger that I see here is in one of the "bugs" in the human mind: the desire for consistency. What humans often do is choose the answer that they think is right, and then stick to it come hell or high water. We humans seem to like this -- we don't like appearing inconsistent and we don't like others that appear inconsistent. Consider pellagra: scientists, after learning that pellagra may be caused by diet rather than a pathogen, viciously denounced the individual who had put for the "diet" theory behind pellagra. The scientists held on to the pathogen theory for more than a decade, even though it was completely wrong.
Regarding AIDS, yes, it's a very, very in-depth subject. If you are curious, then you can start by asking yourself some questions: There was a scientific process that was used to "discover" the AIDS virus. What, exactly, was this process, and who did it? What are the differences between "AIDS" in North America and "AIDS" in Africa?
Regarding capitalism, you make some comments that blow my mind because they appear nonsensical to me, and I attribute that to our difference in values. Yes, capitalism stinks, but it's the best thing we got. Compare it to the jury system (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got) and sceintific peer review (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got). When I say that "capitalism stinks", what I mean is that it does a poor job and giving every human a Good Life. (I regard "Good Life" as a highly-subjective and almost superstitious belief.) When I state that capitalism is moral (and I think it is), I must clarify that I regard capitalism as the action of individual humans trading value-for-value free of force or fraud and with individual property rights protected by the government. It is freedom to do what you want with what you own, provided that you aren't hurting anyone else. Notice that it encompasses the notion of charity: if I want to spend my money to help someone else, the value I receive from it is that it makes me feel good and that I know I am doing something moral. Charity is "captialistic" to me.
So, given that, I have to comment on some of your statements regarding capitalism. This is not to say, "You're wrong!" but merely to explain my position so that we better understand each other.
The market and capitalism are wholly owned subsidiaries of the environment.
I think "the market" and "capitalism" are synonymous, and they only exist with individual property rights protected and individual functioning as traders using neither force nor fraud. Given that, I would say that capitalism is owned by the practicioners, since it is they, not the environment, that make it happen.
And our markets are very interesting and complicated, and a wonderously intelligent thing when it comes to distributing wealth, at least on paper.
I really dislike the notion of wealth being "distributed". I believe that laissez-faire capitalism creates wealth, and that humans "get" (for lack of a better term) wealth by earning it, not by being on the receiving end of it being distributed. The notion of weath being "distributed" is tied to the notion that a person who has a lot of wealth necessarily did nothing to earn it. This is sometimes true (such as in the case of the children of limousine liberals), but certainly not in the case of those millionaires who worked hard and make good choices in the market and were rewarded for it. I hold those people as my heroes. I, too, want a Good Life (which to me means good food, good wine, travel to interesting locations, fun hobbies, etc.), and I intend to
I'm going to break from the cut-and-paste model because I really like your last response and I think that you are an intelligent human who is worthy of more.
First, thank you for your wonderful compliment. Tenacity keeps my family alive.
On the subject of religion, I view extreme environmentalism (what I call "gaia worship") as a religion. Yes, it lacks churches, priests, and a Bible, but the zeal that it contains in its most rabid adherents and the universal applicability of its message are very similar to what we see in the most virulent strains of Islam and Christianity. I, too, am an atheist. Specifically, I am a negative atheist. And I am very, very wary of zealots of any religion (including gaia worship) who will try to manipulate me with any number of influence techniques.
I'm happy to see that I can describe myself in terms that match my behavior. I will always be strident and combative against what I think is evil. Since I see you as an individual who fights for what is right and eschews evil, I think that you can sympathize with that desire. I admit that I probably came down too hard on you, but, interestingly enough, I've found that folks who are smart and sturdy can handle it and we end up finding common ground in the end. I unleash holy hell on arrogant Christians on the BillOReilly.com message boards, and several of them have become friends. Weird, huh?
Given that, It is very likely that I am reading a tone that you do not intend. This medium leaves us a lot to be desired in terms of communicating our thoughts. At the same time, I am like a jack-in-the-box, ready to spring on any zealot who tries to peddle their superstitious wares, and they have many, many tactics. One would expect a zealot to be, well, zealous and overt about their evangelism, but they're smarter than that. Sometimes a single quip can be more damaging and unsettling to an political opponent than a well-reasoned tirade. That was how I perceived your original post. Short and to the point. Nothing offensive about that, right? **POUNCE!**
I retract my comment in which I stated, "Perhaps a supremely awesomely intelligent individual such as yourself can sympathize with that..." as it is, in fact, a personal attack, and I don't want to be that way. I apologize.
I take what you say about your desire not to spread fear seriously. I don't think you're trying to manipulate people. Do you agree that there are some in the environemental movement who would definately exploit fear in this regard? For example, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". I see that film as fear-based propaganda. Do you sympathize with that point of view?
I'm pleased to see that you recognize that the field of climate change is a dangerous place -- to scientists -- that lay people like you and I (I assume your position, forgive me if I am incorrect) are largely ignorant of. There is a nasty battle going on from which we only see the runoff. The environmentalists have attracted all of the old socialists who are exploiting that position as another method to destroy the things they perceive as evil (captitalism, individualism, America), and I hate those fuckers so the whole notion of environmentalism and climate change is tainted. Likewise, someone with more leftist values will likely see the skepticism of climate change as the defense of greed and exploitation. I don't mean to pigeon-hole your beliefs, but I think it's highly unlikely for you to see eye-to-eye on the issue of climate change because any position is necessarily tied to a political position.
I do want to comment about your point about Occam's Razor. The problem I see with taking this position is that sometimes the simple solution is wrong. You have to admit that it's human nature for us to want simple solutions to problems. We don't like complex problems. We like to have a single cause to a problem so that we can "fix" it and not have to worry about trade-offs. For example, in the early 20th century there was a disease affec
No, I'm not saying that I am going to do anything to scare anyone. But, on the other hand, yes I am saying that I don't mind Lovelock (or you, for that matter) scaring people.
So you're stating that you have no ethical problem with frightening people, but that you're too lazy to do it yourself?
And yes I do have contempt for the sort of cowardice that is endemic in America today. I am totally appalled that anyone in this country could be afraid of terrorism, for example; terrorism hardly ever kills anyone compared to things like automobiles, alcoholism, heart disease, bad hygiene, or any number of other things.
That will probably change in a few years. I think the mujahedeen are working hard to obtain a nuclear or biological weapon. Once they unleash it in a major western city it will give the Bush-haters lots of opportunity to say that "Bush ignored the signals". No, I don't like Bush. I do fear the mujahedeen, as there are 1.2 billion of them and only 1 billion Westerners, half of which are compliant and completely pussified. Cowards, if you will.
Hell, there are probably dozens of US corporations that kill more people than terrorists every year.
Probably because you simply define corporations as "evil" and take pleasure in thinking of them as mindless machiavellian monsters who would gladly grind baby bones into bone meal if it would make them money. If only you would apply the same degree of skepticism to governments' actions...
If someone living in America today is so afraid of the world ending that their health is suffering, then yes they do suck. The answer is not to denounce anything that might scare poor little precious, the answer is for society to stop coddling cowards and for precious to get a fscking grip!
Interesting. It's not okay to "coddle" fearful people but it is okay to create fearful people? It sounds like you want to do hurtful actions, and if people are hurt by your actions, then they "deserve it". Am I correct?
Re-read our posts, starting with yours. I think you've described us both rather well... except you left out "self-rightous".:)
I definately agree that you are a snot-nosed, arrogant little shit (not to mention abusive and possibly undeserving of living in society), but I take exception to being characterized as such. What did I say that made you think I was "self-righteous"?
I do not expect people to be happy with the news, I'm trying to discuss the subject. Which is plainly beyond your faculties.
