851. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245363 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve

I am sorry for your loss, I hope that it won't spoil your vacation. It still is a (partially) replaceable object.

I know a guy who gambled his own away. Now, that's really something sad.

852. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245356 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Comment #245313 by Steve Zara

I was thinking that each person should have the right to own some kind of tank-busting missle.

And a cannon turret on top of their SUVs, of course.

Comment #245321 by al-rawandi


Then we made the distinction between handguns and hunting weapons very clear.
Yet, you failed to give any meaningful following to it and reverted to the old drunk-driving fallacy.
Therefore, you are not arguing for your hunting rifle, you are arguing for concealed weapons, too.
Therefore, your rhetorical device of accusing us of blanket anti-gun mentality was a straw man.

853. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245309 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #245304 by Fanusi Khiyal

The more basic argument is this: there is only one surefire safeguard against tyranny, and that's an armed citizenry.

Yeah, right. Everybody knows that you can stop tanks and helicopters with a handgun.

854. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245303 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #245302 by Mitchell Gilks

You missed it, I have been arguing it for about a hour.

855. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245301 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Al

Then I have to come to the conclusion that your diversion about hunting rifles was a straw man - you have now made it perfectly clear.

856. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245293 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #245288 by Diacanu

Yeah, but what about peak oil?

857. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245280 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #245273 by al-rawandi

What I meant was that if you feel preventable deaths should be reduced

Then we loosely agree, except that I seem unable to make you see the distinction between the right of the people to kill or harm themselves as they see fit (since they are the only owner of their lives and bodies), and the right of the same people to be protected from the lunacy of others.

858. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245265 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #245255 by al-rawandi

No one has convinced me why I should be prevented from hunting because some thugs somewhere are criminal pricks.

OK, let's make the distinction clear, then.
I thought we were all the time talking about handguns and offensive weapons.
Let me ask you, would you agree that we cannot compare alcohol and handguns as if they were the same category?

859. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245248 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Comment #245225 by al-rawandi

al, I totally agree with you on legalising drugs. It's an excellent point.

To your question. Of course, we should try to prevent deaths whenever possible without infringing on people's liberty, but, again, it's unrelated to the issue in object.

Now, we can discuss, and agree or disagree whether bearing arms can be considered a right. I am not really interested, though.

I was just raising a point regarding the validity of your logic, which I found wanting. You can probably find much better arguments to support your position.

That's all.

860. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245220 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #245217 by al-rawandi

I am afraid that the point eludes you. So, never mind.
I am fine with having gotten it across to Hungarian and the others.

Thanks for your replies, though.

861. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245207 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #245200 by al-rawandi

You can stab someone to death, shall we get rid of knives?

Separate discussion. Clearly, they are still weapons, and should be treated as such. The difference is enormous, of course, between pulling a trigger and butchering someone.

So you are another person that cares more about HOW someone dies, than the fact that they did die. Not much of a humanist....

Actually, I just pointed out that your comparison was BS. I didn't say that guns should be banned, nor that I don't care if people die, and all your emotional tirades are laughable.

And I get REALLY SICK of having to explain what guns are DESIGNED to do to the utterly ignorant. Like I said, most of the anti-gun folks have never held a gun let alone fired it, yet are absolute experts on guns... you know the people that don't know how "caliber" measurements correspond to inches.

As usual, you are incapable of defending a position without personal attacks. Now I am ignorant, earlier I was a liar and dishonest.
Please, take it down a notch.

For your information, I served the military and I was fully trained to handle war weapons.
Nothing regarding my expertise will turn your nonsensical comparison into a valid analogy.

I am completely aware that there are weapons designed for hunting etc.
We were NOT talking about them.

862. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245197 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 12:01 pm

. Comment #245194 by al-rawandi

Again, cars kill with or without alcohol, you are forced to bring in an external entity deadly on its own to defend your nonsensical comparison.

And in the process, you accuse others of dishonesty.
Congratulations.

863. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245196 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #245190 by al-rawandi

And I bet, Decius, you don't have the stats to back up that claim about guns and 3rd parties. My guess is that guns kill the people they are aimed at.

There is no need for stats.

I can add that the protection of the person to which the weapon is aimed at is of equal importance.

