http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-Schools/index.html?1315892583

God help us!

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-Schools/index.html?1315892583
>
>God help us!
>
>Jerry
>-- 
>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
actual contestants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Sep 29, 12:48=A0am, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-I...
>
> >God help us!
>
> >Jerry
> >--
> >Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
> actual contestants:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DUkBmhM0R2A0&feature=3Dyoutu.be
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

Your link to anchorhill.com does not work through google groups, and
yet if I get your site outside of google groups it works fine.  I
don't know why , but perhaps because it comes up anchorhill.com/
site ?  and google does not like the site inserted in ?

On Sep 29, 4:31=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-I...
>
> God help us!
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

Indeed, once again they cannot spell Maths correctly!!


Hardy

On Sep 28, 11:31=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-I...
>
> God help us!
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

Miss Arkansas pretty much blew the cover on this one.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:48:57 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>>http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-
Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>
>>God help us!
>>
>>Jerry
>>--
>>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> 
> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
> actual contestants:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be

I watched the real vid.  Miss Arkansas was #1 and was OK -- it fits right 
in with my prejudices that someone from down south should believe that 
only what she believes should be taught in schools.  But Miss Alaska (#2) 
made me bail out of it -- too many ums and wells, and "Evolution is part 
of our belief system", as if science is a religion.

Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on 
the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that whatever 
Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.  I 
haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work 
above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_ 
decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that 
the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to 
get any belief from _me_.

So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss 
Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On 9/29/2011 2:16 AM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 28, 11:31 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-I...
>>
>> God help us!
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> Miss Arkansas pretty much blew the cover on this one.


One of those lines would make a nice sig.

Jerry
-- 
Math is a theory. It's not at all what the Bible tells us.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:52:09 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

>Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on 
>the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that whatever 
>Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.  I 
>haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work 
>above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_ 
>decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that 
>the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to 
>get any belief from _me_.

Saw it somewhere: "If there is a God, then He has a really sick sense of humor."

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:45:33 -0500, Greg Berchin
<gjberchin@chatter.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:52:09 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>
>>Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on 
>>the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that whatever 
>>Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.  I 
>>haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work 
>>above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_ 
>>decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that 
>>the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to 
>>get any belief from _me_.
>
>Saw it somewhere: "If there is a God, then He has a really sick sense of humor."

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But
the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an
underachiever. 
 -- Woody Allen

Who also said: To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

i had trouble relating to the thread, simply because of the title.

On 9/29/11 12:48 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>
>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-Schools/index.html?1315892583

i sorta liked Miss Vermont on that one.  it reminds me of an NPA meeting 
(local multi-partisan neighborhood meeting) we had recently when the 
school district was running low and they were sorta asking us what to 
cut (somehow maths and sciences got into the mix and my response was 
sorta like that of faux Ms. VT).

>> God help us!

no shit.  i've been saying that for decades.  the US is one very 
seriously fucked-up and too-powerful of a nation.  and *way* too 
self-assured.

> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
> actual contestants:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be

i didn't bother to fast-forward to VT for that one.  stopped at CA.

as far as the greater topic is concerned (belief systems), one of the 
reasons i like to beat a mathematical problem to death is to discover a 
more basic meaning behind the math(s).  the best example i can think of 
to point you guys to is the Audio EQ Cookbook, where i wanted to have as 
much in common between the various filter types as possible and i wanted 
to get rid of the w0/2 (by busting the tan(w0/2) into cos(w0) and 
sin(w0) - when w0 is the significant frequency, there is less meaning to 
math based on half that frequency).  it's not enough for me that the 
math is "correct", it has to be simplified with the meaningful 
relationships unobscured.

having a concept of underlying meaning is very important to me.  a 
totally materialistic understanding of the reality we find ourselves in 
is not meaningful enough for me.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:45:33 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:52:09 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on
>>the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that
>>whatever Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.
>> I haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at
>>work above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I
>>_did_ decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke
>>that the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't
>>deserve to get any belief from _me_.
> 
> Saw it somewhere: "If there is a God, then He has a really sick sense of
> humor."

If there is a God _as described in the bible_ then he has a really sick 
sense of humor.  Which leaves you to choose between believing in a God 
that loves you, or in the bible.

I believe that God (or whatever) might have made the universe, but that 
people, some of them much like Jimmy Swaggart, most definitely wrote the 
bible.  And I depend on direct evidence vs. statements in the bible to 
the exact extent that the above belief would indicate.  In my (ever so 
humble, of course) opinion, Fundamentalists (of whatever stripe -- 
including atheists who insist that God can't exist) just want to stuff 
God into a box of their designated size and shape, and to hell with any 
bits that may be left over when their done.

But then, most of my beliefs would have gotten me an extra-special 
invitation to a heretic burning had I been alive 300 to 400 years ago, 
and foolish enough to articulate them publicly.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On 9/28/2011 9:48 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>
>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>
>> God help us!
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
> actual contestants:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be
>
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communications
> www.anchorhill.com

I think that kids should be shown both sides of the issue, in the 
interest of fairness.  So, you know, evolution, and that the world of 
man was created when Odin slew the last of the frost giants.

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
Email address is currently out of order

On Sep 30, 3:53=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 2:16 AM, brent wrote:
>
> > On Sep 28, 11:31 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >>http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-I..=
..
>
> >> God help us!
>
> >> Jerry
> >> --
> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get=
..
>
> > Miss Arkansas pretty much blew the cover on this one.
>
> One of those lines would make a nice sig.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Math is a theory. It's not at all what the Bible tells us.

Maths!

On 9/29/2011 10:52 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:

   ...

> Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on
> the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that whatever
> Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.  I
> haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work
> above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_
> decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that
> the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to
> get any belief from _me_.
>
> So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss
> Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.

I wish I remembered details. Sometime around 1900, when unconformities, 
a plethora of fossils, and other geologic discoveries made it 
increasingly difficult to maintain a belief that the world is about 
5.000 years old, an English cleric came up with the rear-guard position 
that all those bits of supposed evidence were created by God to induce 
us to believe in earth's antiquity. The position gained some currency on 
both sides of the Atlantic until someone asked, "If that's what God 
wants you to believe, how dare you believe otherwise?"

Jerry
-- 
Continental drift is just a theory, not at all what the Bible teaches.