It's not beyond my faculties. Rather, beyond my interest and my tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for religious bullshit. Perhaps a supremely awesomely intelligent individual such as yourself can sympathize with that.
Why are you so threatened? Do you understand the supreme irony of you telling me that you are afraid that I am making people afraid? And lashing out at that?
"Threatened" is not the word you're looking for. Rather, I am belligerent. Furthermore, I'm not afraid of you at all. I am strident and combative. Most everyone picks a cause of good they'd like to fight for. My cause du jour happenes to be standing up against fear-spreading zealots. It just so happens that you fall into the crosshairs, and I apologize for that.
To what end? What the hell for? What would possibly be in it for me?
There are lots of things in it for you. For example: convincing people to your point of view, fighting against what you perceive as evil and ignorance, and helping a thing ("Gaia") that you care about.
You are merely occupying that famous position - frankly, one that is intellectually lazy - that points to zeal---
It's so much easier to slam your opponent as stupid than it is to actually formulate an argument, isn't it?
Answer me these questions:
1. Do there exist environmental zealots? 2. How do I know that you're not one of them?
Then I cannot help you. Enjoy the view from the sand.
I could just as easily accuse you of putting your head in the sand about any number of issues that I see as important, but I'm not pompous enough to pull it off. Somehow, I think I'll manage just fine without your awesome "help".
You shouldn't trust me out of hand. What you should trust is the data. But you can't, and that is your undoing.
How could I trust the data? Can you find me any data about "climate change", anywhere, that isn't attached to someone with some kind of political agenda? The fact is that climate change is a fiery topic, and that which you spout is merely the rhetorical leftist sheen on a bitterly divided battle.
Naturally you think that since I don't trust your data then I'm going to be "undone". If only I listened to wise men like you, I'd be perfect! Your condescending, "I'm smart and you're stupid" invective is part and parcel of what religious zealots of other flavors have used against me. Since I don't respond to guilt or fear, what made you think I'd respond to your snotty, patronizing, unintelligent personal attacks?
If people are frightened by doomsayers, then let the people be frightened. Maybe they will get off their lazy asses and do something meaningful with their lives.
Are you stating that it's acceptable for you scare people into action because you think they suck anyway?
why should the rest of us be concerned about the nebulous effects of anxiety on the health of a bunch of cowards?
Because we are not pompous, arrogant, condesending, or abusive?
Behold your failure to understand
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Ah, good. So you won't mind, then, when I drain my septic tank onto your property. After all, you don't want to interfere with my livelihood.
Let's revisit what I wrote:
"(ecosystems have inherent value that the livliehood of humans must not interfere with) is repugnant to me."
I am arguing against the notion of ecosystems having inherent value; however, I would never infringe in your life, liberty, or property out of disdain for the notion of ecosystems having inherent value.
In other words, yes I would mind if you drained your septic tank into my property. In fact, I would take you to court and made sure you paid adequately for it.
I'm 'spreading' my opinion on this oversized blog. To attribute some kind of fearmongering agenda to my post is disingenuous at best. Admit you overreacted and we can continue the discussion.
It is not disingenuous at all. You perceive climate changes that make you feel unsettled. Did you expect to make people happy with this news? I'm not yet convinced that I overreacted.
I sympathize with your Outrage Overload but that is just as anecdotal as my original point.
"Anecdotal" as in "completely untrustworthy"? Do I need to rattle off the numerous, numerous failed global destruction predictions of the past few decades? Many of them were written about in books that you can purchase on amazon.com. Do I need to send you a link?
Here is what I am worried about - and try to contain yourself:
Self successfully contained.
If you think this is all just a bunch of handwringing, fair enough. I'm going to render my own judgement on this dataset, and I'm going to talk about it too - even in the face of Crying Wolf accusations.
I think it's all a bunch of handwringing, and I see your attempts to "talk about it" as blatant fearmongering. I will continue to label it as such because I see nothing that differentiates it from fearmongering in the past. I maintain: the fear you spread is more harmful than the thing you fear.
I'm not selling anything.
Bullshit. I see you as a religious zealot sending a message for people to convert to your environmental religion. You create fear in other people and you offer them the "fix" (which is to adopt your point of view). Compare this to Christians: they create fear and guilt in people by telling them that they are going to hell, then they offer the "fix" which is to believe in Jesus and be saved. Dan Barker said this about Christians: "The Christian is like a salesman who cuts you with a knife and then offers to sell you a bandage." There is some bitter truth to that statement, but I don't think it's relegated only to Christians. The guilt/fear tactic is exploited by all flavors of zealots.
Perhaps you take exception to this and will protest, "I'm not a zealot; I'm only an individual who's concerned about changed I perceive in the climate." If that's true, then how do I know you're not a zealot who's just saying that to win converts? Will you admit that there are some rabid zealots in the environmentalist movement? How do I know you're not one of them? If I were an environmentalist zealot, then I would certainly try to pass myself off as merely a "concerned scientist" or a "concerned citizen".
The message I'm relaying here, if it isn't clear enough, is I don't trust you.
If what you are saying is 'I don't want to hear about anything bad' then I would politely suggest that you are in the wrong forum.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: I don't want the fear you're trying to spread. And I maintain that there is no wrong forum for that message.
The guy you are accusing of fear-mongering didn't say a single thing that scared me.
He didn't scare me, either. Didn't you read where I mentioned that I'm not manipulated by guilt or fear any more? Whether or not I'm scared has nothing to do with whether or not the parent was fearmongering.
It sounds to me like you are saying "If this climate change stuff is true, we should be terrified, and therefore I cannot believe it is true, therefore I want to see the people saying this stuff denounced!"
Allow me to clarify, for I must have misspoken. I am saying that this climate change stuff is merely another manifestation of the global destruction fantasy, and the way that this fantasy is spread is through fear. We've seen this play out time and time again, from the "left" and from the "right". I've had enough of it, and I want others to stand with me in rejection of these fear games that other people play.
Nutty ol' Lovelock proposes strong archival and dissemination of knowledge. And preparing local communities and family groups in case of disasters. This is harmful exactly how?
Don't change the subject. Lovelock's odious action was the "the world is going to end!" fearmongering, not his desire to archive data.
Lack of preparedness has obvious harmful effects.
I have never decried being prepared. Are you stating that the entire human race should have prepared itself for the global destruction that was prophecized by The Population Bomb? What about for Global Cooling? Or the end of oil (all seven times we were supposed to have run out in the past)? Do you still fail to see what I'm getting at? Those "warnings" were just pointless fearmongering designed to give the fearmonger money, power, and attention.
What, exactly, is this "harm" you ascribe to this so-called "fear-mongering"?
Fear causes anxiety and anxiety is harmful to health.
How is anyone harmed by preparedness?
Remember all those "Y2K preparedness kits" that people bought? Wouldn't that money have been better spent on something else? Well, at least they were "prepared" for the Y2K global destruction, correct? And some other fearmongers made a whole bunch of money -- I guess *they* weren't exactly harmed!
Relax. I said it was 'unsettling'. The 'fear spreading' and 'armageddon' and 'fearful cataclysms' and 'global destruction fantsies' are your words, bub. I said no such thing.
Since you are the one who is "unsettled", perhaps your advice to relax is best self-applied. I think the reason why you feel "unsettled" is because you are fearful, and the reason why you are sharing this information is because you wish to spread fear. It may be that you are wrongfully accused of global destruction fantasies, but then the difference between what you spread and the false accustion would be a difference of degree, not kind.
How many more "unsettling" things do we need to hear? Butter will kill you! AIDS will kill us all! Global warming will heat/cool/soak/dry the earth! The ozone layer is gone! We're running out of oil! Bird flu is coming! GM foods have to be stopped! Jesus is the only way! Islam will rule the world!
