551. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244803 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 1:14 pm

So, Scot, should I take it that you are saying that those people who are "stuck" doing jobs which aren't highly valued (whether by virtue of necessity or not) by society and therefore do not pay as much as most others would ideally only be "stuck" doing them by virtue of their own unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them?

(I say "unwillingness" rather than "laziness" because if someone likes painting for a living and barely getting by on what little art he/she sells, what's so "lazy" about that? I want to get away from any notion of "all poor people are lazy or stupid" is all.)

If so, it's hard to disagree.

So come on, say something controversial or I will be bored!

552. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244765 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Yes, but if shoveling shit is a necessary service at least the people who do it deserve to get good pay.

I disagree.

You disagree with them deserving good pay, so you're saying they deserve lousy pay. Do you have a good argument to make for why any necessary jobs should have bad pay? Isn't it a far better argument to say that even a shit-shoveling job should pay whatever it takes to have competent shit-shovelers?

They should be given the opportunity to advance out of the shit-shoveling profession through their own hard work. This could be through accessible education or through other means.

Agreed, although this doesn't support any other statement you make.

The idea of a "liveable" minimum wage is misplaced. A minimum wage job should be a stepping stone, not a career.

What it "should" or "should not" be in an idealized, "everyone has equal opportunities and TAKES ADVANTAGES of those opportunties" world, seems to me to be neither here nor there. For some people, a minimum wage job is all they work their entire life. The wage therefore needs to be high enough to accomodate a particular "minimal" standard of living.

If you want to shovel shit or flip burgers your whole life than be prepared to receive the appropriate wages.

So would those be... "unliveable" wages? If I may ask, what exactly are you getting at? I get the impression you think low wages should act as an "incentive" to advance to higher-paying jobs, through education or other means.

Things work the other way around. High wages are the incentive to move up, not low wages. You want more qualified people doing "expert-level" work, you work to increase wages in that line of work.

553. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #244721 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 11:07 am

The thing that REALLY makes me Mad is that thay are teaching it to me

I'd say it's a rather safe bet you were stark raving bat-shit loco well before anyone started teaching you evolution.

554. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244604 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 8:34 am

The natural CO2 emissions are part of the normal cycle, the problem with GW is about the extra anthropogenic emissions.

Really the problem with GW is the W part. The problems we may face due to a warming climate are the same problems whether or not they are caused solely by increased feedback due to increased atmospheric CO2. Climate doesn't remain stable for ever even under what without humans would be the "normal cycle," as you put it.

As for how to combat the warming (reduce it; no model I know of predicts it can be stopped outright by anything other than actually reduced solar activity, and therefore less radiation hitting Earth than what we're used to), well that's where opinions come in. That's where Al Gore did come in. And as for whether the carbon credit scheme detracts from the actual problem -- that can be argued. Most certainly it detracts from the actual solution, and that's no better.

555. 'Spore' Its for the Little Guys

Comment #244597 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 8:19 am

Spore's draconian DRM scheme on PC may kick its ass -- look at Amazon reviews. Does it deserve it? Well, the game doesn't, but the publisher sure-as-hell does. So, I'm all for the game being killed in reviews if it will wake EA up and have them consider abandoning their idiotic practice of treating paying customers like thieves while actual game pirates aren't dealt with in the least and actually end up with a better product.

556. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244569 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 6:58 am

I make no apologies for implicitly calling you a retard if you are convinced by Pascal's Wager in this case that we should be, in your own words,

building a few wind turbines, solar panels, wave machines etc, not a lot.

I suppose one should be happy that the task of mitigating and/or averting problems caused by climate change is only in part taken up by buffoons like you, and that there are more clever people on the job as well.

557. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244552 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 6:29 am

Pascal's Wager is retarded in this case because the only reason it can even be remotely convincing is if it can establish that "you've got nothing to lose." Given that the cost of misappropriated money in the combat of problems caused by changing climate can be (and probably will be) insanely vast, no-one who thinks the claim can be made is a sane individual. Attempts to engineer the Earth's climate will cost assloads of money, make no mistake. If it's done right, and problems are averted, then it will be money well spent provided the problems averted outweigh those not solved by being lower priority and therefore not having solutions funded. If it's done wrong, it will at best be money wasted -- money that could have been spent to combat other problems that were considered to be lower priority -- and at worst spent to aggravate problems.

So, since we DO have something to lose by spending trillions of dollars on poor solutions to a not-yet-fully-understood-problem (and having the solutions fail), Pascal's Wager fails epically.