On 9/29/2011 12:43 PM, Rob Gaddi wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 9:48 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>>
>>>
>>> God help us!
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>> --
>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>>
>> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
>> actual contestants:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be
>>
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communications
>> www.anchorhill.com
>
> I think that kids should be shown both sides of the issue, in the
> interest of fairness. So, you know, evolution, and that the world of man
> was created when Odin slew the last of the frost giants.

I think it was Richard Dawkins who said, "I contend that we are both 
atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

Jerry
-- 
Astronomy is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:05:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Astronomy is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:48:57 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-
> Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>>
>>> God help us!
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>> --
>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>>
>> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
>> actual contestants:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be
>
> I watched the real vid.  Miss Arkansas was #1 and was OK -- it fits right
> in with my prejudices that someone from down south should believe that
> only what she believes should be taught in schools.  But Miss Alaska (#2)
> made me bail out of it -- too many ums and wells, and "Evolution is part
> of our belief system", as if science is a religion.
>
> Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on
> the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that whatever
> Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.

Nah. I think that's pretty much a false dichotomy. I have known too
many people, mostly older folks, people of my parent's generation
and before that did both.

Evolution doesn't preclude gods or a God. And you have to remember
that at one level, religion itself is a sort of technology; most
of what you can lay hands on in religion was invented by people,
or stolen from another religion. What makes it religious is the
inspiration form Inscrutable sources.

The first volume of Will & Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization"
outlines the development of all this up to the beginning of
Greek civilization. Ideas from Persian and Babylonian religion
(and others ) got thrust wholesale into the Judaic tradition.

> I
> haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work
> above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_
> decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that
> the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to
> get any belief from _me_.
>

Evolution pretty much can't be wrong, because it's doesn't make
specific predictions. It's a tool of analysis of existing data,
nothing more. it is, IMO, a variation on various anthropic
principles.

Where people go off the rails is thinking that there's measurable 
*intent*. If there is Intent, then it's Inscrutable. This,
unfortunately is decoded by some folks as "there is no meaning"
and they go off the rails.

> So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss
> Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.
>

It's a tool, like a socket wrench. The socket wrench is still there
whether I believe in it or not.

--
Les Cargill

On 9/29/2011 2:20 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:05:12 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>
>> Astronomy is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.
>
> http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

Ouch! That's not a spoof. :-(

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:21:01 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>> http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
>
>Ouch! That's not a spoof. :-(

Nope. They're dead serious.

On 9/29/2011 4:16 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:48:57 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-
>> Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>>>
>>>> God help us!
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>> --
>>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>>>
>>> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
>>> actual contestants:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> I watched the real vid. Miss Arkansas was #1 and was OK -- it fits right
>> in with my prejudices that someone from down south should believe that
>> only what she believes should be taught in schools. But Miss Alaska (#2)
>> made me bail out of it -- too many ums and wells, and "Evolution is part
>> of our belief system", as if science is a religion.
>>
>> Then I got to reflecting: Science _is_ a belief system: it's based on
>> the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that whatever
>> Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.
>
> Nah. I think that's pretty much a false dichotomy. I have known too
> many people, mostly older folks, people of my parent's generation
> and before that did both.
>
> Evolution doesn't preclude gods or a God. And you have to remember
> that at one level, religion itself is a sort of technology; most
> of what you can lay hands on in religion was invented by people,
> or stolen from another religion. What makes it religious is the
> inspiration form Inscrutable sources.
>
> The first volume of Will & Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization"
> outlines the development of all this up to the beginning of
> Greek civilization. Ideas from Persian and Babylonian religion
> (and others ) got thrust wholesale into the Judaic tradition.

Some people may become upset by the implication that the Bible wasn't 
dictated verbatim by God.

>> I
>> haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work
>> above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_
>> decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that
>> the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to
>> get any belief from _me_.
>>
>
> Evolution pretty much can't be wrong, because it's doesn't make
> specific predictions. It's a tool of analysis of existing data,
> nothing more. it is, IMO, a variation on various anthropic
> principles.

Evolution can make and has made a few successful predictions. These are 
necessarily limited to populations of fast-breeding populations, usually 
bacteria or insects.

> Where people go off the rails is thinking that there's measurable
> *intent*. If there is Intent, then it's Inscrutable. This,
> unfortunately is decoded by some folks as "there is no meaning"
> and they go off the rails.

Happy outcomes are evidence of God's bounty. Unfortunate ones show that 
He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

>> So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss
>> Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.
>>
>
> It's a tool, like a socket wrench. The socket wrench is still there
> whether I believe in it or not.

Hardly anyone is more pathetic than a proselytizing atheist who tries to 
save a believer's soul.

Jerry
-- 
Exegesis is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 4:16 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:48:57 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-
>>>>>
>>> Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>>>>
>>>>> God help us!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerry
>>>>> --
>>>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
>>>>> get.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
>>>> actual contestants:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be
>>>
>>> I watched the real vid. Miss Arkansas was #1 and was OK -- it fits right
>>> in with my prejudices that someone from down south should believe that
>>> only what she believes should be taught in schools. But Miss Alaska (#2)
>>> made me bail out of it -- too many ums and wells, and "Evolution is part
>>> of our belief system", as if science is a religion.
>>>
>>> Then I got to reflecting: Science _is_ a belief system: it's based on
>>> the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that
>>> whatever
>>> Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here) liar.
>>
>> Nah. I think that's pretty much a false dichotomy. I have known too
>> many people, mostly older folks, people of my parent's generation
>> and before that did both.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't preclude gods or a God. And you have to remember
>> that at one level, religion itself is a sort of technology; most
>> of what you can lay hands on in religion was invented by people,
>> or stolen from another religion. What makes it religious is the
>> inspiration form Inscrutable sources.
>>
>> The first volume of Will & Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization"
>> outlines the development of all this up to the beginning of
>> Greek civilization. Ideas from Persian and Babylonian religion
>> (and others ) got thrust wholesale into the Judaic tradition.
>
> Some people may become upset by the implication that the Bible wasn't
> dictated verbatim by God.
>

Well, I can't help that. If you listen to religious professionals,
they *know* this. They build in an out for it being a special
text, invested of supernatural origins, but they also know it's
a flawed artifact by virtue of human effort.

