Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is 
viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:

http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=53176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 01/12/2017 04:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>
>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=53176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2

The writers of said science fiction saga do not believe in facts.  You 
can show them the evidence, the videos, the fossils, the birth 
certificates, and even the confessions and apologies of their own 
Republican leaders, and they will dismiss it all out of hand, because 
the facts stubbornly refuse to conform to their fixed beliefs.

BTW, "fixed beliefs" is *their* terminology.

Their attempt to redefine science is nothing new.  They've been trying 
for years to force scientists in the USA to include the supernatural in 
their theories.  This, of course, fits into their narrative that reality 
is defined by what they believe.  If the scientific method isn't to 
their liking, they just redefine it, and cry "unfair" when scientists 
explain that they don't get to do that.

We've even got an Australian immigrant, who's found fertile ground in 
the USA, lecturing scientists on what is proper science!  And he's 
conned the Kentucky legislature into giving him a huge tax break on a 
big boat on dry land, because if scientists knew what they were doing, 
they'd obviously understand that children rode bareback on velociraptors 
before the Big Flood.

This is the mindset of approximately a quarter of all USAmericans.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-1-2017 23:57, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 01/12/2017 04:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
>> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>>
>>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=53176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>>
>
> The writers of said science fiction saga do not believe in facts.  You
> can show them the evidence, the videos, the fossils, the birth
> certificates, and even the confessions and apologies of their own
> Republican leaders, and they will dismiss it all out of hand, because
> the facts stubbornly refuse to conform to their fixed beliefs.
>
> BTW, "fixed beliefs" is *their* terminology.
>
> Their attempt to redefine science is nothing new.  They've been trying
> for years to force scientists in the USA to include the supernatural in
> their theories.  This, of course, fits into their narrative that reality
> is defined by what they believe.  If the scientific method isn't to
> their liking, they just redefine it, and cry "unfair" when scientists
> explain that they don't get to do that.
>
> We've even got an Australian immigrant, who's found fertile ground in
> the USA, lecturing scientists on what is proper science!  And he's
> conned the Kentucky legislature into giving him a huge tax break on a
> big boat on dry land, because if scientists knew what they were doing,
> they'd obviously understand that children rode bareback on velociraptors
> before the Big Flood.
>
> This is the mindset of approximately a quarter of all USAmericans.
>

Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought 
such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any more 
as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving 
science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the world, 
including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new 
administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am afraid.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought
> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any more
> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the world,
> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
> afraid.

At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
Just by pure narcissism.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-1-2017 10:12, clipka wrote:
> Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought
>> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any more
>> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
>> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the world,
>> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
>> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
>> afraid.
>
> At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
> Just by pure narcissism.
>

That is true, but is is not only about religion I am afraid. It is about 
a growing scepticism about science /per se/. The internet and utube are 
not entirely foreign to this.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2017 7:49 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-1-2017 10:12, clipka wrote:
>> Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>>> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought
>>> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any more
>>> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
>>> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the world,
>>> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
>>> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
>>> afraid.
>>
>> At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
>> Just by pure narcissism.
>>
>
> That is true, but is is not only about religion I am afraid. It is about
> a growing scepticism about science /per se/. The internet and utube are
> not entirely foreign to this.
>

It is the Revenge of The Turnip. [Creepy music]
When The Pumpkin supplanted The Turnip as the face o' Halloween. The 
Great Neep cursed the land with the love of the Big and Easy. Then the 
internet joined the dots.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.01.2017 um 08:49 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 13-1-2017 10:12, clipka wrote:
>> Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>>> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought
>>> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any more
>>> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
>>> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the world,
>>> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
>>> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
>>> afraid.
>>
>> At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
>> Just by pure narcissism.
>>
> 
> That is true, but is is not only about religion I am afraid. It is about
> a growing scepticism about science /per se/. The internet and utube are
> not entirely foreign to this.