Fearmongering is fearmongering, and I want none of what you are selling. What I'd like to see is a few more people who will stand up to fearmongers and tell them, rather publicly and en masse, "The fear you spread is more harmful than the thing you fear!"
Weather is complicated. It has many many more inputs than you can predict or explain. Why is it that you choose to see "atypical" weather as evidence of impending catastrophe? Personally, I think you do it for the same reason that the right-wing zealots see every little thing that happens in Israel as the proof that armageddon is right around the corner. You like to spread fear as a means of garnering attention and swaying people to your point of view. Have leftist environmentalists not spit out fearful cataclysms every year for the past few decades? Have not Christian zealots done the same thing with their "the end is here!" prophecies?
Forgive me if I don't partake in your global destruction fantasies, but I'm just not manipulated by guilt or fear any more. My guess is the unsettling feeling you experience is created more by your own mind than it is by any doomsday scenario that will (not) befall us.
The term "Gaia" was borrowed from the ancient Greek gods, but no more so than Pluto or Mars. The concept is, that as cells make up an organism, and many organisms an ecosystem, many ecosystems make up a still larger system. "Gaia" sounds all new-agey, but in reality, it is nothing more than the extent of all life on earth.
I disagree. "Gaia" is more than just the extent of all life on earth. It is the extent of all life on earth personified, deified, and worthy (and demanding) of reverence. This is what I perceive in people when they talk about "Gaia". From all outward appearances, they worship the notion. It is their god. Maybe my experience is limited.
It's not superstitious garbage; it is quite valid to think that destroying the rain forest in Southeast Alaska will have profound effects on New York City, or Moscow for that matter. Then to imagine that the total biosphere can heal itself after a catastrophe is also valid. That is, the environment affects not only the evolution of species, but evolution of species also affects the environment.
Turning what exists on earth into "mother earth" is superstitious garbage to me, for I think it has much more to do with deification than it does wondering about the effects of one ecosystem on another.
Why does it matter if an ecosystem is irreperably damaged? This is an important question to ask, for the answer betrays an individual's values. I would answer it only matters if the long-term livliehood of our species is impacted. I do not think that ecosystems have inherent value. That notion may be repugnant to you, but keep in mind that the opposite (ecosystems have inherent value that the livliehood of humans must not interfere with) is repugnant to me.
Fear is the most powerful human motivator. It invokes our desire to preserve our own life. God only knows how many times I have been nearly crushed by the fear of the bad thing happening only to find that the bad thing was not nearly as painful as the fear.
Fearmongers have long known this and exploited it in order to gain power, money, and attention. This wicked priest is no different than other wicked priests of other superstitious faiths who have tried to emotionally rape you for their own personal benefit. Resist him as you do all others. Use your power of observation and your rational mind in order to make good choices for the future.
And yes, this clown is, in fact, preaching a religion. "Gaia" is the "goddess earth". It is nothing more than blatant superstitious garbage with an enviro-friendly sheen. If you want to stand up for the environment, then go knock yourself out. It doesn't justify giving this fool anything except ascerbic mockery, and it certainly doesn't justify attempting to inspire fear in other people.
From a geek who cooks
on
RFID Cookware
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I visited the website, and I think this is marketing. The most important measurement of temperature in cooking food is the internal temperature of high-mass items such as steaks. The temperature reading which is important is the innermost part of the thickest steak in the pan. How is an RFID tag in the pan going to measure that? Answer: it isn't. Only a thermocouple probe can cut that job, which is why I have two different thermocouples in my kitchen that I use almost every time I cook.
Another part of the website reads: "Prohibits use of wrong pans with incompatible recipes." Excuse you, Vita Craft Corporation, but I don't need you to tell me how to use my own pans. Sometimes I cook on the outside of my cast iron skillets.
I think this has nothing to do with improving the way that humans prepare food and everything to do with using a new technology to sell more cookware. If you want to become a better cook, then, by god, invest the money in some good cookware, take some cooking classes with people you like, watch some good tv shows, and, by all means, don't be afraid to try things and have fun doing it. If anything, it's an excuse to become more social. If you invite 6 people over, then you're going to be inspired to try and make something that impresses and feeds your loved ones.
We're all willing to put up with dozens of repeat articles on cold fusion based on the dream that one day, we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron.
You don't have to wait for that day. You can extend your middle figure at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron right now. There are many eco-communes set up that rely on very little fossil fuels and are very much unplugged from the car culture of the USA, and these eco-communes are even in the USA. Rebelling against the oil-driven capitalistic society is very much in line with the thoughts of many eco-communes, so I think you would find friends there.
Why sit around and dream when you can do something?
Despite most people claiming to have a political slant, the majority of Americans don't know shit about politics. I live in Texas and I can promise that many self defined conservatives here are just as ignorant as your friend.
I don't think my friend is ignorant at all. I think he's elitist and hateful, having been fully incubated in an us-verses-them mentality in which his side is defined as "good" (and "intelligent") whereas the "other side" is defined as "evil" (and "stupid").
Once you learn that both parties are composed of people who really don't know about politics, then you can finally reach Political Nirvana (aka you never talk about politics again with people because you know its a waste of time).
First, I think talking about politics (meaning, talking about what the government is doing) is vitally important! Those creeps in Washington D.C. are constantly plotting and scheming to control my life and steal my property. No other group has the power that government has, and that's why they need to be watched like a hawk.
Second, I notice you criticize people for being "ignorant" about politics, and then you declare talking about politics (and, presumably, knowing about politics) as a "waste of time". Where does your true complaint lie?
Apperantly, most right-wing "conservatives" don't understand just what fascism is.
It's the code word for "bad" in leftist-speak. If you actually ask a leftist to define what separates a "fascist" governemnt from others, you usually get a bunch of fuzzy, feel-bad characteristics wrapped around a tired, old hatred for individual property rights. I notice you tried to use wikipedia to define it for you.
Speak in terms of black and white much?
The most hypocritical and and annoying behavior exhibited by most leftists these days is the claim that they "don't see the world in black and white" and are "nuanced" people who are capable of "seeing shades of gray". Then, with an uncompromising lack of nuance, they paint all non-socialists as "fascists" or "Nazis". George Bush is a "Nazi" even though he doesn't want to kill all the Jews. I asked a "liberal" friend of mine if he couldn't see any difference between a Pat Robertson conservative and a Ron Paul conservative, and he said, "From my perspective, they look the same to me." I, being a gay man who's ideologically similar to a Ron Paul "conservative" (he's libertarian), apparently look no different from Pat Robertson to my "nuanced" friend. So much for "nuance"!
And here, the parent poster was accusing leftists of thinking in black and white terms (something I definately seen in leftists as well as in gays, Christians, Muslims, PeTA, etc etc etc), and you respond by accusing him of doing the same thing. The lack of insight you exhibit is sad.
No, we just sneer at hypocritical greedy and/or stupid motherfuckers who think they can fuck with what-
And this is what typical "liberal discussion" boils down to nowadays. I used to listen to liberals, but they've turned into such bitchy, whiney hatemongers that I just can't stand it any more. I mean, just about every "liberal" I talk to is a total *downer*. They are the group that is always complaining, always hating, and *never coming up with any solutions to the problems they hate*. Please, please, please let go of your hatred and rejoin the rational discourse of rational people. Liberals have often stood up for good things, and you do immense disservice to your causes by being so consistently dour, condescending, and vicious.
No matter how niche your preferences are, somebody somewhere will finance them if you can make a business case for it.
Later, you claimed this:
If they buy it, yay - you're on your way to your dream! If they don't, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your dreams, career goals, and professional abilities.