Religion is about dualisms. its inherent.

Dr. Gene Scott was both a devout person and a hardnosed...
historian/linguist ( he was hard to classify ) and did some
amazing stuff on translating texts on a blackboard.

It is like Art History, which is a significantly involved
and difficult thing. It's not for the weak-willed.

>>> I
>>> haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at work
>>> above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I _did_
>>> decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke that
>>> the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't deserve to
>>> get any belief from _me_.
>>>
>>
>> Evolution pretty much can't be wrong, because it's doesn't make
>> specific predictions. It's a tool of analysis of existing data,
>> nothing more. it is, IMO, a variation on various anthropic
>> principles.
>
> Evolution can make and has made a few successful predictions. These are
> necessarily limited to populations of fast-breeding populations, usually
> bacteria or insects.
>

That's true enough. But those aren't usually significant, ...
exploitable predictions in the fashion that say, chemistry makes
them. that might be changing.

You are 100% correct, but those aren't controversial or "interesting".
 From a standpoint of constructing narratives, which is why anybody cares
about this, it's backwards-looking.

>> Where people go off the rails is thinking that there's measurable
>> *intent*. If there is Intent, then it's Inscrutable. This,
>> unfortunately is decoded by some folks as "there is no meaning"
>> and they go off the rails.
>
> Happy outcomes are evidence of God's bounty. Unfortunate ones show that
> He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
>

Yeah, mostly. A Job story is more difficult.

>>> So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss
>>> Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.
>>>
>>
>> It's a tool, like a socket wrench. The socket wrench is still there
>> whether I believe in it or not.
>
> Hardly anyone is more pathetic than a proselytizing atheist who tries to
> save a believer's soul.
>

It's people who erroneously think religion is the *cause*, and not
something people with existing conflict used as an amplifier
of conflict.

> Jerry

--
Les Cargill

On 9/29/2011 5:12 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:21:01 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>
>>> http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
>>
>> Ouch! That's not a spoof. :-(
>
> Nope. They're dead serious.


When I was in high school in the '40s, some millionaire -- that was a 
lot of money then -- offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who could 
convince him that the world wasn't flat. The prize went uncollected.

Jerry "it's turtles all the way down" Avins
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sep 29, 6:36=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 5:12 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:21:01 -0400, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote=
:
>
> >>>http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
>
> >> Ouch! That's not a spoof. :-(
>
> > Nope. They're dead serious.
>
> When I was in high school in the '40s, some millionaire -- that was a
> lot of money then -- offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who could
> convince him that the world wasn't flat. The prize went uncollected.
>

He obviously was not ever going to award the prize, but it would have
been interesting to get him to write down what the definition of flat
is prior to his announcing the prize.


> Jerry "it's turtles all the way down" Avins
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/29/11 6:36 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:

>  "it's turtles all the way down"

and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's the 
other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 9/29/2011 6:29 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

[I wrote]
>> Happy outcomes are evidence of God's bounty. Unfortunate ones show that
>> He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
>>
>
> Yeah, mostly. A Job story is more difficult.

Don't start me on the book of Job. If ever there was a story of a cruel 
callous god, that's it. On a par with dog fighting. Job's wife, 
daughters, fortune, and health are all taken from him. In the end, all 
are restored. Never mind the wife and daughters are still dead, but 
after all, their being all female, only the body count matters.

> It's people who erroneously think religion is the *cause*, and not
> something people with existing conflict used as an amplifier
> of conflict.

The spectacle of opposing football teams praying to the same god for 
victory should make any educator weep. Do the losers ever claim that God 
let them down?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sep 29, 6:59=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 6:29 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> [I wrote]
>
> >> Happy outcomes are evidence of God's bounty. Unfortunate ones show tha=
t
> >> He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
>
> > Yeah, mostly. A Job story is more difficult.
>
> Don't start me on the book of Job. If ever there was a story of a cruel
> callous god, that's it. On a par with dog fighting. Job's wife,
> daughters, fortune, and health are all taken from him. In the end, all
> are restored. Never mind the wife and daughters are still dead, but
> after all, their being all female, only the body count matters.
>

Your life experience is incredibly narrow and it all hinges on things
like abundant food, cheap energy, and a stable political system( built
by people who honored the stuff you are making fun of here)

The stories in the Bible have to reach people over thousands of years
and to people under all kind of circumstances.  The book of job may
look like a dog fight to you, but to countless millions it has brought
comfort when otherwise they would have given up all hope.

Also, if a person interprets the book of job in the context of their
life on earth as being a pilgrimage to the after life, it does not
seem so cruel.

> > It's people who erroneously think religion is the *cause*, and not
> > something people with existing conflict used as an amplifier
> > of conflict.
>
> The spectacle of opposing football teams praying to the same god for
> victory should make any educator weep. Do the losers ever claim that God
> let them down?
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's the 
> other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.

How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other 
religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?

On Sep 29, 7:13=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> > and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's th=
e
> > other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?

For Christians , some things that come to mind are

1. The success of Christian based societies

2. The preservation of the Jewish people.  This is an incredible
thing.

3. The spiritual experience itself.  While, for the non-believer it is
not a factor, to the believer it means a lot.  I believe there is a
pastor in Iran, as we write, that will be put to death on Friday for
his unrelenting belief.

4.  The observation of how the faith has helped other people.  This
may not mean too much to you, but to a kid being brought up by a mom
on drugs who then converts (the mom) and then his life gets better,
well, all the sophisticated talk in the world will never take that
away.  This will dedicate that person to that particular faith.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 6:29 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> [I wrote]
>>> Happy outcomes are evidence of God's bounty. Unfortunate ones show that
>>> He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, mostly. A Job story is more difficult.
>
> Don't start me on the book of Job. If ever there was a story of a cruel
> callous god, that's it. On a par with dog fighting. Job's wife,
> daughters, fortune, and health are all taken from him. In the end, all
> are restored. Never mind the wife and daughters are still dead, but
> after all, their being all female, only the body count matters.
>

But that's mythos. High body count, large "WTF?" quotient...

>> It's people who erroneously think religion is the *cause*, and not
>> something people with existing conflict used as an amplifier
>> of conflict.
>
> The spectacle of opposing football teams praying to the same god for
> victory should make any educator weep. Do the losers ever claim that God
> let them down?
>

That made my week.