What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
function as anything else.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-1-2017 12:33, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.01.2017 um 08:49 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 13-1-2017 10:12, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought
>>>> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any more
>>>> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
>>>> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the world,
>>>> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
>>>> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
>>>> afraid.
>>>
>>> At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
>>> Just by pure narcissism.
>>>
>>
>> That is true, but is is not only about religion I am afraid. It is about
>> a growing scepticism about science /per se/. The internet and utube are
>> not entirely foreign to this.
>
> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
> function as anything else.
>

You are absolutely right.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2017 4:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 14-1-2017 12:33, clipka wrote:
>> Am 14.01.2017 um 08:49 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> On 13-1-2017 10:12, clipka wrote:
>>>> Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that thought
>>>>> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any
>>>>> more
>>>>> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
>>>>> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the
>>>>> world,
>>>>> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
>>>>> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
>>>>> afraid.
>>>>
>>>> At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
>>>> Just by pure narcissism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is true, but is is not only about religion I am afraid. It is about
>>> a growing scepticism about science /per se/. The internet and utube are
>>> not entirely foreign to this.
>>
>> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
>> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
>> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
>> function as anything else.
>>
>
> You are absolutely right.
>
Mind you, in this case, one needs to make a distinction between a "free 
press", which may not have entirely ever existed, and one solely owned, 
and directed, by specific people and ideologies. When one person owns 
90% of the press on one side of the line, and the other side is owned, 
again, by a similarly small handful of corporations, with their own 
roughly uniform agenda... where is the "free" coming in exactly. Most of 
radio is now owned by conservatives, who run the same people on there as 
Fox News. Worse, the only opposition to them, on TV at least, is MSNBC, 
which has been caught firing people, like Fox does, for saying things 
that their owners don't like, even when factual, and CNN - which the 
running joke has, in recent years, been either than they should start 
re-running old content, where they used to get things right once in a 
while, or that they just repeat what everyone else says, without 
bothering to check if any of it is factually accurate - i.e., "We report 
the news, what ever the heck someone else thinks is the news. Its not 
our job to check any of it."

Most of the "free press" as is stands today is online, not even if the 
news stands (where often, if you are lucky, instead of 10 papers, from 
all over the country, you might get one local one, one right wing owned 
one, a few rags/penny dreadful types, and maybe one from a nearby bigger 
city. Heck, here we get the local, which is worthless, one from another 
state, because no one will deliver the nearest one from Pheonix, and the 
bloody Wallstreet Urinal.). And, of course, the biggest problem with the 
online sources is that there *is* no news stand, so everyone just 
migrates, in most cases, to which ever source most supports their views, 
even if that means the "source" is batshit insane places like Info Wars, 
or the like.

Its kind of hard to have a true free press when "all" of them are owned 
by political entities, with their single goal being, "Tell people what 
we want them to believe, not what is actually happening."

Of course no one trusts the press right now, especially in the US. The 
problem is... most of them only really distrust the press that is 
telling them the opposite of what they want to hear, not the whole mess 
in general. So, its always the "other side" that needs to be fixed, and 
to stop lying.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 14-1-2017 13:25, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/14/2017 4:57 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 14-1-2017 12:33, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 14.01.2017 um 08:49 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>> On 13-1-2017 10:12, clipka wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.01.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes indeed. I used to laugh about those "silly" Americans that
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> such quixotic things. For a number of years, I am not laughing any
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> as the disease is spreading outside the US, and deriding/disbelieving
>>>>>> science in general is becoming fashionable in more places in the
>>>>>> world,
>>>>>> including Europe. It is a worrisome development. With the new
>>>>>> administration in place, things are not likely to become better I am
>>>>>> afraid.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least The Pumpkin himself doesn't seem to be motivated by religion.
>>>>> Just by pure narcissism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is true, but is is not only about religion I am afraid. It is
>>>> about
>>>> a growing scepticism about science /per se/. The internet and utube are
>>>> not entirely foreign to this.
>>>
>>> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
>>> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
>>> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
>>> function as anything else.
>>>
>>
>> You are absolutely right.
>>
> Mind you, in this case, one needs to make a distinction between a "free
> press", which may not have entirely ever existed, and one solely owned,
> and directed, by specific people and ideologies. When one person owns
> 90% of the press on one side of the line, and the other side is owned,
> again, by a similarly small handful of corporations, with their own
> roughly uniform agenda... where is the "free" coming in exactly. Most of
> radio is now owned by conservatives, who run the same people on there as
> Fox News. Worse, the only opposition to them, on TV at least, is MSNBC,
> which has been caught firing people, like Fox does, for saying things
> that their owners don't like, even when factual, and CNN - which the
> running joke has, in recent years, been either than they should start
> re-running old content, where they used to get things right once in a
> while, or that they just repeat what everyone else says, without
> bothering to check if any of it is factually accurate - i.e., "We report
> the news, what ever the heck someone else thinks is the news. Its not
> our job to check any of it."
>
> Most of the "free press" as is stands today is online, not even if the
> news stands (where often, if you are lucky, instead of 10 papers, from
> all over the country, you might get one local one, one right wing owned
> one, a few rags/penny dreadful types, and maybe one from a nearby bigger
> city. Heck, here we get the local, which is worthless, one from another
> state, because no one will deliver the nearest one from Pheonix, and the
> bloody Wallstreet Urinal.). And, of course, the biggest problem with the
> online sources is that there *is* no news stand, so everyone just
> migrates, in most cases, to which ever source most supports their views,
> even if that means the "source" is batshit insane places like Info Wars,
> or the like.
>
> Its kind of hard to have a true free press when "all" of them are owned
> by political entities, with their single goal being, "Tell people what
> we want them to believe, not what is actually happening."
>
> Of course no one trusts the press right now, especially in the US. The
> problem is... most of them only really distrust the press that is
> telling them the opposite of what they want to hear, not the whole mess
> in general. So, its always the "other side" that needs to be fixed, and
> to stop lying.
>

