MEMBERS COMMENTS

< Prev  3 / 177  Next >
TYT - Former Mexican president's message for Trump 88% Posted Sep 2017

TYT - Former Mexican president's message for Trump

Comment: 97 days ago

Here's the full version: https://youtu.be/-ukv9v7IGZw

And yes, it is fun.

Meanwhile in Alabama, how to tow a car 87% Posted Sep 2017

Meanwhile in Alabama, how to tow a car

Comment: 99 days ago

Not the brightest photon in a laser beam.

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos? 65% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos?

Comment: 100 days ago

So you're paid for your writing as well. Are you paid by the word? Because you sure do use a lot of them.

I didn't like how you tried to imply that I think religion is why people don't interfaith marry when I said nothing of the sort. Or that atheists are intolerant of interfaith marriage because, hey, look at Orthodox Christians in the US. That was just silly. You should have some wages docked for that.

OK, let's talk about what might prevent interfaith marriages. Religion obviously has a role, but I would have thought the most significant players are psychology and maths. Psychology - people tend to mix with those they have things in common with, and maths - the choice of spouse is  limited to who you mix with. An Orthodox Christian in America will probably mix with other faiths more than an Orthodox Christian in Greece because of the make up of the population, and hence more likely to marry outside their faith than their Greek counterpart.

TYT - Strongest hurricane ever recorded in Atlantic 87% Posted Sep 2017

TYT - Strongest hurricane ever recorded in Atlantic

Comment: 100 days ago

That is a really stupid comment. Thank god humans are causing climate change. If we can change the climate, then we are capable of changing it to suit our needs. Imagine if the world was warming because the sun was getting hotter. Then we'd be truly funked.

And here's the thing - what we need to do to stabilise the climate is better than business as usual. For example, transitioning from a fossil fueled world to sustainable energy will create jobs and money making opportunities for many more people than sticking to the status quo. Future jobs are not in coal as Trump seems to think.

Transitioning to green energy removes the reason to go to war over oil. It allows countries, and even individuals, to become much more self-sufficient removing a lot of the politics that fossil fuels create - for example Europe's reliance on gas and oil from Russia.

Solar power in particular has the potential to democratise energy - many people will be able to provide all their energy needs from the footprint of their home - sticking 2 fingers up to corporate power companies.

If all our energy is clean and dirt cheap, which it surely can be, we can use pretty much as much as we want to solve big global problems - like water desalination.

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos? 65% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos?

Comment: 105 days ago

We were not talking about "what might drive people to create designer babies".

I made a statement that some religions have an intolerance to interfaith marriage as a way to further their religion. This was how I worded it: "Some religions create "designer babies" by trying to prevent marriage outside their faith. The goal isn't for more gifted musicians, but for people who all think the same." 

You might have come back with - those religions are not really intolerant to interfaith marriage, their aim was to create coherent families. Or maybe - at the time, there was a belief that when conflicting ideas met, the brain melted and that was a bad thing.

But instead, you chose to go off piste "That's why atheists tend to marry each other too I guess", which quickly became - what about American atheists who interfaith marry less than American Orthodox Christians?

For somebody who analyses text for a living, you sure are jumping about a lot.

Richard Dawkins - Not all opinions are equal 88% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins - Not all opinions are equal

Comment: 106 days ago

Talk about attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Dawkins is highly educated and knowledgeable but says even he is not equipped to vote on Brexit. His expertise is not in the EU, trade deals, law and politics. Would you want a highly educated and knowledgeable historian to perform surgery on you?

As the world gets more and more complicated, this is a huge and growing problem - how do non-experts evaluate very complicated subjects. Do we just have to trust experts?

Maybe we should vote on goals rather than policy, and get AI to propose policies to meet those goals. For example, a goal might be to control immigration to a sustainable level. AI might suggest we just implement current  EU rules that other EU countries have implemented - if you haven't got a job or can't financially support yourself after 3 months, you can't stay. Or maybe invest some of the taxes that immigrants pay into education and health to serve the growing population as a whole. Most likely, AI will propose solutions that nobody has even thought of before. 

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos? 65% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos?

Comment: 108 days ago

Thanks, I finally found the Orthodox Christians stats. I wish websites wouldn't display text as images, because it makes the text unsearchable. I did come across that page, searched for "orthodox", and moved on because there were no results.

So you now accept that religions (at least the 4 biggies) are intolerant to interfaith marriage. Yes, followers interpret their faith in different ways, but the original texts are intolerant to interfaith marriage.

The point I made was that the reason they are intolerant to interfaith marriage is that it's a way to create new followers - people who all think the same. Do you agree with that? In Islam, if a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, the children are to be brought up Muslim. What do you think about that?

Instead of staying on topic, you wanted to engage in classic whataboutery - what about US atheists who intermarry less than US Orthodox Christians? That was some swerve.