> Jerry

--
Les Cargill

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>

They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something,
and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .

--
Les Cargill

On Sep 29, 7:29=A0pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> > robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
> >> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> > How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> > religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something,
> and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .
>
Well , the athiest societies have a pretty bad track record of not
even needing a Jungian Other.  They just start butchering and
butchering and butchering.  (Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia comes
to mind).

I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
force on man more than the force that causes killing.  The evidence of
the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built  by
tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
greater than the religious societies.



> --
> Les Cargill

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:29:09 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
wrote:

>Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>>
>
>They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something,
>and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .

Ob Tiny Carl Jung reference:
<http://dresdencodak.com/2006/12/03/dungeons-and-discourse/>

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

brent wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:29 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:
>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>>
>> They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something,
>> and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .
>>
> Well , the athiest societies have a pretty bad track record of not
> even needing a Jungian Other.  They just start butchering and
> butchering and butchering.  (Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia comes
> to mind).
>

That's irrelevant to atheism or belief. Those guys thought they
could plan everything. Those failures can mostly
be explained by economics without resorting to anything else.

Remember also that Communism in specific
grew out of European Anarchism, which had contempt for religion
as "bourgeoisie". That's more about Russia; China and
Cambodia were imitations of the Bolsheviks. but Russia's
always been a pretty bloody place at times.

China had less State violence than bad planning/famine as
a cause of deaths. Cambodia just went insane. what
else could expect from 14 year old kids with AK47 in
power?

Remember that Americans got lots of "godless Communist"
propaganda for PR reasons. That is cause for skepticism.

The philosophical foundations of Communism were Positivist,
and that is mainly why they failed. they thought
social science was 1) solved and 2) completely reliable.
Hayek's arguments against central planning are mainly
arguments about information theory, which is why they're
still held in high regard.


> I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
> force on man more than the force that causes killing.

it's usually more "The Tsar had the Cossacks rape my mother and
the priests did nothing". Most cases where I have seen atheists
decry religion, it's based on misunderstanding or that there
are religious people who reject rationality.

A lot of violent revolution is about past humiliations,
and religion doesn't help with that beyond having the
humiliated sublimate the humiliation. that's iffy.

South America is, of course, always different.

> The evidence of
> the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built  by
> tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
> greater than the religious societies.
>

Several perfectly prosperous and peaceful European states have
minimal religious belief and are fine. Holland comes to mind.
Most of Europe, really. They kind-of have a USA-in-the-1950s
relationship with religion.

Separation of church and state have clearly been a great
boon to both religion and the State. I don't buy the narrative
that a decline in religion causes culture rot. Religion is
not necessary for the formation of values leading to a good
outcome. If anything, high productivity means people don't
have as much to do, and that causes most problems.

>
>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>

--
Les Cargill

On Sep 29, 8:16=A0pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> brent wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 7:29 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> =A0wrote:
> >> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> >>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
> >>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regres=
s.
>
> >>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else=
?
>
> >> They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something=
,
> >> and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .
>
> > Well , the athiest societies have a pretty bad track record of not
> > even needing a Jungian Other. =A0They just start butchering and
> > butchering and butchering. =A0(Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia comes
> > to mind).
>
> That's irrelevant to atheism or belief. Those guys thought they
> could plan everything. Those failures can mostly
> be explained by economics without resorting to anything else.
>
> Remember also that Communism in specific
> grew out of European Anarchism, which had contempt for religion
> as "bourgeoisie". That's more about Russia; China and
> Cambodia were imitations of the Bolsheviks. but Russia's
> always been a pretty bloody place at times.
>
> China had less State violence than bad planning/famine as
> a cause of deaths. Cambodia just went insane. what
> else could expect from 14 year old kids with AK47 in
> power?
>
> Remember that Americans got lots of "godless Communist"
> propaganda for PR reasons. That is cause for skepticism.
>
> The philosophical foundations of Communism were Positivist,
> and that is mainly why they failed. they thought
> social science was 1) solved and 2) completely reliable.
> Hayek's arguments against central planning are mainly
> arguments about information theory, which is why they're
> still held in high regard.
>
> > I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
> > force on man more than the force that causes killing.
>
> it's usually more "The Tsar had the Cossacks rape my mother and
> the priests did nothing". Most cases where I have seen atheists
> decry religion, it's based on misunderstanding or that there
> are religious people who reject rationality.
>
> A lot of violent revolution is about past humiliations,
> and religion doesn't help with that beyond having the
> humiliated sublimate the humiliation. that's iffy.
>
> South America is, of course, always different.
>
> > The evidence of
> > the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built =A0by
> > tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
> > greater than the religious societies.
>
> Several perfectly prosperous and peaceful European states have
> minimal religious belief and are fine. Holland comes to mind.
> Most of Europe, really.
>

The verdict on an agnostic Europe is still out.  It does seem to be
doing ok in some respects, but there are cracks forming, and it may
turn out that the agnostic Europe may be the Islamic Europe in 200
years.  The pull to an unsustainable socialism also goes hand in hand
with the agnostic Europe.  We do not know where this will lead.  We
all know that the promises of agnostic socialism eventually break
down.  Also, the agnostic socialism model may work now, but what if
there was a huge oil shortage or some other society changing crisis?
What does this agnostic socialism do when faced with huge problems?

>They kind-of have a USA-in-the-1950s
> relationship with religion.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this comment.  I think that in
the 1950's the underlying beliefs of all the people were so similar
(and extremely conservative by todays standards) that religion seemed
to be non influential, and yet it was far more influential then.  Take
homosexual marriage in the 1950's.  It would have never been
entertained and it would have been due to religious reasons.  But
there was no need to discuss it then because the influence of
religious belief was so strong, not because it was non-influential (as
I am interpreting you to mean).



> Separation of church and state have clearly been a great
> boon to both religion and the State.

I agree, but this separation requires a low state tax rate so that
people have the money to live their own religion.  This is , in part,
why Christians want low taxes.  the atheist have no church to support,
whereas the Christians need to give their tithes to the church.  High
taxes kind of snuff out the ability to support your religion and the
state becomes the defacto religion.