The only press I recognise are the fact-finding and fact-checking 
national newspapers like Le Monde in France for instance. Each country 
has at least one of those. They can make errors and misjudgements but I 
recognise them as honest.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.01.2017 um 13:25 schrieb Patrick Elliott:

>>> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
>>> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
>>> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
>>> function as anything else.
>>>
>>
>> You are absolutely right.
>>
> Mind you, in this case, one needs to make a distinction between a "free
> press", which may not have entirely ever existed, and one solely owned,
> and directed, by specific people and ideologies. When one person owns
> 90% of the press on one side of the line, and the other side is owned,
> again, by a similarly small handful of corporations, with their own
> roughly uniform agenda... where is the "free" coming in exactly. Most of
> radio is now owned by conservatives, who run the same people on there as
> Fox News. Worse, the only opposition to them, on TV at least, is MSNBC,
[...]

Mind you, what you are describing is the situation in the US.

I, on the other hand, am also (and in fact even more) worried about
stuff happening over here in Germany, where at least a reasonable
portion of the news media is indeed (according to my view of things)
quite independent.

It is /particularly/ this independent portion of news media that has
recently become more and more frequently titulated as "Lügenpresse"
("lies press").

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2017 12:49 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.01.2017 um 13:25 schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>>>> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
>>>> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
>>>> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
>>>> function as anything else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are absolutely right.
>>>
>> Mind you, in this case, one needs to make a distinction between a "free
>> press", which may not have entirely ever existed, and one solely owned,
>> and directed, by specific people and ideologies. When one person owns
>> 90% of the press on one side of the line, and the other side is owned,
>> again, by a similarly small handful of corporations, with their own
>> roughly uniform agenda... where is the "free" coming in exactly. Most of
>> radio is now owned by conservatives, who run the same people on there as
>> Fox News. Worse, the only opposition to them, on TV at least, is MSNBC,
> [...]
>
> Mind you, what you are describing is the situation in the US.
>
> I, on the other hand, am also (and in fact even more) worried about
> stuff happening over here in Germany, where at least a reasonable
> portion of the news media is indeed (according to my view of things)
> quite independent.
>
> It is /particularly/ this independent portion of news media that has
> recently become more and more frequently titulated as "Lügenpresse"
> ("lies press").
>
Already being done here in the US. Even as far back as when Palin was 
running as VP (shudder), she and others have been rambling about how the 
"main stream media" are all liars (while apparently Fox didn't count as 
one of them, for some reason). Our new idiot in chief Trumpkins has, in 
the mean time, praised a penny dreadful (as the brits call them) called 
the National Enquirer as, "One of the best news sources in print", or 
something to the effect. This silly assed rag mag has been pushing BS 
about everything from celebrities to Democrats, ranging from the still 
not dead birther BS, to trying to claim that, "If the Russians where 
really mixing up in the election, it was those losers, the Clintons they 
where helping!!" About.. 10 years ago, I guess, they where also the 
paper that bought out one called, "The Weekly World News", which... lets 
say we call it the rag that would be most likely to be consulted in the 
fictional universe of Men In Black about whether or not "The Bat Boy", 
had recently been discovered to have come from Alpha Centauri, and his 
alien parents where due to arrive to recover him.