Why should he have to re-evaluate his dreams if it's guaranteed that somebody, somewhere can make a business case for it? You implied that the parent was stupid and incompetent because no one would pay him to do what he liked to do, whereas here you seem to indicate that perhaps it's not merely stupidity or incompetence which drives a failure.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
Are you arguing that anyone who is "100% dedicated" to the exact letter of his/her own belief system is "lawful good" because it takes "balls" to be that way? I really think you happen to like him only because he's dedicated to an unpopular cause *that you happen to like*. There are plenty of fanatics out there (and, yes, I claim that RMS is a fanatic) who are just as fervent, if not more so, than RMS is.
Is RMS willing to die for his belief? Is he willing to kill for it? If the answer to both of those is, "no," then how can you claim that he's "100% dedicated"? It would mean that he values his life and the lives of others higher than his own Truth(TM).
Other fanatics aren't as "weak" as he is in that regard. Take, for example, the thousands of Muslim mujahideen who fervently believe that killing infidels is God's work. They believe 100% that Islam will dominate the world and that anyone who resists should die, including you and me. I'm a gay man. How do you think I feel about muslims who want Islamic law over me (and are willing to kill and/or die to make sure that it happens)?
Take, for example, Randall Terry. He is the most infamous anti-abortion activist in the USA. He openly pines for theocracy (and he uses that particular word). Here's what he said about abortion providers: "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." How's that for "dedicated"? Is RMS willing to take power and execute the producers of non-free software? Sounds a little less than "100% dedicated" to me.
Take, for example, PeTA fanatics. Not only do they want total veganism, but also total animal liberation. This means that ANY type of animal research used for medicine and health would be banned. This means that any child whose life could be saved through animal products would have to die. Is RMS willing to sacrifice childrens' lives for the cause of free software? PeTA fanatics will respond to this message by denying that animal research is beneficial in any way at all. Of course, it's trivial to dispute that claim with abundant evidence, but why should evidence matter to a fanatic? If mere evidence is going to sway you from the Truth(TM) then you're not "100% dedicated", are you?
My point here is not to bash the groups that I happen to despise, but to point out that what you seem to be supporting is fanaticism. There are millions of things in the world that you can get excited about and millions of worthy causes that need your attention. Pick a few that you happen to like, and exploit your own unanswered question of, "Why am I here?" as the impetus to do good works in the world. But the people who decide that there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause worth championing, at the expense of all other causes, at the expense of all reason and evidence, and at the expense of others' lives, liberty, and property? Those are people to be exposed, denigrated, and ignored. They are not worthy of respect as they are dangerous, self-indulgent assholes.
If you want the most direct form of the value judgement, then here it is, and I make no apology for it:
So stop taking what he says as gospel. Yes, he is incredibly intelligent. And yes, he has a very good grasp about what's going on most of the time. However, this is the same guy that got upset at the Samba guy for reversing bitkeeper.
You are bucking against human nature. Linus is an authority figure, and whatever he says will instantly be heavily-laden with the appeal to authority. People are easily influenced by authority. How else should they make their decisions? By relying on their own incomplete experience? By trusting their own faulty judgement? By following their peers who are tainted with the same faults? Obeying some impersonal authority figure seems just as good if not better than any of those other choices, and the fact that authority figures are obeyed proves this.
I'm not stating that authority figures *should* be obeyed, only that they are by the virtue of the "bugs" in the human mind. Nor am I attempting to make a misanthropic argument. I'm just trying to point out that we are all influenced by authority, and that it's probably more powerful than you realize.
To claim that Linus is not a "normal user" is to imply that you understand what a "normal user" is. You can't define something by giving a list of things that this thing is NOT. You define it by stating what it *is*.
I've seen lots of people falling into this trap -- trying to make decisions by stating that something doesn't measure up to some threshhold but never defines what the threshhold is (usually because it can't be defined).
The moderation system does not moderate content based on information or reasion. It moderates content based on whether or not the poster is liked and whether or not the poster is stating something that the moderator already knows is True. It's like this because it's run by human beings. If we naively believe that "the cream naturally rises to the top" with this moderation system we have to ask the question "*Whose* cream?"
This is either a bad joke, auto-generated code, or someone is really stupid, and should not be trusted with any programming language.
I only wish. What I posted are snippets production code. I'm guessing from your comment that you don't yet have a lot of experience with programming. I've seen it over and over again (and been responsible for some of it): code does not have to be maintainable to be functional.
I've taken it upon myself to try and replace every bit of that human's code before I leave, so that I don't leave the person who replaces me in the same position that I inherited. I guess that's the nerd's way of "paying it forward".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I've got other stuff to do.
In other words, "yes". I regard you as a person who enjoys seeing others suffer.
You are now joining the doomsayers to predict nuclear holocaust? Seems contradictory to your previous condemnation of environmentalist doomsaying.
It is a fact that the mujahedeen are trying hard to acquire a nuclear weapon, and they fantasize of using it against the hated kufir. The mujahedeen have been fairly successful in their terrorist attacks. It is also a fact that environmentalists have been preaching doom for decades, and many of their astounding predictions have failed spectacularly. I suppose the difference lies in what we see as real risks, so your accusation of my doomsaying has merit depending on one's point of view (since you likely view the mujahedeen as a "nuisance" at worst).
I notice that you took no exception to my labeling of those who are too weak to stand up to Islamic fundamentalists as cowards.
Wow, I'm not sure where that came from.
It came from years upon years of mindless and moronic corporation bashing from people who axiomatically define corporations as "evil".
Perhaps you meant to ask for some material backing that particular statement about corporate misdeeds?
I notice you didn't also quote some government misdeeds, but surely you dislike them equally.
No, I'm not Ayn Rand.
Where does Ayn Rand state that you should try to harm other people? I'd like to see a specific quote. No, I'm not a Randroid, but I think your characterization of her philosophy is dishonest.
You keep trying to equate my lack of compassion for cowards with a desire to do them harm.
No, you already indicated that you were too lazy to actually do it. I think you're still quite content to see other people do it.
As for self-righteousness, if you can't see it in yourself I doubt I can point it out to you, but I'll try anyway.
What you see as "self-righteousness" in me is actually a combative desire to take pompous assholes down a notch. Despite what you may think, you are not better than me in any way. Nor am I better than you. But I am not going to stand by and let you walk all over me.
Maybe you see my deigning to disagree with you as "self-righteous".
How do you figure your opinion matters on this issue? It's because you are a self-righteous (and abusive, as amply demonstrated just now) and arrogant person.
Just because I wish to debate and have an opinion does not make me arrogant. It is the false belief that you know better and are better than other people which makes you arrogant. That is your nasty quality, not mine. And I don't see how calling a spade a spade is abusive. It certainly isn't equivalent to your cruelty and lack of compassion.
I'm convinced that my belief system is fundamentally correct, and that others would benefit from having the same beliefs.
I am willing to change my beliefs when I receive new evidence, which flies in the face of the notion that one's one shallow, limited, subjective beliefs are "fundamentally correct". I believe such peole are called "Fundamentalists" and they do horribly immoral things, regardless of the flavor of fundamentalism (Christian, Leftist, Progressive, Islamic, Environmentlist, Mormon, anything). I do not believe that others would benefit from having my beliefs because they may very well have different values and my beliefs would seem immoral to them.
It is your fundamentalism which makes you arrogant and unlikeable. I think your values suck, your beliefs are stupid, and your behavior is atrocious. I strongly dislike you.
If you're not familiar with it, Larry Wall has a famous quote on the three attributes of great programmers: laziness, impatience, and hubris. I think a similar observation could be made here; if you think your opinion matters, you've got to be self-righteous enough to think you know what needs changing and arroga
When Reagan shot down this law, he paved the way for the new breed of media we see now, where editorial is intermixed with journalism
I think this has always been the case. Were you going to argue that journalists were some special breed of human which is magically incapable of bias? Whether or not this bias in "reporting" has become more egregious is another discussion, and one where you and I will likely agree.
and we have 24-hour propaganda networks and extremist talk radio.