> I don't buy the narrative
> that a decline in religion causes culture rot. Religion is
> not necessary for the formation of values leading to a good
> outcome.

I think that you have to look at the USA 200 years from now to make a
declaration like that.  Europeans are so self absorbed right now they
don't have kids and this is not going to lead to a good outcome - as
an example.

>If anything, high productivity means people don't
> have as much to do, and that causes most problems.

>
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> --
> Les Cargill

brent wrote:

> On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>>and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's the
>>>other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>>How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>>religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
> 
> 
> For Christians , some things that come to mind are
> 
> 1. The success of Christian based societies

That is cyclic.
Today we observe the slump of the West and the raise of Asia, which is 
not associated with any religion.
Only 1000 years ago while the Europe was tormented by Christianity the 
Middle East enjoyed cultural growth under Islam.
Before that, there were Hindu, Greek, Roma, Egypt, Babylon and other 
civilizations.

How could this prove that one religion is better then the other?

> 2. The preservation of the Jewish people.  This is an incredible
> thing.

Valid point for Judaism, perhaps.  But Christianity?
Besides, not only the Jews persisted. Chinese, English, Slovaks, 
Armenians, Sikhs, name any other nation or race.

> 3. The spiritual experience itself.  While, for the non-believer it is
> not a factor, to the believer it means a lot.  I believe there is a
> pastor in Iran, as we write, that will be put to death on Friday for
> his unrelenting belief.

That man is dangerous breed of nutcase. People like that could cause a 
lot of trouble; they are hunted by all governments in all countries.

> 4.  The observation of how the faith has helped other people.  This
> may not mean too much to you, but to a kid being brought up by a mom
> on drugs who then converts (the mom) and then his life gets better,
> well, all the sophisticated talk in the world will never take that
> away.  This will dedicate that person to that particular faith.

This argument applies to any kind of faith. My question is how do the 
theists evaluate one faith against the other.

VLV

On 9/29/2011 7:08 PM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 29, 6:59 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 6:29 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>> [I wrote]
>>
>>>> Happy outcomes are evidence of God's bounty. Unfortunate ones show that
>>>> He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
>>
>>> Yeah, mostly. A Job story is more difficult.
>>
>> Don't start me on the book of Job. If ever there was a story of a cruel
>> callous god, that's it. On a par with dog fighting. Job's wife,
>> daughters, fortune, and health are all taken from him. In the end, all
>> are restored. Never mind the wife and daughters are still dead, but
>> after all, their being all female, only the body count matters.
>>
>
> Your life experience is incredibly narrow and it all hinges on things
> like abundant food, cheap energy, and a stable political system( built
> by people who honored the stuff you are making fun of here)

Actually not. Most of the people who who set the direction for this 
country were deists, about as close to being atheists as one could get 
away with in those days. Jefferson famously said, "... it does me no 
injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It 
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I made fun of nobody. I 
expressed my opinion.

> The stories in the Bible have to reach people over thousands of years
> and to people under all kind of circumstances.  The book of job may
> look like a dog fight to you, but to countless millions it has brought
> comfort when otherwise they would have given up all hope.

Aman's perspective. The females involved got death, not hope.

> Also, if a person interprets the book of job in the context of their
> life on earth as being a pilgrimage to the after life, it does not
> seem so cruel.

Sure. In the context of visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons, 
down to the seventh generation, I guess it's not so bad.

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/29/2011 7:25 PM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky<nos...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's the
>>> other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> For Christians , some things that come to mind are
>
> 1. The success of Christian based societies
>
> 2. The preservation of the Jewish people.  This is an incredible
> thing.
>
> 3. The spiritual experience itself.  While, for the non-believer it is
> not a factor, to the believer it means a lot.  I believe there is a
> pastor in Iran, as we write, that will be put to death on Friday for
> his unrelenting belief.
>
> 4.  The observation of how the faith has helped other people.  This
> may not mean too much to you, but to a kid being brought up by a mom
> on drugs who then converts (the mom) and then his life gets better,
> well, all the sophisticated talk in the world will never take that
> away.  This will dedicate that person to that particular faith.

I have no doubt -- nobody should -- that religious fervor is a powerful 
psychological force for many people, much for good, too much for evil. 
When I was a teenager, the son of a friend of my mother's was saved from 
drowning by his faith. (He believed that he was saved by God.) He had 
not learned to swim when he fell off a pier into the East River. He 
thrashed about and began to sink. He told me that at some point he 
placed his faith in God and became passive. At that point, he began to 
float and soon reached the surface. He thinks God saved him. I think 
that the faith which let him relax (and the high salinity) saved him. I 
too had gone under, but in a fresh-water lake. Despite my calm demeanor, 
I sank to the bottom. I walked to where the water was shallow enough to 
allow me to jump and break surface long enough to get a breath. While 
under again, I continued to walk toward shore. Eventually, I walked out 
of the lake. You may think my salvation divine, but I don't.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/29/2011 7:37 PM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:29 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:
>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>>
>> They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something,
>> and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .
>>
> Well , the athiest* societies have a pretty bad track record of not
> even needing a Jungian Other.  They just start butchering and
> butchering and butchering.  (Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia comes
> to mind).

That's only one side. A lot of killing is done in the cause of religion. 
It's not just women stoned to death for the crime of having been raped, 
or pushed back into a burning building because they aren't properly 
dressed for the street. As A Jew, I have to think about holocausts, 
Inquisitions, and pogroms. (When my race is asked on forms, I write in 
Mongrel. My great great grandmother was raped by a Cossack -- a.k.a. 
Kazakh -- during a pogrom. I am of that line.)

> I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
> force on man more than the force that causes killing.  The evidence of
> the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built  by
> tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
> greater than the religious societies.

I see many theists as morally weak, their morality imposed from outside. 
Moral atheists have internalized their beliefs about right and wrong, 
not merely accepted a priest's or a Book's authority.

A devout Catholic hospice nurse told my late wife that her religious 
faith must be very strong for her to accept her lot so peacefully. Ann 
answered that if she believed in a god, she would be either angry at 
being singled out for cancer, or guilty wondering what she had done to 
deserve it. Her serenity came from knowing that her impending death was 
a matter of chance (and brac1). "Shit happens, and this time it happened 
to me." Her peace derived from her absolute faith that God either 
doesn't exist or isn't involved with humans.