Basically... you will find nitwits with Info War bumper stickers running 
around the US (the number one, "We believe every right wing conspiracy 
theory there is, even the ones that contradict each other.", website on 
the internet, who think the only legit TV news is Fox. What you won't 
find, at least in the city/state I am in, would be someone with a bumper 
sticker praising... anything that actually bothers to do real research 
on their stories. In fact... even the ones that actually, usually, as 
the other replying put it, is, "The one print media that actually checks 
their facts.", has been caught advocating things that are *not* factual, 
but fit the narrative of what their readers believe (usually involving 
alternative medicines, claimed, but not factually correct breakthroughs, 
etc. Though, this seems to be more of an author issue - they picked 
people to write for them with serious biases, who are impervious, on 
those subjects, to actual facts, or contradictory explanations/positions.

The problem, sadly, is that they are all becoming Russel's Teapotters. 
For so, so, many of them, popularity of an idea is more important than 
whether its backed by facts. Worse, for some the idea have become 
religion, and, like with the Tea Pot, once its cast as, "It must be 
there!", anyone, whether they have facts, or merely opinion, to the 
contrary, must be mentally unbalanced for not accepting it. So, you get 
some bloody idiot, in a paper who, on every other subject, actually does 
fact checking, who calls everyone fools for not believing that their 
"Teapot" will cure your cancer, and all but calling you a fool for not 
accepting this.

Some days it makes be dispair, because.. with fact checking itself being 
deemed either "too hard" or "unnecessary" to merely "report people's 
opinions", i.e., its not their job to tell you which one is pulling it 
out of their ass, even if they don't have an agenda of their own... how 
do you convince anyone to either a) stop doing this absurd nonsense, 
when supposedly reporting news, or b) actually start doing what they 
need to inform the public - which is make sure that the public knows 
which one of the two is lying their ass off, or merely making shit up, 
instead of presenting an evidenced opinion?

When even the ones that usually get things right publish complete BS, 
with no factual basis. Or, worse, in my opinion, a "factual basis" that 
is based on bad studies, with small sample sizes, which amount to pure 
opinion and speculation.... who do you trust then? Not everyone, even 
those with internet access, know where, or who, to go to, among actual 
scientists, or any other legit source, to find out if the story was 
based on, say, 20 years of research, and a credible claim, or either a) 
a leftist version of a study, conducted on 5 people, who already believe 
in the effects of stuffing mushrooms up their ass, or something.., or b) 
a right wing study, which turns out to have been shoveled out the door 
of some study farm, like Cato, which just makes shit up, whole cloth, 
without actually even doing a study at all.

What ever the press once aspired to, it has discovered, almost 
universally, across the board, that fiction pays more than telling the 
public they are actually wrong about what they believe. And.. when that 
happens... how do you salvage it?

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2017 um 20:26 schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> What ever the press once aspired to, it has discovered, almost
> universally, across the board, that fiction pays more than telling the
> public they are actually wrong about what they believe. And.. when that
> happens... how do you salvage it?

In Germany, the solution is pretty simple: The commercial media are
complemented by a set of publicly financed radio and TV stations,
semi-controlled at the federal states level. We all pay most of their
budget through a kind of dedicated tax, and in turn they are obligated
to provide not only entertainment but also educational and informational
programs, and their shows include some dedicated to genuine
investigative journalism, produced by sub-stations attached to federal
states with different political "tint", which helps to keep the entire
blend reasonably neutral as a whole.

Of course in a country where capitalism is the state religion, and where
having any government-directed social traits in the society is perceived
as socialism, socialism is perceived as synonymous with communism, and
communism is perceived as identical with Stalinism, that concept
obviously won't fly.

In other words: Yes, you're screwed. I guess you've always been, ever
since the day you allowed religious fanatics to immigrate into your
country, whose agenda has always been to impose their religion as law
upon the whole continent.