That's a rather unfair statement for you to make given the site you linked to. It is blatant and shameless left-wing propaganda. For example, from the article:
"Even the president jumps on the bandwagon with statements like, 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'" (Okay, accuses the president of black-and-white thinking.) "Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and thousands of other partisian pundits were free to spew their slanted take on the world" (And there's some black-and-white thinking by the author himself -- Politically, Bill O'Reilly is quite different from Michael Savage, but if you're not adequately "progressive" then you're a FASCIST NAZI!)
"Liberals, representing the moderate voice of the mainstream" (Only Liberals are in the mainstream!)
"didn't have the resources that mouthpieces for big-pharma, insurance, finance, oil and defense contractors, and as a result, found themselves literally drowning in a sea of pro-big-business propaganda," (All corporations, business, and capitalism is of the Devil!)
"So now you have pundits-o-plenty on the airwaves, representing the agenda of the richest corporate benefactors." (Only the right-wing represents the interests of the Evil Rich!)
And now we get to the core disagreement in our philosophy. You write:
The mainstream media must be forced to revert back to responsible journalism
Absolutely not, and shame on you for suggesting such a repugnant, unconstitutional, anti-American notion! No one should be FORCED to say anything! The "Fairness" Doctrine is a direct violation of the First Amendment which guarantees I am free to say (and NOT to say) anything that I wish. I believe that you view "responsible journalism" as something that only the Left can provide, and if the audience doesn't want it, then you aren't afraid to use the deadly FORCE of government to make it happen. I really am disgusted by Christian, right-wing zealots who wish to make my life a living hell, but you outclass them in villany when you start talking about FORCING people to say what you want to hear, particularly since I think socialism sucks at least as badly as evangelical Christianity does.
an idea, that has no track record of being practical nor desireable when you look into the reality of a world where everyone is left to fend for themselves.
Libertarianism is not "everyone left to fend for themselves." It is, "everyone left to fend for themselves if they choose to do so." No one prevents you from helping someone else, giving money to someone else, caring for someone else, or in any way providing what is called "charity" to someone else. The notion that "people NOT being forced to care for other people" == "everyone left to fend for themselves" is false.
so they can pollute the environment, release un-tested drugs, and not have to worry about getting caught or sued
I've heard this before. It sounds like, "Corporations are defined as evil and they follow their evil, machiavellian machinations because they're evil." I don't think that giving you any information about how frequently corporations get sued and how much they spend on litigation tactics will alter your axiomatic belief.
Your argument rests upon the values that people won't get what they Need(TM) unless others are forced to give it to them, and that corporations are evil. In other words, you're not arguing against libertarianism on logical grounds. You're just laying a value judgement against it.
And I think your values suck as badly as you probably think mine do. My values are individualism and reason. If you'd like to convince me that Libertarianism is a sham, then you're going to have to appeal to those values of mine.
Thanks for your response. It's interesting how much time and effort you and I have put into this discussion. For me, I see this as an opportunity to turn my thoughts into words and improve my debating skills. I also see it as an opportunity to learn to share mutual respect despite a difference in values. What's in it for you?
Regarding Occam's Razor: I understand your wanting to use it in the absense of data. The danger that I see here is in one of the "bugs" in the human mind: the desire for consistency. What humans often do is choose the answer that they think is right, and then stick to it come hell or high water. We humans seem to like this -- we don't like appearing inconsistent and we don't like others that appear inconsistent. Consider pellagra: scientists, after learning that pellagra may be caused by diet rather than a pathogen, viciously denounced the individual who had put for the "diet" theory behind pellagra. The scientists held on to the pathogen theory for more than a decade, even though it was completely wrong.
Regarding AIDS, yes, it's a very, very in-depth subject. If you are curious, then you can start by asking yourself some questions: There was a scientific process that was used to "discover" the AIDS virus. What, exactly, was this process, and who did it? What are the differences between "AIDS" in North America and "AIDS" in Africa?
Regarding capitalism, you make some comments that blow my mind because they appear nonsensical to me, and I attribute that to our difference in values. Yes, capitalism stinks, but it's the best thing we got. Compare it to the jury system (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got) and sceintific peer review (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got). When I say that "capitalism stinks", what I mean is that it does a poor job and giving every human a Good Life. (I regard "Good Life" as a highly-subjective and almost superstitious belief.) When I state that capitalism is moral (and I think it is), I must clarify that I regard capitalism as the action of individual humans trading value-for-value free of force or fraud and with individual property rights protected by the government. It is freedom to do what you want with what you own, provided that you aren't hurting anyone else. Notice that it encompasses the notion of charity: if I want to spend my money to help someone else, the value I receive from it is that it makes me feel good and that I know I am doing something moral. Charity is "captialistic" to me.
So, given that, I have to comment on some of your statements regarding capitalism. This is not to say, "You're wrong!" but merely to explain my position so that we better understand each other.
The market and capitalism are wholly owned subsidiaries of the environment.
I think "the market" and "capitalism" are synonymous, and they only exist with individual property rights protected and individual functioning as traders using neither force nor fraud. Given that, I would say that capitalism is owned by the practicioners, since it is they, not the environment, that make it happen.
And our markets are very interesting and complicated, and a wonderously intelligent thing when it comes to distributing wealth, at least on paper.
I really dislike the notion of wealth being "distributed". I believe that laissez-faire capitalism creates wealth, and that humans "get" (for lack of a better term) wealth by earning it, not by being on the receiving end of it being distributed. The notion of weath being "distributed" is tied to the notion that a person who has a lot of wealth necessarily did nothing to earn it. This is sometimes true (such as in the case of the children of limousine liberals), but certainly not in the case of those millionaires who worked hard and make good choices in the market and were rewarded for it. I hold those people as my heroes. I, too, want a Good Life (which to me means good food, good wine, travel to interesting locations, fun hobbies, etc.), and I intend to
I'm going to break from the cut-and-paste model because I really like your last response and I think that you are an intelligent human who is worthy of more.
First, thank you for your wonderful compliment. Tenacity keeps my family alive.
On the subject of religion, I view extreme environmentalism (what I call "gaia worship") as a religion. Yes, it lacks churches, priests, and a Bible, but the zeal that it contains in its most rabid adherents and the universal applicability of its message are very similar to what we see in the most virulent strains of Islam and Christianity. I, too, am an atheist. Specifically, I am a negative atheist. And I am very, very wary of zealots of any religion (including gaia worship) who will try to manipulate me with any number of influence techniques.
I'm happy to see that I can describe myself in terms that match my behavior. I will always be strident and combative against what I think is evil. Since I see you as an individual who fights for what is right and eschews evil, I think that you can sympathize with that desire. I admit that I probably came down too hard on you, but, interestingly enough, I've found that folks who are smart and sturdy can handle it and we end up finding common ground in the end. I unleash holy hell on arrogant Christians on the BillOReilly.com message boards, and several of them have become friends. Weird, huh?
Given that, It is very likely that I am reading a tone that you do not intend. This medium leaves us a lot to be desired in terms of communicating our thoughts. At the same time, I am like a jack-in-the-box, ready to spring on any zealot who tries to peddle their superstitious wares, and they have many, many tactics. One would expect a zealot to be, well, zealous and overt about their evangelism, but they're smarter than that. Sometimes a single quip can be more damaging and unsettling to an political opponent than a well-reasoned tirade. That was how I perceived your original post. Short and to the point. Nothing offensive about that, right? **POUNCE!**
I retract my comment in which I stated, "Perhaps a supremely awesomely intelligent individual such as yourself can sympathize with that..." as it is, in fact, a personal attack, and I don't want to be that way. I apologize.