Jerry
_________________
* I before E except after C, and when sounding like A as in neighbor and 
weigh (and in science, their, weird, atheist, reiterate, etc.).

On 30-09-2011 at 01:37:34 brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:


> Well , the athiest societies have a pretty bad track record of not
> even needing a Jungian Other.

Very bad education. Both historical and political.
Please, don't repeat what some crazy Magician told you to belive.
This thoughtlessness is big offence.

> I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
> force on man more than the force that causes killing.  The evidence of
> the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built  by
> tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
> greater than the religious societies.

PLease, go to some Mystical Jew and Many Hand Godness mail group
if you like mythology.

And read about who educated Stalin and Hitler. Yes, catholic sect.

-- 
Mikolaj

On Sep 29, 11:50=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 7:25 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky<nos...@nowhere.com> =A0wrote:
> >> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> >>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's =
the
> >>> other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> >> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> > For Christians , some things that come to mind are
>
> > 1. The success of Christian based societies
>
> > 2. The preservation of the Jewish people. =A0This is an incredible
> > thing.
>
> > 3. The spiritual experience itself. =A0While, for the non-believer it i=
s
> > not a factor, to the believer it means a lot. =A0I believe there is a
> > pastor in Iran, as we write, that will be put to death on Friday for
> > his unrelenting belief.
>
> > 4. =A0The observation of how the faith has helped other people. =A0This
> > may not mean too much to you, but to a kid being brought up by a mom
> > on drugs who then converts (the mom) and then his life gets better,
> > well, all the sophisticated talk in the world will never take that
> > away. =A0This will dedicate that person to that particular faith.
>
> I have no doubt -- nobody should -- that religious fervor is a powerful
> psychological force for many people, much for good, too much for evil.

I switch it around to a lot for good , also some for evil.  And that
is where our perspectives are different.  I guess I honor the pilgrims
religious motivations for coming to the new world and their puritan
followers and look at how those people laid much of the foundation for
our country and see that as tremendous good.
I know they don't teach that too much any more, but it was taught all
the way up to the 1970's.


> When I was a teenager, the son of a friend of my mother's was saved from
> drowning by his faith. (He believed that he was saved by God.) He had
> not learned to swim when he fell off a pier into the East River. He
> thrashed about and began to sink. He told me that at some point he
> placed his faith in God and became passive. At that point, he began to
> float and soon reached the surface. He thinks God saved him. I think
> that the faith which let him relax (and the high salinity) saved him. I
> too had gone under, but in a fresh-water lake. Despite my calm demeanor,
> I sank to the bottom. I walked to where the water was shallow enough to
> allow me to jump and break surface long enough to get a breath. While
> under again, I continued to walk toward shore. Eventually, I walked out
> of the lake. You may think my salvation divine, but I don't.
>

That is the difference between different people.  Different people
interpret life experiences differently.

> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sep 30, 12:27=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 7:37 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 7:29 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> =A0wrote:
> >> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> >>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
> >>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regres=
s.
>
> >>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else=
?
>
> >> They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something=
,
> >> and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .
>
> > Well , the athiest* societies have a pretty bad track record of not
> > even needing a Jungian Other. =A0They just start butchering and
> > butchering and butchering. =A0(Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia comes
> > to mind).
>
> That's only one side. A lot of killing is done in the cause of religion.
> It's not just women stoned to death for the crime of having been raped,
> or pushed back into a burning building because they aren't properly
> dressed for the street. As A Jew, I have to think about holocausts,
> Inquisitions, and pogroms. (When my race is asked on forms, I write in
> Mongrel. My great great grandmother was raped by a Cossack -- a.k.a.
> Kazakh -- during a pogrom. I am of that line.)
>

As a Jew do you ponder why the Jewish people are still held together
after so much time without a homeland?




> > I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
> > force on man more than the force that causes killing. =A0The evidence o=
f
> > the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built =A0by
> > tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
> > greater than the religious societies.
>
> I see many theists as morally weak, their morality imposed from outside.
> Moral atheists have internalized their beliefs about right and wrong,
> not merely accepted a priest's or a Book's authority.
>

I think that you give yourself too much credit for having come up with
your belief set from your own internal moral compass.  Would you have
the same beliefs if you were born in China, or in the amazon in a
small cannibal tribe?  Your belief system and morals are largely
rooted in the Christian and Jewish traditions that made up your
environment.

You see these outside  morals as making someone weak, but when your
parents told you to not do something did you tell them to stop
instructing you because it is making you morally weak?

The Christian beliefs embody 2000 years of human experience in
addition to the bible authority.  I would rather rely on that
accumulated wisdom than on my ability, in one lifetime, to figure out
"the" proper moral code.

> A devout Catholic hospice nurse told my late wife that her religious
> faith must be very strong for her to accept her lot so peacefully. Ann
> answered that if she believed in a god, she would be either angry at
> being singled out for cancer, or guilty wondering what she had done to
> deserve it. Her serenity came from knowing that her impending death was
> a matter of chance (and brac1). "Shit happens, and this time it happened
> to me." Her peace derived from her absolute faith that God either
> doesn't exist or isn't involved with humans.
>

I am glad your wife died in peace.

> Jerry
> _________________
> * I before E except after C, and when sounding like A as in neighbor and
> weigh (and in science, their, weird, atheist, reiterate, etc.).

On Sep 30, 3:27=A0am, Mikolaj
<sterowanie_komputerowe@[haha]poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> On 30-09-2011 at 01:37:34 brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Well , the athiest societies have a pretty bad track record of not
> > even needing a Jungian Other.
>
> Very bad education. Both historical and political.
> Please, don't repeat what some crazy Magician told you to belive.
> This thoughtlessness is big offence.
>

You err to take the position that believers cannot think and
unbeliever, like yourself can think.  It is an indicator that your own
personal belief system is very simplistic and rigid.

> > I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
> > force on man more than the force that causes killing. =A0The evidence o=
f
> > the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built =A0by
> > tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
> > greater than the religious societies.
>
> PLease, go to some Mystical Jew and Many Hand Godness mail group
> if you like mythology.
>

Another indication of how simplistic and rigid your own beliefs are.