I'm talking of course about the Puritans and similar riff-raff.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2017 1:39 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 15.01.2017 um 20:26 schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> What ever the press once aspired to, it has discovered, almost
>> universally, across the board, that fiction pays more than telling the
>> public they are actually wrong about what they believe. And.. when that
>> happens... how do you salvage it?
>
> Of course in a country where capitalism is the state religion, and where
> having any government-directed social traits in the society is perceived
> as socialism, socialism is perceived as synonymous with communism, and
> communism is perceived as identical with Stalinism, that concept
> obviously won't fly.
>
Yep. We have NPR, which isn't always sensible, and PBS, which doesn't 
carry much news, let alone anything else. Both have been lambasted as 
liberal havens, which is hardly a surprise, since, as one blogger has 
commented, "Reality has a liberal bias." lol But, they also fall prey to 
some of the same errors I mentioned with the printed press - support for 
ideas not due to being factual, but being both popular, and liberal. 
This might be correctable, again, if not for the fact that they are also 
constantly in a state of being threatened with, or in the process of, 
being attacked and defunded by the right wing.

And, you are definitely right about the capitalism as a religion thing. 
Stupid morons are trying to gut the ACA (Affordable Care Act), even as 
they try to repeal it, stating, "Government subsidies will ruin health 
care. What we need instead of even looser regulations on insurance 
companies, and fewer complications for them.", or some stupid BS like 
that. Because.. the fact that they are the ones refusing to work across 
state lines, constantly raising costs, refusing to provide coverage for 
things, and arguing against having to cover people, who *might* actually 
need the insurance (instead of just the ones that will pay into it and 
never/rarely use it), has nothing to do with why so many people are 
still without any, and even the people with it can't bloody afford 
doctor visits. Oh, no, as usually, according to the bloody idiots that, 
in one case, actually used a picture from the Bioshock game's fictional, 
hyper-libertarian, propaganda on their own political website (while 
totally failing to recognize the irony, or nature of the game)- "The 
market will always fix things, if you just let it do what ever the F it 
wants, and everyone gets out of the way."

But, there is a backlash already. One ass had to sneak out of a town 
hall meeting early, due to the 150 completely hostile people that showed 
up, demanding to know how the frak they would keep their insurance, 
given their individual situations, if they gut, and never replace, all 
the provisions that specifically exist to make sure they can currently 
get it at all, like the one for pre-existing conditions. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> But, there is a backlash already. One ass had to sneak out of a town
> hall meeting early, due to the 150 completely hostile people that showed
> up, demanding to know how the frak they would keep their insurance,
> given their individual situations, if they gut, and never replace, all
> the provisions that specifically exist to make sure they can currently
> get it at all, like the one for pre-existing conditions. lol

Sounds like he was worried he might be gutted himself...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2017 8:05 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> But, there is a backlash already. One ass had to sneak out of a town
>> hall meeting early, due to the 150 completely hostile people that showed
>> up, demanding to know how the frak they would keep their insurance,
>> given their individual situations, if they gut, and never replace, all
>> the provisions that specifically exist to make sure they can currently
>> get it at all, like the one for pre-existing conditions. lol
>
> Sounds like he was worried he might be gutted himself...
>
lol Yeah. There has been a massive backlash over this, once people 
figured out that, "Whoops, this Obamacare thing is actually what I have 
my insurance through, and the people I stupidly helped elect want to 
kill it over *all of the stuff I actually like about it*."

Apparently, listening to the people that have been telling them all 
along that Trump, the Tea Party, and all these damn American 
hyper-libertarians was cutting our collective throats wasn't enough. Two 
of the most perfect cartoons for this idiocy too, both commented on by a 
blogger I read a lot today:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2017/01/thetest.jpg
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2017/01/The-Church-Unprophetic.jpg

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>
>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=5
3176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>
> --
> Thomas

Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2017 3:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>
>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=53176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>
>

A lot of things in medical research (or even in cosmetics, shampoos, 
etc.) suck. But the alternatives suck too.



Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9-3-2017 21:37, Shay wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
>> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>>
>>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=5
> 3176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?
>

I am foremost concerned these days by the way in which science and 
scientific results are simply dismissed as irrelevant, lies, if not 
'evil', by any person without the training/knowledge and for reasons of 
his/her own, those being political and/or religious. Climate change is a 
good example, especially in the US.

On the other hand, I agree with Mike in being concerned by some 
'scientific' developments, especially in the areas of cosmetics and such 
which only concern the money bag and which exploit human vanity and 
futility. One can also be concerned for instance by the ridiculous 
prices being asked for by laboratories for whole ranges of medicines 
being developed for different ailments. However, what are alternatives?