I take what you say about your desire not to spread fear seriously. I don't think you're trying to manipulate people. Do you agree that there are some in the environemental movement who would definately exploit fear in this regard? For example, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". I see that film as fear-based propaganda. Do you sympathize with that point of view?
I'm pleased to see that you recognize that the field of climate change is a dangerous place -- to scientists -- that lay people like you and I (I assume your position, forgive me if I am incorrect) are largely ignorant of. There is a nasty battle going on from which we only see the runoff. The environmentalists have attracted all of the old socialists who are exploiting that position as another method to destroy the things they perceive as evil (captitalism, individualism, America), and I hate those fuckers so the whole notion of environmentalism and climate change is tainted. Likewise, someone with more leftist values will likely see the skepticism of climate change as the defense of greed and exploitation. I don't mean to pigeon-hole your beliefs, but I think it's highly unlikely for you to see eye-to-eye on the issue of climate change because any position is necessarily tied to a political position.
I do want to comment about your point about Occam's Razor. The problem I see with taking this position is that sometimes the simple solution is wrong. You have to admit that it's human nature for us to want simple solutions to problems. We don't like complex problems. We like to have a single cause to a problem so that we can "fix" it and not have to worry about trade-offs. For example, in the early 20th century there was a disease affec
No, I'm not saying that I am going to do anything to scare anyone. But, on the other hand, yes I am saying that I don't mind Lovelock (or you, for that matter) scaring people.
:)
So you're stating that you have no ethical problem with frightening people, but that you're too lazy to do it yourself?
And yes I do have contempt for the sort of cowardice that is endemic in America today. I am totally appalled that anyone in this country could be afraid of terrorism, for example; terrorism hardly ever kills anyone compared to things like automobiles, alcoholism, heart disease, bad hygiene, or any number of other things.
That will probably change in a few years. I think the mujahedeen are working hard to obtain a nuclear or biological weapon. Once they unleash it in a major western city it will give the Bush-haters lots of opportunity to say that "Bush ignored the signals". No, I don't like Bush. I do fear the mujahedeen, as there are 1.2 billion of them and only 1 billion Westerners, half of which are compliant and completely pussified. Cowards, if you will.
Hell, there are probably dozens of US corporations that kill more people than terrorists every year.
Probably because you simply define corporations as "evil" and take pleasure in thinking of them as mindless machiavellian monsters who would gladly grind baby bones into bone meal if it would make them money. If only you would apply the same degree of skepticism to governments' actions...
If someone living in America today is so afraid of the world ending that their health is suffering, then yes they do suck. The answer is not to denounce anything that might scare poor little precious, the answer is for society to stop coddling cowards and for precious to get a fscking grip!
Interesting. It's not okay to "coddle" fearful people but it is okay to create fearful people? It sounds like you want to do hurtful actions, and if people are hurt by your actions, then they "deserve it". Am I correct?
Re-read our posts, starting with yours. I think you've described us both rather well... except you left out "self-rightous".
I definately agree that you are a snot-nosed, arrogant little shit (not to mention abusive and possibly undeserving of living in society), but I take exception to being characterized as such. What did I say that made you think I was "self-righteous"?
I do not expect people to be happy with the news, I'm trying to discuss the subject. Which is plainly beyond your faculties.
It's not beyond my faculties. Rather, beyond my interest and my tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for religious bullshit. Perhaps a supremely awesomely intelligent individual such as yourself can sympathize with that.
Why are you so threatened? Do you understand the supreme irony of you telling me that you are afraid that I am making people afraid? And lashing out at that?
"Threatened" is not the word you're looking for. Rather, I am belligerent. Furthermore, I'm not afraid of you at all. I am strident and combative. Most everyone picks a cause of good they'd like to fight for. My cause du jour happenes to be standing up against fear-spreading zealots. It just so happens that you fall into the crosshairs, and I apologize for that.
To what end? What the hell for? What would possibly be in it for me?
There are lots of things in it for you. For example: convincing people to your point of view, fighting against what you perceive as evil and ignorance, and helping a thing ("Gaia") that you care about.
You are merely occupying that famous position - frankly, one that is intellectually lazy - that points to zeal---
It's so much easier to slam your opponent as stupid than it is to actually formulate an argument, isn't it?
Answer me these questions:
1. Do there exist environmental zealots?
2. How do I know that you're not one of them?
Then I cannot help you. Enjoy the view from the sand.
I could just as easily accuse you of putting your head in the sand about any number of issues that I see as important, but I'm not pompous enough to pull it off. Somehow, I think I'll manage just fine without your awesome "help".
You shouldn't trust me out of hand. What you should trust is the data. But you can't, and that is your undoing.
How could I trust the data? Can you find me any data about "climate change", anywhere, that isn't attached to someone with some kind of political agenda? The fact is that climate change is a fiery topic, and that which you spout is merely the rhetorical leftist sheen on a bitterly divided battle.
Naturally you think that since I don't trust your data then I'm going to be "undone". If only I listened to wise men like you, I'd be perfect! Your condescending, "I'm smart and you're stupid" invective is part and parcel of what religious zealots of other flavors have used against me. Since I don't respond to guilt or fear, what made you think I'd respond to your snotty, patronizing, unintelligent personal attacks?
If people are frightened by doomsayers, then let the people be frightened. Maybe they will get off their lazy asses and do something meaningful with their lives.
Are you stating that it's acceptable for you scare people into action because you think they suck anyway?
why should the rest of us be concerned about the nebulous effects of anxiety on the health of a bunch of cowards?
Because we are not pompous, arrogant, condesending, or abusive?
Ah, good. So you won't mind, then, when I drain my septic tank onto your property. After all, you don't want to interfere with my livelihood.
Let's revisit what I wrote:
"(ecosystems have inherent value that the livliehood of humans must not interfere with) is repugnant to me."
I am arguing against the notion of ecosystems having inherent value; however, I would never infringe in your life, liberty, or property out of disdain for the notion of ecosystems having inherent value.
In other words, yes I would mind if you drained your septic tank into my property. In fact, I would take you to court and made sure you paid adequately for it.
I'm 'spreading' my opinion on this oversized blog. To attribute some kind of fearmongering agenda to my post is disingenuous at best. Admit you overreacted and we can continue the discussion.
It is not disingenuous at all. You perceive climate changes that make you feel unsettled. Did you expect to make people happy with this news? I'm not yet convinced that I overreacted.
I sympathize with your Outrage Overload but that is just as anecdotal as my original point.
"Anecdotal" as in "completely untrustworthy"? Do I need to rattle off the numerous, numerous failed global destruction predictions of the past few decades? Many of them were written about in books that you can purchase on amazon.com. Do I need to send you a link?
Here is what I am worried about - and try to contain yourself:
Self successfully contained.
If you think this is all just a bunch of handwringing, fair enough. I'm going to render my own judgement on this dataset, and I'm going to talk about it too - even in the face of Crying Wolf accusations.
I think it's all a bunch of handwringing, and I see your attempts to "talk about it" as blatant fearmongering. I will continue to label it as such because I see nothing that differentiates it from fearmongering in the past. I maintain: the fear you spread is more harmful than the thing you fear.
I'm not selling anything.
Bullshit. I see you as a religious zealot sending a message for people to convert to your environmental religion. You create fear in other people and you offer them the "fix" (which is to adopt your point of view). Compare this to Christians: they create fear and guilt in people by telling them that they are going to hell, then they offer the "fix" which is to believe in Jesus and be saved. Dan Barker said this about Christians: "The Christian is like a salesman who cuts you with a knife and then offers to sell you a bandage." There is some bitter truth to that statement, but I don't think it's relegated only to Christians. The guilt/fear tactic is exploited by all flavors of zealots.