I was especially impressed by your "zooming out" technique, you certainly picked that up quick. You zoomed out to US Orthodox Christians. You could have gone further to US Jehovah's Witnesses, who rival even US Buddhists in interfaith marriage. 

There are over 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, less than 1 million of them are in the US. I think a little less cherry-picking would have been good. I can't be bothered to look it up, but I'd wager that most atheists in Norway marry atheists, most Orthodox Christians in Greece marry Orthodox Christians and most Muslims in Saudi Arabia marry Muslims.

If you want to talk about why people do not adhere to their to the original texts of their holy books, then we can.

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray 86% Posted Aug 2017

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray

Comment: 108 days ago

I thought feather-pants might tickle your balls. Never anticipated the jazz talk though. Good one.

Richard Dawkins - Not all opinions are equal 88% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins - Not all opinions are equal

Comment: 108 days ago

Maybe Churchill put it better: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

How does CO2 actually warm the planet? 92% Posted Aug 2017

How does CO2 actually warm the planet?

Comment: 109 days ago

Now you're trolling - which means you realise that you didn't understand the issues well enough. That's OK. Hopefully this new information will stay in your head and change the way you think about climate change in the future.

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos? 65% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos?

Comment: 111 days ago

There are thousands of religions today, of the 4 biggies - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism - all are intolerant to interfaith marriage to varying degrees. 

An atheist and a Muslim fall in love and want to marry. Where do you think objections are going to come from? The atheist, the Muslim, or Islamic ideology?

A Christian and a Muslim fall in love and want to marry. Where do you think objections are going to come from? The Christian, the Muslim, Islamic ideology, or Christian ideology?

Correct answers have the word ideology in them.

---

Confirmation bias must be blinding me. I still can't find those stats about Orthodox Christians. What is the actual wording of the link to page 2? I can then search for the link.

How do you buy a Rolls-Royce? 87% Posted Aug 2017

How do you buy a Rolls-Royce?

Comment: 111 days ago

Life's too short to buy a Rolls.

What happens in a self-driving Tesla if you fall asleep at the wheel 87% Posted Aug 2017

What happens in a self-driving Tesla if you fall asleep at the wheel

Comment: 112 days ago

My guess is that it will pull over to the hard shoulder on a motorway. Stopping in a lane on a motorway is probably illegal.

But on a country road, pulling over is not a good idea because the car doesn't know what the surface is. It might be soft, or even quicksand.

What would be cool is for the car to move forward if it detects that it is about to be rear-ended, and if the space in front is clear. Hazards could get brighter and flash faster as a car approaches from behind depending on how fast the car is going and whether or not it is decelerating. At the last moment, if computer says a crash is imminent, a giant airbag could pop out of the rear bumper absorbing the bulk of the impact.

If there's no reaction from the driver after a specified time, the car could call emergency services. Maybe the driver had a heart attack.

How does CO2 actually warm the planet? 92% Posted Aug 2017

How does CO2 actually warm the planet?

Comment: 113 days ago

The CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere is still there, sort of. CO2 is "recycled" by life on Earth. Plants absorb CO2 from the air, use the C (carbon) to build themselves, and return the O (oxygen) back into the air. The process is photosynthesis. It's weird to think that trees grow out of the air and not the ground, but that's actually what happens.

The oxygen in the air is then absorbed by animals (we beathe oxygen) which oxidises our food providing us with energy, the waste from that process is CO2, which we breathe out back into the air - ready for plants to use again. And so the cycle continues. If plants absorb the same amount of CO2 as animals breathe out, then CO2 levels will remain the same.

There are plenty of other processes going on as well - oceans absorb CO2, volcanos emit CO2 - but overall, for the last 10,000 years, the level of  greenhouse gases in the air has remained relatively constant and is just the right amount to provided humans the stable climate to develop. It's no coincident that human civilisation developed over this period. A stable climate meant humans could settle down and start farming rather than being nomadic and chasing food all the time.

When a plant dies, most of it decomposes and returns to the air in the form of CO2 and other gases, but some of the carbon in the plant stays in the ground. Over millions of years, this carbon, under the huge pressures of the rocks above, becomes oil and coal.

When we burn oil or coal, put that carbon back into the atmosphere again. So when you drive a petrol car, you are ADDING CO2  that was previously "locked up" underground, to the air. Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 was about 280 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm.

We are adding about 40 billion tons of CO2 to the air every year. And it's still increasing a % or 2 each year. So that near perfect level of 280 ppm is shooting up, hence global warming. Also, when we cut down a tree, we are reducing the number of plants that can absorb CO2. It's a double whammy.

The detail is much more complicated than I have described or even understand, but that's the gist of it.

----

Can we do anything about it? Yes we can. If we stop adding greenhouse gases to the air, that would be a start, and over time (maybe hundreds of years), the composition of the atmosphere will return to something more suitable for human civilisation.