> And read about who educated Stalin and Hitler. Yes, catholic sect.
>

I would say they rejected everything they were taught and created
their own "new" belief system.
> --
> Mikolaj

On Sep 29, 9:09=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> brent wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >>>and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's t=
he
> >>>other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> >>How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >>religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> > For Christians , some things that come to mind are
>
> > 1. The success of Christian based societies
>
> That is cyclic.
> Today we observe the slump of the West and the raise of Asia, which is
> not associated with any religion.
> Only 1000 years ago while the Europe was tormented by Christianity the
> Middle East enjoyed cultural growth under Islam.
> Before that, there were Hindu, Greek, Roma, Egypt, Babylon and other
> civilizations.
>
> How could this prove that one religion is better then the other?
>
> > 2. The preservation of the Jewish people. =A0This is an incredible
> > thing.
>
> Valid point for Judaism, perhaps. =A0But Christianity?
> Besides, not only the Jews persisted. Chinese, English, Slovaks,
> Armenians, Sikhs, name any other nation or race.
>

It is also valid for Christianity, given that Christianity and Judaism
are so tied together.

The  difference between the other peoples you mention is that they had
their own land.  The Jews remained as a distinct identity without
their own homeland for nearly 2000 years.  This is remarkable and
should cause even the atheist to pause and ponder this.




> > 3. The spiritual experience itself. =A0While, for the non-believer it i=
s
> > not a factor, to the believer it means a lot. =A0I believe there is a
> > pastor in Iran, as we write, that will be put to death on Friday for
> > his unrelenting belief.
>
> That man is dangerous breed of nutcase. People like that could cause a
> lot of trouble; they are hunted by all governments in all countries.
>

Your upbringing in Russia is showing through here.  As an American I
would not ever consider killing someone who wants to start a new
religion let alone someone who is trying to establish a place for
believers of a different religion in the USA.


> > 4. =A0The observation of how the faith has helped other people. =A0This
> > may not mean too much to you, but to a kid being brought up by a mom
> > on drugs who then converts (the mom) and then his life gets better,
> > well, all the sophisticated talk in the world will never take that
> > away. =A0This will dedicate that person to that particular faith.
>
> This argument applies to any kind of faith. My question is how do the
> theists evaluate one faith against the other.
>
> VLV

On 30-09-2011 At 13:27:24 brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

All you have said is guessing.
I told you about your lack of facts an data
and you don't even tried to look for these information.

You just instantly denied and chaoticly mix information
trying to insult me and prove yourself something just to feel good,
not to find facts.

This is most known symptom
of religion infection.
Your brain is infested with irrational constrains
that prevent you from using logic and deduction.
With these constrains you are not able to develope as a homo sapiens.

So, first, this is no place for such discussion.
Second, you are not able to think and discuss so conversation will be  
useless.
You are lost for human race but this is natural process, don't worry,
have your mythological dream far away from this forum please.


-- 
Mikolaj

On Sep 30, 9:33=A0am, Mikolaj
<sterowanie_komputerowe@[haha]poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> On 30-09-2011 At 13:27:24 brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> All you have said is guessing.
> I told you about your lack of facts an data
> and you don't even tried to look for these information.
>
> You just instantly denied and chaoticly mix information
> trying to insult me and prove yourself something just to feel good,
> not to find facts.
>
> This is most known symptom
> of religion infection.

"religion  infection"
> Your brain is infested with irrational constrains

"brain is infested"

> that prevent you from using logic and deduction.

"prevent you from using logic"

> With these constrains you are not able to develope as a homo sapiens.
>

"unable to develop "

> So, first, this is no place for such discussion.


> Second, you are not able to think and discuss so conversation will be =A0
> useless.

"not able to think"

> You are lost for human race but this is natural process, don't worry,
> have your mythological dream far away from this forum please.
>

"you are lost for human race"

> --
> Mikolaj

I stand by my assessment that you have a very simplistic and rigid
worldview.  Ironically, the very thing you seem to accuse Christians
of.

Jerry Avins wrote:


> My great great grandmother was raped by a Cossack -- a.k.a. 
> Kazakh -- during a pogrom. I am of that line.)

Cossacks (Kozaks): specific group of Russian or Ukrainian origin; from 
southern Russia.

Kazakhs: asiatic type, from Kazakhstan.

So, kazak or kazakh ?

On 9/30/2011 7:34 AM, brent wrote:

   ...

> The  difference between the other peoples you mention is that they had
> their own land.  The Jews remained as a distinct identity without
> their own homeland for nearly 2000 years.  This is remarkable and
> should cause even the atheist to pause and ponder this.

One of the circumstances that held Jews together has a great deal to do 
with nearly universal literacy. Every man and a large fraction of the 
women could read and write in times when even the nobility were largely 
illiterate. Moreover, they spoke at least two languages; Hebrew and the 
language spoken where they happened to live. My grandmother grew up in a 
stetl (rural ghetto town) and spoke and wrote Russian, Yiddish, English, 
Latin, Greek, German, Lithuanian, Spanish, and French. She was one of 
two bakers for the village.

Another circumstance was nearly universal persecution. Jews were not 
allowed to own real property or to take part in normal civic activities. 
They kept to themselves by necessity, and remained a people.

I am an atheist, but I am also a Jew. That was true 60 years ago when I 
happened on a local Catholic kid (his father was a cop and his priest 
was a follower of Father Coughlin -- look that up) who was painting a 
swastika on the door of the Hebrew school I had refused to attend. I was 
able to sneak up behind him and hit him in the head with a length of 
2x4. He went down, falling sideways from the blow and twisting as he 
fell so that the back of his head hit the pavement. It sounded like a 
breaking egg, and I thought I had killed him. I poured his can of black 
paint (there were no spray cans back then) onto his upturned face and 
went home as the sun was beginning to show over the buildings. Days went 
by with no news of a murder or a death in the streets, so I guessed that 
he had lived. I guess I'm glad about that.

We -- the Jewish community -- knew that people were disappearing into 
the death camps in far greater numbers than could be accommodated there. 
One had to be deliberately blind not to know what was happening. The 
photographs of the camps taken as they were liberated were fresh in mind 
and vivid. With the painting of that swastika less than two years after 
those photos were taken, I snapped. What the hell: I was a teen. If we 
met today, I would feel no urge to apologize.

