Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 23:11, Warp wrote:
> > I don't really even understand why they are so fixated
> > about that "kind hypothesis" anyways, as if it was somehow crucial.

> Because we have examples of observed evolution of new species during 
> sufficiently recent history that it's scientific evidence. Hence, they can't 
> say a kind is a species, because then they'd be admitting evolution actually 
> happens.

  So it's a kind of concession in the face of insurmountable evidence?

  What I find amusing is these intelligent designers who concede that
variation happens within species, and even go so far as to concede that
*speciation* happens (even if they only concede it so far as it happening
only within their mythical "kind"), yet they vehemently attest that these
are not evidence of evolution, and that the theory of evolution is totally
false and unscientific, requires more faith than religion, and whatnot.
Yet variation, speciation and natural selection is what the theory of
evolution is all about.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:34:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I don't even understand what rational reason there is to oppose that
> idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?

Yes, because it costs money to come up with alternatives, and people are 
generally lazy and don't want to spend.  Especially here in the US with 
the 'consumer society' we live in, it's all about getting *stuff*.  We'd 
have to actually control our impulses in order to reduce consumption.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 23:16, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<fee### [at] festercom>  wrote:
> >> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
> >> beliefs.
> >
> >    The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
> > popular. It is not the explanation.

> I've heard it's much more likely the diversity of culture here than the 
> presence of guns. Give the same number of guns to the Swiss or the Japanese, 
> and you (do/would) get no problems at all.  But here we have neighbors each 
> thinking the other shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen because of their 
> skin color, their religious belief, etc.

  I think Canada proves that hypothesis wrong, as Canada isn't any less
multicultural as the US (and guns are quite popular there too).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:40:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
> people actually stupid? 

Um, NO!  Hello, there are many Americans here who are demonstrably not 
*that stupid*.

> Or is it merely a very vocal minority?

Yes, unfortunately, one that manages somehow to wield political power in 
order to advance their agenda.

> Refusing to believe that evolution is happening is approximately like
> refusing to believe that the Earth is round. Yes, the Earth doesn't
> *look* very round, and it's intuitively baffling that the people at the
> bottom don't fall off, but the evidence is incontrovertible. Anyone who
> still insists that it's a global conspiracy is obviously a nutjob.
> 
> Of course, America has a reputation for being crazy. I even saw an
> advert for Californian peanuts which proclaimed "California has the best
> nuts". But is it actually true? Or is it just a few loonies who make it
> look like it's true?

That's called 'advertising'.  That's different than being crazy - you 
promote a product as 'the best' in the hopes that people will believe it 
or build an association between 'the best' and their product.  Even 
though it's demonstrably unprovable or even not true, the psychology is 
there to build that association.

> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
> that's not terribly significant, however...)

You've met several up here (though not in person which is what I suspect 
you mean), but you should know better by now than to make generalisations 
about a society where you have a very small sample size.  If you don't, 
it's time that you learned that lesson.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Saying "shut down 80% of the power plants in your 
> country and go back to 19th century technology" is something else.

  How about "shut down 80% of the power plants in your country and move
to the 21st century already"? Producing energy by eg. burning coal is just
utterly stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:40, Invisible wrote:
> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?

First, I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't remember 
anything beyond arguing over abortion and making fun of TV megachurch 
preachers until maybe 20 years ago. Nobody argued over evolution or kicked 
people out of school for saying "One Nation Under God" or whatever. Religion 
was just a non-subject for the most part.

I think what happened is (a) the USSR collapsed so there was nobody outside 
to hate mindlessly other than the Chinese who refused to invade anyone but 
other orientals, (b) politicians realized they could polarize the voters on 
abortion issues with the help of the churches, (c) talk radio hosts realized 
they could raise a bunch of listeners by telling stupid gullible people what 
they wanted to hear, which eventually turned into politicians listening to 
the now-vocal stupid gullible people.

The TV church people are a good example. You often see tapes of them in 
private saying how easy it is to bilk the people stupid enough to believe 
they know what they're talking about, etc. So a lot of it is just loud rich 
people taking advantage of stupid gullibility, and that sadly includes the 
politicians, who will go along with the stupid gullible stuff to get into 
and stay in office while they also do the selfish evil crap everyone hates.

I mean, there were always stupid gullible people. But until you gave them 
something like the internet, where everyone in the country could hear them 
and find other stupid gullible people, the few rational people around them 
could keep them in check by saying "No, sorry, that's stupid and gullible, 
please keep that to yourself."

But now you can get on the internet and get all the reinforcement of stupid 
ideas you need and ignore all the objections thereto by simply not looking 
at them.

> Of course, America has a reputation for being crazy. I even saw an advert
> for Californian peanuts which proclaimed "California has the best nuts". But
> is it actually true? Or is it just a few loonies who make it look like it's
> true?

I personally think it was basically harmless until you gave the loonies a 
platform where they could reach other loonies without the rational people 
hearing them.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 4:47, Invisible wrote:
> Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O

In many ways, yes.  Some ways are really well defended. Others, not so much.

> [Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally gives up
> trying to understand and asks me about something else.]

That's not stupid. That's just not thinking like a computer scientist.

> depending on your point of view. But the complete inability of the man to
> comprehend a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT even after having me explain it six
> different ways cannot be regarded as a good thing from any perspective.

It's only simple if you think his job should be to understand the scripts. 
I'd say his failure was asking you for the details in the first place.

> The other Americans I've worked with have all been similarly dense. Perhaps
> this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P

Go read Dilbert. ;-)

Plus, you're interacting with them in a very restricted way about a very 
restricted topic. If you went out to the pub with them and asked them the 
meaning of life, they might be tremendously insightful. (Or not, mind.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:34:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > I don't even understand what rational reason there is to oppose that
> > idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?

> Yes, because it costs money to come up with alternatives, and people are 
> generally lazy and don't want to spend.  Especially here in the US with 
> the 'consumer society' we live in, it's all about getting *stuff*.  We'd 
> have to actually control our impulses in order to reduce consumption.

  One problem with that lazy ideology is that most people assume fossil
fuels will last forever. If we don't come up with alternative ways of
producing energy, we are going back to the 19th century whether we want
it or not, and that's going to happen relatively soon.

  Well, at least pollution will be reduced when we run out of fossil fuels.
Something positive at least.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 5:21, Invisible wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 13:16, Warp wrote:
>
>> Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
>> not even a hypothetical.
>
> OK, that's scary... I didn't realise there were any countries like that.

You're joking, right? Or did you mean "western, secular countries" when you 
said "any"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> First, I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't remember 
> anything beyond arguing over abortion and making fun of TV megachurch 
> preachers until maybe 20 years ago. Nobody argued over evolution or kicked 
> people out of school for saying "One Nation Under God" or whatever. Religion 
> was just a non-subject for the most part.

  I don't think that's completely true. See for example:

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message