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 9-3-2017 21:37, Shay wrote:
> >
> > Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?
> >
>
> I am foremost concerned these days by the way in which science and
> scientific results are simply dismissed as irrelevant, lies, if not
> 'evil', by any person without the training/knowledge and for reasons of
> his/her own, those being political and/or religious.

You don't seem interested in the "scientific" polling question. Let's skip it.
Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
accept, for the moment, "science", not as a methodology, but as our
best-available equivalent of absolute truth.

Do you believe in science yourself? Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?

Science can only advise us to "Do THIS to achieve THAT." The value of THAT is a
meta-ethical proposition. We can (possibly) debate the comparative merits of
such propositions, but we'll need more sophisticated tools than "science QED" to
do so.

As for explicit denial of "science", everyone I've ever met is an implicit
deny-er of some sort.

"Believers" implicitly deny the existence of God by acting differently in public
than in private.

"Non-believers" implicitly deny a deterministic universe by offering (or even
accepting) value propositions.

The person who says "I don't /believe/ in the Big Bang"--as in "Evidence of the
Big Bang does not inform my behaviors or moral intuitions"--is arguably offering
a more rigorous description of a belief we all share.

My only point is that "science" is a poor, lazy argument for the /value/ of
fetal stem cells (or any other kind of organ harvesting).

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 9-3-2017 21:37, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>> Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?
>>>
>>
>> I am foremost concerned these days by the way in which science and
>> scientific results are simply dismissed as irrelevant, lies, if not
>> 'evil', by any person without the training/knowledge and for reasons of
>> his/her own, those being political and/or religious.
>
> You don't seem interested in the "scientific" polling question. Let's skip it.

What "scientific" polling question? What am I missing?


> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>
I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about 
"absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read 
the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can 
say, in my opinion.

> Do you believe in science yourself? Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?
>

Foe me the answers are: Sometimes, very seldom, sometimes, never, seldom 
and never. Not because of "Science" but because they don't interest me.

> Science can only advise us to "Do THIS to achieve THAT." The value of THAT is a
> meta-ethical proposition. We can (possibly) debate the comparative merits of
> such propositions, but we'll need more sophisticated tools than "science QED" to
> do so.
>
> As for explicit denial of "science", everyone I've ever met is an implicit
> deny-er of some sort.
>
I will agree that. Most people I know are or have been in denial of 
something at one time or another. Myself included. It is part of the 
human condition. It helps us get through life. (Only to regret it later, 
if we can.)



> "Believers" implicitly deny the existence of God by acting differently in public
> than in private.
>
> "Non-believers" implicitly deny a deterministic universe by offering (or even
> accepting) value propositions.
>
> The person who says "I don't /believe/ in the Big Bang"--as in "Evidence of the
> Big Bang does not inform my behaviors or moral intuitions"--is arguably offering
> a more rigorous description of a belief we all share.
>
> My only point is that "science" is a poor, lazy argument for the /value/ of
> fetal stem cells (or any other kind of organ harvesting).
>
>

Yes, I agree with that. I'll make no judgement on using "Science" as a 
justification for a belief system. I lost my faith in "Science" when my 
chemistry teacher showed us an experiment to electrolyse water into 
hydrogen and oxygen. He lied. He electrolysed dilute sulphuric acid into 
hydrogen and oxygen. H2O is such a good insulator it takes between 65 ~ 
70 million volts to pass a current through a meter of the liquid.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>
> > Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
> > shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
> > accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
> > best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
> >
> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
> say, in my opinion.

"Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
I think we're on the same page here.

I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."

Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
the "scientific" polling, but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
is a stronger point besides.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
>>> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
>>> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
>>> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>>>
>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>> say, in my opinion.
>
> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
> I think we're on the same page here.
>

Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.

> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>

Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.


> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
> the "scientific" polling,

True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project 
is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply 
they might have no morals.
Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a 
hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)


> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
> is a stronger point besides.
>

Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my 
native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
We will wait until the morning to see.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10-3-2017 20:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
>>>> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of
>>>> induction. Let us
>>>> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
>>>> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>>>>
>>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>>> say, in my opinion.
>>
>> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our
>> knowledge."
>> I think we're on the same page here.
>>
>
> Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.
>
>> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one
>> of the
>> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>>
>
> Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.
>
>
>> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any
>> arguments
>> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results"
>> and "what is
>> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was
>> going with
>> the "scientific" polling,
>
> True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
> But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project
> is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply
> they might have no morals.
> Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a
> hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)
>
>
>> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
>> is a stronger point besides.
>>
>
> Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my
> native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
> We will wait until the morning to see.
>

I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion 
is bypassing me so to speak.

Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking 
about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant. 
Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to 
say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people 
think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not. 
In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree 
with what Stephen said earlier.

About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that 
could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models 
based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-) 
I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life

Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"

The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
> is bypassing me so to speak.
>
> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
> with what Stephen said earlier.
>
Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not 
understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the 
reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are 
loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.

> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>
If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.

> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>
> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)

But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2017 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
>> is bypassing me so to speak.
>>
>> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
>> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
>> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
>> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
>> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
>> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
>> with what Stephen said earlier.
>>
> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.

:-/ We are living in sad times...

>
>> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
>> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
>> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
>> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>>
> If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.

In that case I am at a loss about its meaning.

>
>> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
>> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>>
>> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
>
> But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)

Aahh... You got me there! Although it is not my favourite anymore I confess.

And I drink tea, coffee, wine, and appreciate a dram of that Scottish 
beverage you probably have heard rumours about. That about resumes my 
usual liquid intakes I guess. ;-)

[no beer. No sir. I don't /really/ like that.]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.

Damn right it's become a religion, replete with the kind of insane zealots who
would curse me as a "round-Earth deny-er" for drawing my house in Autocad.

The science-ian won't use "good" or "evil", but he's quick to use "right" and
"wrong" or "smart" and "dumb" or "enlightened" and "primitive" or "progressive"
and "regressive" to mean the same thing.

Sure, he starts with facts (facts like "200 of 200 dogs observed consuming
gasoline were dead within 6 days." But he then, like any other zealot, abandons
proper reason for "reasonability." His true faith is in his own ("reasonable")
intuitions.

Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
some type of religion.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
>

I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce 
beneficial results."


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>> following
>> some type of religion.
>>
>
> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
> beneficial results."
>
>
> Mike

Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 7:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
>> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
>> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
>> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
>
> Damn right it's become a religion, replete with the kind of insane zealots who
> would curse me as a "round-Earth deny-er" for drawing my house in Autocad.
>
> The science-ian won't use "good" or "evil", but he's quick to use "right" and
> "wrong" or "smart" and "dumb" or "enlightened" and "primitive" or "progressive"
> and "regressive" to mean the same thing.
>
> Sure, he starts with facts (facts like "200 of 200 dogs observed consuming
> gasoline were dead within 6 days." But he then, like any other zealot, abandons
> proper reason for "reasonability." His true faith is in his own ("reasonable")
> intuitions.
>
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
>

Harken to the words of STEPHEN. {Glory be to his Toenails and tremble* 
at his utterances.}
It is all power over others. There seems to be an inbuilt desire for 
people to believe in something bigger and better than themselves, for 
divers reasons. So these people set themselves up as gods or prophets or 
priests or vegans and use the gullible to enrich themselves. I don’t 
think there is any getting away from it. As it was in the beginning so 
it shall be for evermore.
Unfortunately Europe exported a lot of its malcontents to America and 
there they prospered.
In my experience, there are so many good and decent people in America 
who are drowned out by the vocal fruit loops that the world thinks that 
is America.
Now I am stuck for what to say. I don’t really want to rant, maybe just 
cry a little.
So keep your pecker up Shay and fight the good fight. It may come out 
all right in the end.

* I said tremble not laugh. ;)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 10:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>>> following
>>> some type of religion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
>> beneficial results."
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>

I don't think that is what he meant. It is Science Vs Religion and you 
take one side or the other. So in a way the belief in Science becomes a 
matter of faith.So you denigrate the other side because that is what 
people do.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> > On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> >> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
> >> following
> >> some type of religion.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
> > beneficial results."
> >
> >
> > Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>

It's certainly not entirely scientific.

Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
"beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>
> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>
>

I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:

1. maximize well-being
2. minimize suffering
3. ???