Perhaps you take exception to this and will protest, "I'm not a zealot; I'm only an individual who's concerned about changed I perceive in the climate." If that's true, then how do I know you're not a zealot who's just saying that to win converts? Will you admit that there are some rabid zealots in the environmentalist movement? How do I know you're not one of them? If I were an environmentalist zealot, then I would certainly try to pass myself off as merely a "concerned scientist" or a "concerned citizen".
The message I'm relaying here, if it isn't clear enough, is I don't trust you.
If what you are saying is 'I don't want to hear about anything bad' then I would politely suggest that you are in the wrong forum.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: I don't want the fear you're trying to spread. And I maintain that there is no wrong forum for that message.
The guy you are accusing of fear-mongering didn't say a single thing that scared me.
He didn't scare me, either. Didn't you read where I mentioned that I'm not manipulated by guilt or fear any more? Whether or not I'm scared has nothing to do with whether or not the parent was fearmongering.
It sounds to me like you are saying "If this climate change stuff is true, we should be terrified, and therefore I cannot believe it is true, therefore I want to see the people saying this stuff denounced!"
Allow me to clarify, for I must have misspoken. I am saying that this climate change stuff is merely another manifestation of the global destruction fantasy, and the way that this fantasy is spread is through fear. We've seen this play out time and time again, from the "left" and from the "right". I've had enough of it, and I want others to stand with me in rejection of these fear games that other people play.
Nutty ol' Lovelock proposes strong archival and dissemination of knowledge. And preparing local communities and family groups in case of disasters. This is harmful exactly how?
Don't change the subject. Lovelock's odious action was the "the world is going to end!" fearmongering, not his desire to archive data.
Lack of preparedness has obvious harmful effects.
I have never decried being prepared. Are you stating that the entire human race should have prepared itself for the global destruction that was prophecized by The Population Bomb? What about for Global Cooling? Or the end of oil (all seven times we were supposed to have run out in the past)? Do you still fail to see what I'm getting at? Those "warnings" were just pointless fearmongering designed to give the fearmonger money, power, and attention.
What, exactly, is this "harm" you ascribe to this so-called "fear-mongering"?
Fear causes anxiety and anxiety is harmful to health.
How is anyone harmed by preparedness?
Remember all those "Y2K preparedness kits" that people bought? Wouldn't that money have been better spent on something else? Well, at least they were "prepared" for the Y2K global destruction, correct? And some other fearmongers made a whole bunch of money -- I guess *they* weren't exactly harmed!
Relax. I said it was 'unsettling'. The 'fear spreading' and 'armageddon' and 'fearful cataclysms' and 'global destruction fantsies' are your words, bub. I said no such thing.
Since you are the one who is "unsettled", perhaps your advice to relax is best self-applied. I think the reason why you feel "unsettled" is because you are fearful, and the reason why you are sharing this information is because you wish to spread fear. It may be that you are wrongfully accused of global destruction fantasies, but then the difference between what you spread and the false accustion would be a difference of degree, not kind.
How many more "unsettling" things do we need to hear? Butter will kill you! AIDS will kill us all! Global warming will heat/cool/soak/dry the earth! The ozone layer is gone! We're running out of oil! Bird flu is coming! GM foods have to be stopped! Jesus is the only way! Islam will rule the world!
Fearmongering is fearmongering, and I want none of what you are selling. What I'd like to see is a few more people who will stand up to fearmongers and tell them, rather publicly and en masse, "The fear you spread is more harmful than the thing you fear!"
Weather is complicated. It has many many more inputs than you can predict or explain. Why is it that you choose to see "atypical" weather as evidence of impending catastrophe? Personally, I think you do it for the same reason that the right-wing zealots see every little thing that happens in Israel as the proof that armageddon is right around the corner. You like to spread fear as a means of garnering attention and swaying people to your point of view. Have leftist environmentalists not spit out fearful cataclysms every year for the past few decades? Have not Christian zealots done the same thing with their "the end is here!" prophecies?
Forgive me if I don't partake in your global destruction fantasies, but I'm just not manipulated by guilt or fear any more. My guess is the unsettling feeling you experience is created more by your own mind than it is by any doomsday scenario that will (not) befall us.
The term "Gaia" was borrowed from the ancient Greek gods, but no more so than Pluto or Mars. The concept is, that as cells make up an organism, and many organisms an ecosystem, many ecosystems make up a still larger system. "Gaia" sounds all new-agey, but in reality, it is nothing more than the extent of all life on earth.
I disagree. "Gaia" is more than just the extent of all life on earth. It is the extent of all life on earth personified, deified, and worthy (and demanding) of reverence. This is what I perceive in people when they talk about "Gaia". From all outward appearances, they worship the notion. It is their god. Maybe my experience is limited.
It's not superstitious garbage; it is quite valid to think that destroying the rain forest in Southeast Alaska will have profound effects on New York City, or Moscow for that matter. Then to imagine that the total biosphere can heal itself after a catastrophe is also valid. That is, the environment affects not only the evolution of species, but evolution of species also affects the environment.
Turning what exists on earth into "mother earth" is superstitious garbage to me, for I think it has much more to do with deification than it does wondering about the effects of one ecosystem on another.
Why does it matter if an ecosystem is irreperably damaged? This is an important question to ask, for the answer betrays an individual's values. I would answer it only matters if the long-term livliehood of our species is impacted. I do not think that ecosystems have inherent value. That notion may be repugnant to you, but keep in mind that the opposite (ecosystems have inherent value that the livliehood of humans must not interfere with) is repugnant to me.
Fear is the most powerful human motivator. It invokes our desire to preserve our own life. God only knows how many times I have been nearly crushed by the fear of the bad thing happening only to find that the bad thing was not nearly as painful as the fear.
Fearmongers have long known this and exploited it in order to gain power, money, and attention. This wicked priest is no different than other wicked priests of other superstitious faiths who have tried to emotionally rape you for their own personal benefit. Resist him as you do all others. Use your power of observation and your rational mind in order to make good choices for the future.
And yes, this clown is, in fact, preaching a religion. "Gaia" is the "goddess earth". It is nothing more than blatant superstitious garbage with an enviro-friendly sheen. If you want to stand up for the environment, then go knock yourself out. It doesn't justify giving this fool anything except ascerbic mockery, and it certainly doesn't justify attempting to inspire fear in other people.
I visited the website, and I think this is marketing. The most important measurement of temperature in cooking food is the internal temperature of high-mass items such as steaks. The temperature reading which is important is the innermost part of the thickest steak in the pan. How is an RFID tag in the pan going to measure that? Answer: it isn't. Only a thermocouple probe can cut that job, which is why I have two different thermocouples in my kitchen that I use almost every time I cook.
Another part of the website reads: "Prohibits use of wrong pans with incompatible recipes." Excuse you, Vita Craft Corporation, but I don't need you to tell me how to use my own pans. Sometimes I cook on the outside of my cast iron skillets.
I think this has nothing to do with improving the way that humans prepare food and everything to do with using a new technology to sell more cookware. If you want to become a better cook, then, by god, invest the money in some good cookware, take some cooking classes with people you like, watch some good tv shows, and, by all means, don't be afraid to try things and have fun doing it. If anything, it's an excuse to become more social. If you invite 6 people over, then you're going to be inspired to try and make something that impresses and feeds your loved ones.
We're all willing to put up with dozens of repeat articles on cold fusion based on the dream that one day, we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron.
You don't have to wait for that day. You can extend your middle figure at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron right now. There are many eco-communes set up that rely on very little fossil fuels and are very much unplugged from the car culture of the USA, and these eco-communes are even in the USA. Rebelling against the oil-driven capitalistic society is very much in line with the thoughts of many eco-communes, so I think you would find friends there.