That Youtube video is by a retard for retards.

558. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244545 by Sciros on September 9, 2008 at 6:19 am

All the three points that you raise are straw men, by the way.

A straw man is a caricature of an argument for a certain side that one can then easily attack and claim success in the debate. That's not what's going on here at all.

The thing is, even if you consider the debate over the level of impact humans have had on climate in the past 100 years a closed case entirely (in which case you may as well let those funding futher research on this know that they're wasting their money and should cut the funding), you'd have to be a damned fool to think that there's no debate over how to approach the problems that we expect to experience due to the changing climate.

The question of "carbon credits" -- of not lowering your own CO2 output but supposedly funding the efforts of someone else to do so instead -- is an important one because this is a multi-billion-dollar business that makes a lot of promises and really has effectively no way of proving it kept any. So, it doesn't have to. The money might go to companies that promise to reduce their carbon output, but unless there's oversight there (and there virtually isn't) these promises may as well be empty. It's a money sink for those not involved in this "monetizing of carbon" and a mint for those who are.

The use of biofuels instead of gasoline is also an important topic to consider, because if you know the surrounding issues (and direct results) you'll realize the use of biofuels can kick humanity's ass far harder than almost any other energy alternative, if it properly pursued. Even if we stick with gasoline in the meantime. (For example, the destruction of swampland in Indonesia to make room for oil palm fields releases far, far more trapped carbon into the atmosphere than the biofuel that those oil palms yield could ever hope to conserve.)

So, at some point you may realize that your blind lashing out at everyone who wants to actually reason through these rather important issues is doing even YOU more harm than good. Until then, feel free to remain part of the problem.

559. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244382 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm

But just in the same way that I must proceed to work under the assumption that the data I've gathered and integrated are right, so too I must proceed in the field of morality.

But in scientific study the assumption is that there is a truth, a reality, to arrive at. To observe and understand.

It seems to me you feel that way about morality as well -- that there is a moral truth, a "correct" right and wrong, to arrive at. To understand.

And it's here where the disagreement lies. We can all agree that there is a reality to observe and understand -- that the "truth" science searches for really does exist. If you feel analogously towards morality, then we don't all agree.

Our moral outlooks are very similar. Not the same, surely, but similar. We value similar things. We probably consider the same things "great." But why is it not enough to understand that those morals we subscribe to resonate with us because of our experiences and what we value (even if some values are instinctual)? When you judge a person's morals, what you're seeing concretely are expressions of what he/she values. You're comparing their values with yours.

What I'm getting at is this: in that comparison, let's say you make a decision on which values are "more correct." On what basis did you make that decision? What formed that basis? When you get down to the nitty-gritty -- the most rudimentary foundation of your value system -- I want to know a single absolute that makes a claim about "good" and/or "evil" -- the currency of morality.

560. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244362 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Bonzai, how many bald middle-aged amateur kung fu practitioners do you know that you'd hire as bodyguards?

I only know a couple, and their rates are pretty high, that's why I'm asking...

561. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244348 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Al, what countries was Clinton bombing during his sex scandals: the caves of Afghanistan.

[And] Iraq, as far as I know. In any case, as you may know, those Muslim states retaliate against such attacks not by directly attacking America, but rather by attacking Israel.

Clinton's attacks during that time were not responsible choices given the people he endangered.

562. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244342 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 3:04 pm

The admiration I feel when I look up to my heroes comes from the same source as the contempt

(Emphasis mine.) Fanusi, excuse me for pursuing this further, but this source is exactly what I want to get at.

See, I am not going to say that your moral outlook is "wrong" and that mine is "more right." They're not the same, and we can make arguments for why we subscribe to the ones we do -- but those arguments will stem from what we've grown to value.

Again, when you say that by witholding contempt from "human vice" you do not make it "less obscene" -- you treat those words as if they do have absolute meaning that should be understood by all. They don't.

This isn't about "ruffling feathers," or a judgement on our part on what inspires you, but rather an effort to point out to you that your morals are no more infallible than ours, or potentially anyone else's, even if they should differ. You don't have to "play nice" but even your... "judgments" have more of an impact when you can claim a basis for them that resonates with us on a personal level rather than invoking what I see as a superhuman arbitration.

563. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244316 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 2:44 pm

As I said, I believe in Justice.

I challenge you to make a convincing case for this being a belief in something other than, essentially, the supernatural.

People understand the meaning of the word "justice." People have an idea of what it means -- to them individually. You need to make a case for why what justice means to you is what it should mean to everyone else. I imagine this will tie into your sense of "worth," so you will also need to make a case for why what you value should be what others value, and why you and they should value it equally.

564. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244303 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Here, let me fix that for you:

My admiration for what I, Fanusi, see as great in humanity necessitates my loathing for what I, Fanusi, see as corrupt and rotten.

The problem is, you're not willing to understand that your own moral outlook shouldn't necessarily be that of others, nor is there anything to tell you that yours is right and others are wrong. This will never change, and maybe some day you'll see it.

565. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244275 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 2:01 pm

You are a whore. You're not even a whore by desperate necessity, but by conscious choice of self-degradation. How dare you try to speak to your betters - and, yes, everyone here is your better.

Ahh, there's some of that ABSOLUTE MORALITY coming through. Fanusi you're alright on some fronts, but on others you're far from it.

Your use of the term "self-degradation" -- I don't think that everyone would choose to apply it in this case, as what exactly is being "degraded"? and in relation to what? Throwing terms like this around will inevitably lead you to saying that you know what Brandy or anyone else or the "purity" (or whatever you'll call it) of their sex life is worth and others don't, getting back to your absolute morality stance which you've yet to make anything close to a convincing case for.

In the end, you just have some rather socially conservative views. Will you try to justify them using absolute moral law?

"How dare you try to speak to your betters" hahaha I love it! Fanusi, I declare to be your better. Don't you dare try and speak to me.

566. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244255 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm

anthropomorphic global warming

Is that like where there's a picture of the Sun wearing sunglasses?

567. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244252 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Man this is the most bizarre thread ever. Transsexual porn stars trolling atheist forums due to poor reading comprehension. That's like an Onion article right there.

:Joins in the sitting-back-and-eating-popcorn:

568. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244210 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 12:49 pm

There's that word "admitting" you snuck in there. Brandy you're a complete idiot AND an asshole to boot -- you come in here spewing gibberish at best and when people reiterate what they've been saying all along, you claim that they've done so in concession to some sort of argument or debate you've engaged them in. It's the sorriest form of e-masturbation I've seen in DAYS!

569. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244201 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 12:39 pm

No feminists are speaking out to defend AHA? you're a joke.

Stop posting on this site and go take remedial classes in reading. (If you can read this.)

*Some* feminists, evidently NOW in particular, are not speaking out to defend AHA. That's what was stated.

When you take the remedial reading comprehension class, ask about the difference between the words "some" and "all."

570. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244193 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Concessions happen in arguments/debates. Semantic play is disingenuous; don't sneak it in here.

571. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244187 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Martin S, one can't apply Pascal's Wager to very many non-trivial things, to be honest. Climate manipulation/response especially.

Apart from the overhead of building a few wind turbines, solar panels, wave machines etc, not a lot.

Yeah, that's all it's going to take to fight climate change... come on bro!

Whether or not climate is changing anthropogenically or not (clearly it's both; Earth's climate has a long history of not needing people in order to change, though it's obviously not impervious to influence as per evidence), if climate is changing in a way that will detrimentally affect some or all of mankind, we need to figure out how to best react to that. That likely means devoting X% of our efforts to "combating" the climate change and essentially engineering climate to suit ourselves, and devoting 100-X% to mitigating the effects of climate change that we are unable to prevent. Two things are for certain: this 100% is a BIG NUMBER -- too big to irresponsibly apply Pascal's Wager to and consider it a cost you can just shrug off if you've bombed it on nothing good (climate change isn't the only thing mankind has to deal with); the second is that the X% is not the easiest thing to agree on or responsibly carry out.

Money doesn't "cycle round in the system" nearly enough for that to be an argument in favor of irresponsibly spending vast amounts of it. People can die in large numbers from bad misappropriations of funds while they wait for the money to "cycle round."

Reacting to climate change isn't as obvious as buiding a few wind turbines and solar panels and calling it a day.

572. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244179 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 12:13 pm

THAT'S IT! I'm starting my own campaign for president (nevermind the technicality that messes me up the same way it does Arnold)... here are some of my slogans:

"I am better and smarter than the vast majority of you."

"I could do your job IN ADDITION to mine and do it a damn sight better than you manage."

"If you're too stupid to vote for me you don't deserve to have me lead you."

Thing is, from someone qualified to make these statements, they don't even sound that bad. Mean, maybe, but not bad. Like, imagine if Batman [were real and] said them.

Really though, qomak, I'm totally with you. I don't understand the "average joe" appeal a President is expected to have. I want a *superior* person to lead, not the average idiot.