These are things social animals value, either consciously or by 
instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about 
stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty 
common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 10:26 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>>
>> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
>> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>>
>>
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike


OTOH, humans aren't the only animals to experience psychoses.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2017 23:33, Stephen wrote:

> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>

Oops.  :-)


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> > It's certainly not entirely scientific.
> >
> > Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> > "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
> >
> >
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike

You're just mixing a salad out of mathematical terms and your own moral
intuitions.

This isn't a bad thing. There's a lot to be said for moral intuition. From a
materialist[1], evolutionary perspective, ignoring one's moral intuition is
equivalent to walking around with one's eyes closed.

So, you can make a compelling argument based on moral intuition, but you can't
make absolutist claims based on it. In other words, you can't be a snob about
it.

[1] Materialist as in "believing the brain is the sole source of consciousness
(i.e., no soul)."

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.03.2017 um 20:44 schrieb Shay:

> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.

Cell harvesting is not a matter of science vs. religion. It is a matter
of technological progress vs. morality.

Unfortunately, some people don't know the difference.

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.03.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>>> following
>>> some type of religion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
>> beneficial results."
>>
>>
>> Mike
> 
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
> 
> 
> Mike

There is no religion in any such statements /per se/.

But once you try to define "beneficial", you inevitably leave the realm
of science and enter the realm of ideology.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)

I tremble with laughter. ;)



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>
> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>
>
>
I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2017 7:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>
>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>
>>
>>
> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>
>
BTW How long do you think the big fart will last in office?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:36:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>
>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>
>>
>>
> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)

Always. :D



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2017 7:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:36:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>
>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>
> Always. :D
>
>
>
I'll think about that. ;)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:43:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/16/2017 7:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:36:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>>
>> Always. :D
>>
>>
>>
> I'll think about that. ;)

LOL (see?)



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:49:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 3/16/2017 7:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>
>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>>
>>
> BTW How long do you think the big fart will last in office?

I'd be surprised if it were more than 6 months, but I'll give it 1-2 
years.



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2017 9:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:49:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2017 7:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> BTW How long do you think the big fart will last in office?
>
> I'd be surprised if it were more than 6 months, but I'll give it 1-2
> years.
>
>
>
My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical 
reason.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:

> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
> reason.
>

I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars 
to themselves, they think he's golden.  Everything they gave Obama shit 
for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders, 
are they evil or awesome?  Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an 
orator's tool?  Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait, 
nobody else has done that)

So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After 
all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.

But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing. 
But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.

-- 
dik

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.03.2017 um 02:20 schrieb dick balaska:
> Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
> 
>> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
>> reason.
>>
> 
> I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
> to themselves, they think he's golden.  Everything they gave Obama shit
> for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
> are they evil or awesome?  Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
> orator's tool?  Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
> nobody else has done that)
> 
> So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
> all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
> 
> But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
> But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.

If the level of drama attached to his term of office so far is anything
to go by, I'd half expect him to settle for nothing less than a night at
Ford's Theatre.

Of course he'd take center stage.

(Would that count as medical?)

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2017 1:20 AM, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
>
>> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
>> reason.
>>
>
> I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
> to themselves, they think he's golden.  Everything they gave Obama shit
> for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
> are they evil or awesome?  Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
> orator's tool?  Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
> nobody else has done that)
>

I don't know about that. You are only looking at one side of it. He has 
been such a dodgy businessman that something in his past may come back 
to bite him on the bum. I was only half joking when I said that he was 
running for president to get immunity from prosecution.
Then there is his reputation as a sexual predator. So the possibility of 
it coming from outside of the legislature is there.

> So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
> all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
>

There are some things that you cannot hide like a stroke or a near fatal 
heart attack.

> But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
> But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.
>

Yes, I can see that happening too. Especially if the justice system 
keeps thwarting his plans.

And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2017 9:18 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.03.2017 um 02:20 schrieb dick balaska:
>> Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
>>
>>> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
>>> reason.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
>> to themselves, they think he's golden.  Everything they gave Obama shit
>> for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
>> are they evil or awesome?  Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
>> orator's tool?  Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
>> nobody else has done that)
>>
>> So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
>> all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
>>
>> But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
>> But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.
>
> If the level of drama attached to his term of office so far is anything
> to go by, I'd half expect him to settle for nothing less than a night at
> Ford's Theatre.
>
> Of course he'd take center stage.
>

Or make the Presidential Box, a six sided one. ;)

> (Would that count as medical?)
>

I wouldn't bet my insurance on it. :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message