Why sit around and dream when you can do something?
http://www.dancingrabbit.org/
Despite most people claiming to have a political slant, the majority of Americans don't know shit about politics. I live in Texas and I can promise that many self defined conservatives here are just as ignorant as your friend.
I don't think my friend is ignorant at all. I think he's elitist and hateful, having been fully incubated in an us-verses-them mentality in which his side is defined as "good" (and "intelligent") whereas the "other side" is defined as "evil" (and "stupid").
Once you learn that both parties are composed of people who really don't know about politics, then you can finally reach Political Nirvana (aka you never talk about politics again with people because you know its a waste of time).
First, I think talking about politics (meaning, talking about what the government is doing) is vitally important! Those creeps in Washington D.C. are constantly plotting and scheming to control my life and steal my property. No other group has the power that government has, and that's why they need to be watched like a hawk.
Second, I notice you criticize people for being "ignorant" about politics, and then you declare talking about politics (and, presumably, knowing about politics) as a "waste of time". Where does your true complaint lie?
Apperantly, most right-wing "conservatives" don't understand just what fascism is.
It's the code word for "bad" in leftist-speak. If you actually ask a leftist to define what separates a "fascist" governemnt from others, you usually get a bunch of fuzzy, feel-bad characteristics wrapped around a tired, old hatred for individual property rights. I notice you tried to use wikipedia to define it for you.
Speak in terms of black and white much?
The most hypocritical and and annoying behavior exhibited by most leftists these days is the claim that they "don't see the world in black and white" and are "nuanced" people who are capable of "seeing shades of gray". Then, with an uncompromising lack of nuance, they paint all non-socialists as "fascists" or "Nazis". George Bush is a "Nazi" even though he doesn't want to kill all the Jews. I asked a "liberal" friend of mine if he couldn't see any difference between a Pat Robertson conservative and a Ron Paul conservative, and he said, "From my perspective, they look the same to me." I, being a gay man who's ideologically similar to a Ron Paul "conservative" (he's libertarian), apparently look no different from Pat Robertson to my "nuanced" friend. So much for "nuance"!
And here, the parent poster was accusing leftists of thinking in black and white terms (something I definately seen in leftists as well as in gays, Christians, Muslims, PeTA, etc etc etc), and you respond by accusing him of doing the same thing. The lack of insight you exhibit is sad.
No, we just sneer at hypocritical greedy and/or stupid motherfuckers who think they can fuck with what-
And this is what typical "liberal discussion" boils down to nowadays. I used to listen to liberals, but they've turned into such bitchy, whiney hatemongers that I just can't stand it any more. I mean, just about every "liberal" I talk to is a total *downer*. They are the group that is always complaining, always hating, and *never coming up with any solutions to the problems they hate*. Please, please, please let go of your hatred and rejoin the rational discourse of rational people. Liberals have often stood up for good things, and you do immense disservice to your causes by being so consistently dour, condescending, and vicious.
Earlier you claimed this:
No matter how niche your preferences are, somebody somewhere will finance them if you can make a business case for it.
Later, you claimed this:
If they buy it, yay - you're on your way to your dream! If they don't, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your dreams, career goals, and professional abilities.
Why should he have to re-evaluate his dreams if it's guaranteed that somebody, somewhere can make a business case for it? You implied that the parent was stupid and incompetent because no one would pay him to do what he liked to do, whereas here you seem to indicate that perhaps it's not merely stupidity or incompetence which drives a failure.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
Are you arguing that anyone who is "100% dedicated" to the exact letter of his/her own belief system is "lawful good" because it takes "balls" to be that way? I really think you happen to like him only because he's dedicated to an unpopular cause *that you happen to like*. There are plenty of fanatics out there (and, yes, I claim that RMS is a fanatic) who are just as fervent, if not more so, than RMS is.
Is RMS willing to die for his belief? Is he willing to kill for it? If the answer to both of those is, "no," then how can you claim that he's "100% dedicated"? It would mean that he values his life and the lives of others higher than his own Truth(TM).
Other fanatics aren't as "weak" as he is in that regard. Take, for example, the thousands of Muslim mujahideen who fervently believe that killing infidels is God's work. They believe 100% that Islam will dominate the world and that anyone who resists should die, including you and me. I'm a gay man. How do you think I feel about muslims who want Islamic law over me (and are willing to kill and/or die to make sure that it happens)?
Take, for example, Randall Terry. He is the most infamous anti-abortion activist in the USA. He openly pines for theocracy (and he uses that particular word). Here's what he said about abortion providers: "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." How's that for "dedicated"? Is RMS willing to take power and execute the producers of non-free software? Sounds a little less than "100% dedicated" to me.
Take, for example, PeTA fanatics. Not only do they want total veganism, but also total animal liberation. This means that ANY type of animal research used for medicine and health would be banned. This means that any child whose life could be saved through animal products would have to die. Is RMS willing to sacrifice childrens' lives for the cause of free software? PeTA fanatics will respond to this message by denying that animal research is beneficial in any way at all. Of course, it's trivial to dispute that claim with abundant evidence, but why should evidence matter to a fanatic? If mere evidence is going to sway you from the Truth(TM) then you're not "100% dedicated", are you?
My point here is not to bash the groups that I happen to despise, but to point out that what you seem to be supporting is fanaticism. There are millions of things in the world that you can get excited about and millions of worthy causes that need your attention. Pick a few that you happen to like, and exploit your own unanswered question of, "Why am I here?" as the impetus to do good works in the world. But the people who decide that there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause worth championing, at the expense of all other causes, at the expense of all reason and evidence, and at the expense of others' lives, liberty, and property? Those are people to be exposed, denigrated, and ignored. They are not worthy of respect as they are dangerous, self-indulgent assholes.
If you want the most direct form of the value judgement, then here it is, and I make no apology for it:
Fanaticism is evil.
So stop taking what he says as gospel. Yes, he is incredibly intelligent. And yes, he has a very good grasp about what's going on most of the time. However, this is the same guy that got upset at the Samba guy for reversing bitkeeper.
You are bucking against human nature. Linus is an authority figure, and whatever he says will instantly be heavily-laden with the appeal to authority. People are easily influenced by authority. How else should they make their decisions? By relying on their own incomplete experience? By trusting their own faulty judgement? By following their peers who are tainted with the same faults? Obeying some impersonal authority figure seems just as good if not better than any of those other choices, and the fact that authority figures are obeyed proves this.
I'm not stating that authority figures *should* be obeyed, only that they are by the virtue of the "bugs" in the human mind. Nor am I attempting to make a misanthropic argument. I'm just trying to point out that we are all influenced by authority, and that it's probably more powerful than you realize.
To claim that Linus is not a "normal user" is to imply that you understand what a "normal user" is. You can't define something by giving a list of things that this thing is NOT. You define it by stating what it *is*.
I've seen lots of people falling into this trap -- trying to make decisions by stating that something doesn't measure up to some threshhold but never defines what the threshhold is (usually because it can't be defined).
The moderation system does not moderate content based on information or reasion. It moderates content based on whether or not the poster is liked and whether or not the poster is stating something that the moderator already knows is True. It's like this because it's run by human beings. If we naively believe that "the cream naturally rises to the top" with this moderation system we have to ask the question "*Whose* cream?"
(Ew.)
This is either a bad joke, auto-generated code, or someone is really stupid, and should not be trusted with any programming language.
I only wish. What I posted are snippets production code. I'm guessing from your comment that you don't yet have a lot of experience with programming. I've seen it over and over again (and been responsible for some of it): code does not have to be maintainable to be functional.
I've taken it upon myself to try and replace every bit of that human's code before I leave, so that I don't leave the person who replaces me in the same position that I inherited. I guess that's the nerd's way of "paying it forward".