The argument is about the comparison that you made being valid or not.
You can't force a person to drink to death, but you can kill with a weapon which is designed precisely with that purpose in mind.

864. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245192 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #245190 by al-rawandi

No, I can't see it and I am not a liar, if you please.

Please, explain.

865. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245191 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 11:48 am

Comment #245188 by hungarianelephant

Enjoy yourself, mate.


See you later

866. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245189 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 11:47 am

. Comment #245187 by CocoCantare

That's an entirely different problem, Coco.
Cars are deadly with or without alcohol involved, and it's also quite easy to enforce anti-drink-driving laws.

867. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245184 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 11:31 am

Comment #245163 by hungarianelephant

as much as I agree with your comparison of guns and alcohol,

al Rawandi's analogy is deeply flawed, I am surprised that you agree with that part of his argument. Steve Zara has already addressed part of the issue.

I will add that, except for the minority of cases where death is self-inflicted, guns usually kill third persons who had no part in the decision of handling or purchasing the weapon, while alcohol kills those who freely choose to abuse it, inflicting damage upon themselves.
The difference is crucial and destroys the already weak comparison.

Edit for grammar

868. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245126 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 8:46 am

Actually, Landover Baptist produces a plethora of satirical initiatives and its sites and forum are huge.

I warmly recommend to watch this sermon by their 'pastor'.

Edit- LOL, al.

869. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245121 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #245120 by al-rawandi

I agree, and that's the aim of the site.
You should check their forum too, dozens of brilliant atheists posing as fundies as a hobby.

870. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245116 by decius on September 10, 2008 at 8:26 am

Al

The site you linked is part of Landover Baptist, a satirical spoof.

871. Bizarre Anti-Spore Website Takes Issue WIth Stance On Creationism

Comment #244882 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Comment #244881 by mordacious1




Edit- Josh has done a very nice job, btw.

872. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244755 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Comment #244751 by Scot Rafkin

I disagree. They should be given the opportunity to advance out of the shit-shoveling profession through their own hard work.

Not if their name is Joe Morreale.

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

Comment #244747 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Comment #244737 by Roger Stanyard

Roger,

I wish I had a conclusive answer to that, it might help to find an effective antidote. It could be argued that if they weren't dim in the first place, they wouldn't fall so easily for cretinism.

Another common trait is a profound and all-encompassing ignorance not confined to science, as demonstrated by their grammar, punctuation and limited lexicon.

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

Comment #244731 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 11:32 am

This thread acts remarkably well as flypaper for carpet-kissers of the most deluded variety, those who retrofit science to their fairy-tale book.
They have been failing to predict any scientific discovery for nearly a millennium and a half, but their applied hindsight is nothing short of miraculous, we have to admit.

875. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244642 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 9:26 am

Comment #244634 by Scot Rafkin

But Scot, as a planetary scientist, you are part of the conspiracy and a member of the clergy of the Reformed Church of AGW, I hope you realise that.

By the way, when are you officiating the next function? I really need to cleanse my soul and chant a few mantras from the International Journal of Climatology.

876. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244625 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 9:06 am

Comment #244609 by Scot Rafkin

Scot

I totally agree with you.
I count myself amongst those not qualified to comment. Whenever this be the case, I totally rely on what science tells us, and I can't help defending it from the barbarous hordes of denialists.

877. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244620 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #244610 by Francis Clarke

Sorry, I will show you nothing. All scientific literature is publicly available and I am not responsible for your education or lack thereof.

You come here and tell us that the best available research and the scientific consensus are based on "faith", this already demonstrates your ideological investment and/or monolithic arrogant ignorance.

878. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244601 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 8:23 am

Sciros, those arguments are indeed straw men erected by people like Penn and Teller to confuse about the real issues.

The natural CO2 emissions are part of the normal cycle, the problem with GW is about the extra anthropogenic emissions. (Straw man 1)

The character and opinions of Al Gore didn't for a second influence the outcome of the research, nor are they relevant to what needs to be done to effectively counter the excess CO2. (Straw man 2)

I totally agree that the carbon credit scheme is indeed inefficient and just an aesthetic political operation comparable to sweeping the dirt under the rug.
What is called for is much stronger and effective action.
How does this detract from the actual problems?

879. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244523 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 4:23 am

Comment #244497 by Fanusi Khiyal

So, apparently working hard to raise your children isn't an example of personal dignity, of endurance, of courage? That's what I mean when I say I can't default on justice one way or another, because I know what the implications are.

It is perfectly right for you to admire them, that's not the fucking point. Are you being dense on purpose?

880. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244516 by decius on September 9, 2008 at 3:38 am

Comment #244509 by sornord

Penn & Teller are stage magician with an ideological libertarian agenda.
Al Gore is a politician. No need to stress his scientific incompetence and hypocrisy.

Imagine that you have brain cancer. Would you allow these people to decide the surgical procedure given their total ignorance of the field of neurosurgery?

I guess not.

Why do credit them with authority on an even more complex matter, then?

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

881. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244430 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Comment #244424 by Gregg Townsend

Decius,

Why all the derision?

Gregg, sometimes I just can't hide my contempt when served with concentrated cocktails of wilful ignorance, blind ideology and conspiracy thinking.

We endure enough anti-science crankiness from the creationists, already.

882. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #244408 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Comment #244396 by NakedCelt

Whatever, I give up.

You claim a scientific background and, in the same sentence, parade a total ignorance of the fact that all research is published, available for public scrutiny and subject to constant peer-review.
The closed doors seem to be in your head, and quite frankly, I no longer believe your purported credentials.

883. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244401 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Comment #244392 by the great teapot

I agree.

884. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244400 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Comment #244393 by Francis Clarke

Welcome, ignoramus.

Show us the evidence for your grandiose claims.

885. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244399 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Comment #244389 by kaiserkriss

No, sorry.

The situation is entirely different.
Back at the end of the XIX century, geology was still a proto-science.
The continents just looked as if they were steady, no evidence had been collected proving that to be the case.
It very much resembled the earlier assumption wanting the Earth to be still.

With regard to anthropogenic GW, we have 60-year-worth of measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
While it is true that building reliable atmospheric models is proving challenging, climatology is just one of all sciences involved.
Multiple lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion - and the scientific consensus has already been swayed, in this case, from a position of ignorance of the problem to one of educated acceptance.
Unfortunately, the conclusion is unequivocal and inescapable, and I invite you to examine in greater detail the state of the relevant research.

886. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244390 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Comment #244372 by Fanusi Khiyal

It's about having seen how people in the lousiest of circumstances fight to maintain their dignity - and not being able to stand seeing others throw it away for no reason.

That's their private choice. By no means do those people serve as a paragon of morality, decency or dignity, just because you say so.

None of what BS does is against the law, and why and when she engages in sex or how she makes a living is entirely her own business.

887. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244373 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Comment #244364 by kaiserkriss

f you don't believe me ask Galileo, or Wegener. Consensus just means many individuals believe the same thing.

False analogy and misrepresentation alert.

You are equating scientific consensus with the fallacy ad populum.

Secondly, Galileo didn't go against evidence-based consensus, he went against dogma.

Wegener didn't have enough evidence to sway scientific consensus, he based his hypothesis on clever intuitions.

Anthropogenic GW theory is based on heaps of hard evidence.

888. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244371 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Comment #244337 by vaillancourtroch

Thank you.

I find it appalling that denialists and anti-science cranks would choose this forum, of all places, as a platform for spewing nonsense.

889. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244345 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Fanusi

I never expected this display of intolerant prejudice and self-righteous pseudo-morality from you.
What consenting adults do with their sexuality is not subject to the scrutiny of prying busybodies and self-appointed mullahs for an imaginary common decorum.

Who are you to dictate your fellow men what decency is, sir?

890. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244277 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Comment #244250 by jonjermey


Both sides my arse.

You win a life-time membership to the Discovery Institute.