But there are massive problems looming. Under the permafrost, that's the ice in the northern hemisphere that remains frozen thoughout the year (Siberia, northern Canada etc.) there are huge amounts of partly decomposed organic material that hasn't fully decomposed becaused it has been frozen for thousands, probably millions of years. If the permafrost melts, it will expose this organic material to the air which will then decompose releasing CO2 and methane. These emissions will make our emissions look like baby food.

Unfortunately, the permafrost is melting and methane is already being released. There are many other huge related problems. The oceans have absorbed so much CO2 that they are acidifying (CO2 becomes carbonic acid in water), which is affecting the ecosystems in the oceans.

Basically, if we carry on business as usual, that's the end of human civilisation as we know it, and possibly the end of life on Earth. Scientists believe that's what happened on Venus - runaway global warming caused by natural processes resulting in an atmosphere 96% CO2 at over 400C.

What we need to do, is for the whole world to come together to "fight"  global warming rather than fighting ourselves. The urgency cannot be underestimated. Every year we do nothing, or not enough, the higher chance    Earth will end up like Venus. The cost of inaction is far higher than action. If you think immigration is a problem today, just wait until hundreds of millions of people start moving north because their countries are too hot to live in.

If only we could kickstart a global green revolution, with AI helping us make the right decisions...

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos? 65% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos?

Comment: 113 days ago

"Oh, OK. I guess when you said 'some religions' refuse interfaith marriage..." Why don't you stop guessing and just read. You're back to your sloppy ways again.

I said "Some religions create "designer babies" by trying to prevent marriage outside their faith." Religious people are bound by a rule book which they interpret in various ways. The rule book tries to influence followers, and it succeeds to varying degrees. It is the ideology I'm talking about, not whether or not followers adhere to their ideology.

YOU introduced atheism into the conversation. Atheism is not a religion. It is not an ideology. There is no rule book. Even if all atheists marry atheists, there is no rule book to say they should. It is their choice, dictated only by the laws of the land and the wishes of their partner.

I couldn't find the stats you quoted about Orthodox Christians. Do send me a link, but it's irrelevant. If Orthodox Christians choose to shun their ideology, then good for them. "... Orthodox Christians who marry outside the Church are deprived of the sacraments of the Church." http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/orthodoxchristianmarriage.aspx

Zoom out a bit and look at the bigger picture. It will help.

Lawrence Krauss - Does ESP make sense? 87% Posted Jul 2017

Lawrence Krauss - Does ESP make sense?

Comment: 113 days ago

If you want to understand something, zoom out rather than in. That's my advice to you. It's like painting a portrait. If you concentrate too much on an eye, you'll get an unbalanced picture that may not even tell you the age or gender of the sitter. Much better to sketch out the face first and fill in details as you go along.

Randi's prank? What are you talking about? When Randi said "I always have an 'out'", he actually said: "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!". Over 1,000 people have taken the challenge, and none have succeeded. The detail is quite interesting. Try Wikipedia, probably the best starting point on the internet for anything you know little about.

CIA's Stargate Project was ended because it didn't work. CIA's psychics failed. "The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague, included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues." Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could watch the movie, 'The Men Who Stare at Goats'.

"You've built your world view that is consistent principally with what you already believe." My world view is built on the facts I have. Randi's challenge, CIA's Stargate, Uri Geller, Derren Brown, and the fact that no one of the 7 billion on the planet has made it super rich using psychic powers - are all consistent with ESP not being real. So are the "surprising" results of Bem's experiments and the 90 replications if methods in experimental psychology are flawed, as claimed by many experts.

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray 86% Posted Aug 2017

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray

Comment: 113 days ago

Since 'Judge less, understand more' is a soundbite that I made up, I can define it how I want. Seeing it as an action is consistent with things I have said before. Remember 'practical/pragmatic philosophy'? 

As for straight-up name-calling when I'm under pressure, when did I do that? I can only think it must have been Snowflake that triggered you. I thought it was funny. I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were so sensitive. How about feather-pants. Can you handle that?

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray 86% Posted Aug 2017

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray

Comment: 113 days ago

Yes you're right. This business model - stoke up fear and then sell products on the back of it - is rife with the hard libertarian right in the US. But she can still be bonkers. I'm sure she believes what she's spouting.

It's like Trump. Is he playing 3d chess, and everything will ultimately turn out great? Or is he an idiot?

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos? 65% Posted Aug 2017

Richard Dawkins: Does editing human genes break moral taboos?

Comment: 113 days ago

So I was right all along. I should've stuck with Islam. Next time I won't listen to you. My bad.

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray 86% Posted Aug 2017

Paula White: Trump loves prayer, we gotta pray

Comment: 114 days ago

'Judge less, understand more' is not a principle. It's an action.

And Wikipedia says she's nuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_statistical_regions_of_the_United_Kingdom

PROFILE

WalterEgo

WalterEgo