573. Devolution in Education

Comment #244089 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 9:24 am

wwarrants, I think as long as you take care to tell your kids what is and isn't BS at home, they'll be fine in whatever school. Think about this: in the USSR there were loads of propaganda *in the schools* about how Communism is great, how all other countries suck, blah blah blah ad nauseam. FAR more rubbish than there is in any public school in the US, as far as I know. But that didn't mean everyone bought into the bullshit; far from it, in fact, and it really came down to parenting at home.

Teaching nonsense in school is terrible, but it's not so catastrophic that you need to pay expensive private schools to do what you can probably do yourself with much success ^_^

574. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244082 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 9:09 am

Frankus,

Your motivations are ones I agree with, but would you not agree that companies like Exxon *should* be actively researching issues that they may be directly involved in? I know that if I were in charge at a large energy company, I would be funding all sorts of research at the moment.

575. Devolution in Education

Comment #244081 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 9:05 am

None whatsoever ^_^

576. Devolution in Education

Comment #244076 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 9:00 am

Fanusi, don't assume I'm young just because I can complement an immaturely themed post with some immature phrases.

And for the record I agree with your post, as you might expect.

577. Devolution in Education

Comment #244070 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 8:52 am

Fanusi said:

*claws out* Only disagree with one thing - so far - in this article but it needs to be said:

Who would want their kids learning [..] literature classes that cover only the works of dead white guys from Europe who wrote with lots of where-art-thou's?

Article also said:

the Earth is 14 million years old

This just in!! Fanusi agrees that the earth is four times younger than dinosaurs! Wahahah owned!

578. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244051 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 8:13 am

Full, or even close-to-full socialism if established by people seems invariably destined to fail, at the expense of a great many. I do think the system *in theory* is viable, but only in very special cases that no nation will ever be an instance of. If Superman could run everything, we'd be good. He tends to be a fair dude and he can keep folks from subverting the system by pimp-slapping them at light speed. Too bad he's not real.

579. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244047 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 8:06 am

Supervillains don't like asteroids either; they're *competition*! So, it's a win-win... at least as far as asteroids are concerned. Now, mass enslavement and firepits and blackened skies, that's a different issue.

Weavehole, that's a good thing to point out -- doing biofuels "the right way" is not going to happen because the reason theyre even happening at all is there's money to be made. And when there's money to be made, little else matters to too many people.

EDIT: I took a proper look at the pdf... yeah, it basically confirmed what I've been thinking all along and what I've read in the past. It really seems to me that any support of biofuels inadvertently does a great deal more harm than good, if it does any good at all.

Building an infrastructure to better transfer electricity, building nuclear power plants, water power plants; creating a network of electric charge stations to phase out gas stations across the US, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, and eventually other countries, so that fully electric cars are finally viable -- that makes sense to me. Such efforts, if spearheaded by BP, Exxon, etc., can keep them as the energy giants they are today, but having made a leap in the kind of energy they provide. ...Anyway, I'm way off topic now so I'll leave it for a more relevant article.

Oh and regarding 4 billion -- maybe we weren't counting the Muslim "world" and other fundamentalists, who couldn't be bothered to even learn basic science let alone be trusted to advance it.

580. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244043 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 8:00 am

Quetz, I disagree. We can invest in radioactive spiders, weird gamma ray machines, and so forth, and just create a superhero that will stop any asteroids headed towards Earth. We may not need to invest in space technology at all! YOU have a very narrow perspective on this!11!eleventeen

581. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244033 by Sciros on September 8, 2008 at 7:52 am

As long as we stop using biofuels I'll be happy.

Making a link is easier to do than typing a bunch of stuff up.

The Q/A in the link talks about the need to do biofuel production the "right" way, but I maintain that throughout history people's track record of doing things the "right" way has been pretty damn abysmal.

I also don't see anything good about Indonesia becoming the next "OPEC" (in the words of the guy I linked to). Is the irony just too sweet to pass up, with Indonesia being the country with the largest Muslim population in the world?

Meanwhile, farmers are using more of their land than ever to grow corn for inefficient use as ethanol, reducing how much land is dedicated to growing produce, raising food prices. And this I would say is far, far worse than rising gas prices for everyone (well, except things like airline and shipping companies) and has harsher far-reaching effects.

582. Large Hadron Collider readies for world's biggest experiment

Comment #243335 by Sciros on September 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Thanks for throwing in your .02 cents Count, but your remarks are overly semantic!!

583. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243295 by Sciros on September 5, 2008 at 11:38 am