For all others who may be bamboozled by jonjermey's straw men and bias. Rarely a stronger scientific consensus has been achieved.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Subscribers

#

* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 InterAcademy Council
* 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
* 1.4 Joint science academies' statement 2007
* 1.5 Joint science academies' statement 2005
* 1.6 Joint science academies' statement 2001
* 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
* 1.10 National Research Council (US)
* 1.11 European Science Foundation
* 1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.13 Federation of American Scientists
* 1.14 World Meteorological Organization
* 1.15 American Meteorological Society
* 1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* 1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* 1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
* 1.21 American Quaternary Association
* 1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* 1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
* 1.25 European Geosciences Union
* 1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* 1.27 Geological Society of America
* 1.28 American Geophysical Union
* 1.29 American Astronomical Society
* 1.30 American Institute of Physics
* 1.31 American Physical Society
* 1.32 American Chemical Society
* 1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
* 1.35 American Statistical Association




Dissenters

American Association of Petroleum Geologists


No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

891. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244128 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 11:07 am

Call me callous, I take particle physics any time over throwing the little budget awarded to science into the African black hole. Decades of subsidisation have achieve naught. Forcibly remove all missionaries and the land will prosper if people are properly educated about things such as birth-control, AIDS prevention and sustainable growth.
Also, hang the pope for crimes against humanity in a new Nuremberg trial.

End of rant.

892. Quackbuster causes too much flak for university

Comment #244116 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 10:55 am

OOPS

I've just noticed that this thread is ancient. Hopefully, in the meantime Bonzai has come to accept science wherever it leads, even if it conflicts with one's belief-system.

893. Quackbuster causes too much flak for university

Comment #244100 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 9:59 am

Bonzai

As usual, when it comes to this issue you make a lot of loud-mouthed claims, general accusations and attempts to discredit "the so-called scientific medicine", in your own unfortunate choice of words.
All this because of your emotional attachment to Chinese traditional quackery.

Name the CEOs, the whistle-blowers fired, the deleterious compounds still sold and prescribed, or STFU, if you please.

To my knowledge there have been a handful of cases, they were all successfully dealt with after the regulatory bodies found them unsafe. As it is customary within the best tradition of peer-reviewed scientific process.

894. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #244006 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #243887 by NakedCelt

The concept is scientifically flawed. The immune system is nothing like a muscle that can be exercised or boosted in its general functionality. It is like a network of entities ranging from substances secreted by organs, to antibodies, to specific cells and tissues that are not fully synchronised - each one specialised in certain reactions against pathogens, parasites and even cancer cells.

Its functionality has evolved through our collective epidemiological history and consists in the capability to detect internal and external harmful agents and to fight them off - ideally without damaging too much the host in the process.
Boost your immune system, and it will over-react causing allergies and potentially lethal fevers. Boost it even further and you will end up with dreadful autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis.

The closest scientific concept to boosting the immune system is vaccination, where targeted responses are stimulated and parts of the system are "coached" to react to specific pathogens.

Finally, you say:

And -- for me as a layman -- "the scientific consensus" is effectively an authority opinion. I can't help remembering, from my days as a geology student before I switched to anthropology, that the scientific consensus on continental drift until about the 1960s was that it was hokum. They taught us that to make sure we understood about science being amenable to new evidence.

This is wrong. Even though you eventually arrive to the crucial difference on your own, somehow you fail to connect the dots.

Regardless of who you are, scientific consensus is the very opposite of an authority opinion. Scientific consensus is based on the best available evidence and can be swayed when new and better evidence becomes available (as it is case in the example that you provided), while an authority opinion is by definition a rigid position uninformed by evidence.

It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.


Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527.

895. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #243963 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #243907 by Quine

I don't have time for a lengthy comment right now, but I perceive an obsession with money, costs and returns throughout his reply.

896. Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence

Comment #243847 by decius on September 7, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #243834 by epeeist

This wouldn't have had anything to do with the postings of Joe Morreale would it?

Oh the irony, if that were the case.

897. Trichoplax Genome Sequenced: 'Rosetta Stone' For Understanding Evolution

Comment #243729 by decius on September 7, 2008 at 6:13 am

Quit spamming all threads, Morgan. We don't give a shit in any case.

898. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243570 by decius on September 6, 2008 at 8:37 am

Comment #243563 by SidewalkCynic

There is no doubt in my mind that violence and teen age pregnancy has dramatically increased since the banishment of school prayer,

Confusing correlation with causation, a logical fallacy usually committed by scientifically-illiterate people not gifted with reason.

899. Opening minds

Comment #243568 by decius on September 6, 2008 at 8:28 am

Roger

Thanks for your very informative reply.

I understand your political perspective, but I fully agree with Titania's interpretation and echo her response.

900. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #243552 by decius on September 6, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #243546 by blakjack

Scientific scepticism is what you should look up.