Responding to Vladimir's "That man is dangerous breed of nutcase. People 
like that could cause a lot of trouble; they are hunted by all 
governments in all countries", you wrote, "Your upbringing in Russia is 
showing through here.  As an American I would not ever consider killing 
someone who wants to start a new religion let alone someone who is 
trying to establish a place for believers of a different religion in the 
USA." You apparently missed his irony. (It's often hard to know when to 
take him seriously.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 7:09 AM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:50 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 7:25 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

>> I have no doubt -- nobody should -- that religious fervor is a powerful
>> psychological force for many people, much for good, too much for evil.
>
> I switch it around to a lot for good , also some for evil.  And that
> is where our perspectives are different.

We don't disagree much. I wrote "much", you wrote "a lot". I wrote "too 
much for evil", you wrote "also some for evil". If you, like me, think 
than ant amount of evil is too much, we don't disagree at all.

>  I guess I honor the pilgrims
> religious motivations for coming to the new world and their puritan
> followers and look at how those people laid much of the foundation for
> our country and see that as tremendous good.
> I know they don't teach that too much any more, but it was taught all
> the way up to the 1970's.

You could make a good case for the Pilgrims having come here to be free 
to persecute, as well as worship, in their own way.

>> When I was a teenager, the son of a friend of my mother's was saved from
>> drowning by his faith. (He believed that he was saved by God.) He had
>> not learned to swim when he fell off a pier into the East River. He
>> thrashed about and began to sink. He told me that at some point he
>> placed his faith in God and became passive. At that point, he began to
>> float and soon reached the surface. He thinks God saved him. I think
>> that the faith which let him relax (and the high salinity) saved him. I
>> too had gone under, but in a fresh-water lake. Despite my calm demeanor,
>> I sank to the bottom. I walked to where the water was shallow enough to
>> allow me to jump and break surface long enough to get a breath. While
>> under again, I continued to walk toward shore. Eventually, I walked out
>> of the lake. You may think my salvation divine, but I don't.
>>
>
> That is the difference between different people.  Different people
> interpret life experiences differently.

Does reality depend on interpretation?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/11 9:39 AM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:33 am, Mikolaj
....
>> Second, you are not able to think and discuss so conversation will be
>> useless.
>
> "not able to think"
>
>> You are lost for human race but this is natural process, don't worry,
>> have your mythological dream far away from this forum please.
>>
>
> "you are lost for human race"
>
> I stand by my assessment that you have a very simplistic and rigid
> worldview.  Ironically, the very thing you seem to accuse Christians
> of.

i share your worldview, Brent, but also think that this is a useless 
argument.

no one will be making a God-measuring instrument and no one will be 
making a Multiverse-measuring instrument.

both sides (belief and unbelief) makes observations of what exists 
around us and gropes for explanation.  although atheists won't admit it, 
both sides place faith in assumptions they make and contrive arguments 
to explain or speak to some pretty amazing things about the cosmos we 
find ourselves in and the consciousness we have.  somehow atheists 
derive meaning, or persuade themselves of meaning from the explanations 
they draw.  Daniel Dennett is convinced that we are actually automatons 
that "think" (deluded) that we have consciousness.  Richard Dawkins 
makes some convoluted argument about cranes vs. sky hooks but still 
doesn't have any idea what the cranes stand on.

 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html 
  or buy the book.

Alvin Plantinga speaks pretty well to it:

  http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html  or buy 
the book (the Dawkins Delusion).

their anthropic principle explanation to the observed fine-tuned 
universe (it's selection bias) still has no physical basis to stand on 
unless you build it on the concept of the existence of many (zillions) 
of universes, of which only a few will be lucky enough to support the 
existence of matter, astronomical structures, and life.  but, as i said, 
no one has made nor will be making an instrument that detects the 
existence of other universes, just as no one will be making a 
God-measuring device.  they choose to believe in the multiverse and i 
choose to believe in God.  even so, our Universe is pretty big.  what if 
it *is* the only one?  the fact that so many (we think there are about 
26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants) parameters just 
happened to fall out just right is like shuffling an honest deck and, 
with *one* trial, drawing out the Ace of Spades (or whatever is the 
life-giving card).  if there is a multiverse, we get to have many trials 
at it, most universes will go utterly unnoticed, and it is only in one 
of the few "lucky" universes that there are folks like us to look out 
into the heavens and ask how and why.  that's selection bias, but it 
still doesn't explain any causal mechanism for how and why there are all 
these universes emerging into existence in the first place.  string 
theory and M-theory makes a stab at it, but still has the basic problem 
for why *it* should exist.



but the arrogance comes from either side when the other is dismissed as 
being stupid.  Mikolaj succumbs to this arrogance, but Jerry does not.


when digital TV first came to the U.S., i (because i'm a cheap 
son-of-a-bitch that utterly hates Comcast and cable) went out and bought 
an outside antenna and a converter box and my TV works pretty good.  all 
of the channels, including PBS, have ancillary channels with different 
programming on them.  i get PBS from both sides of the Lake Champlain 
and on the NY side PBS (Mountain Lake) used to have for their ancillary 
channel (57-3) a network called "Think Bright" that had this interesting 
1/2 hour program called Closer To Truth (that i discovered for the first 
time).  i highly recommend folks from all sides of the argument to check 
it out on their website.  unfortunately the PBS station has decided to 
switch to the more common network called "World" and i don't get the 
program anymore and can only see little vignettes (interviews) from the 
website.


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sep 29, 9:09=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> brent wrote:
>> > On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>> >>>and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's t=
>he
>> >>>other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>> >>How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>> >>religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>>
>> > For Christians , some things that come to mind are
>>
>> > 1. The success of Christian based societies
>>
>> That is cyclic.
>> Today we observe the slump of the West and the raise of Asia, which is
>> not associated with any religion.
>> Only 1000 years ago while the Europe was tormented by Christianity the
>> Middle East enjoyed cultural growth under Islam.
>> Before that, there were Hindu, Greek, Roma, Egypt, Babylon and other
>> civilizations.
>>
>> How could this prove that one religion is better then the other?
>>
>> > 2. The preservation of the Jewish people. =A0This is an incredible
>> > thing.
>>
>> Valid point for Judaism, perhaps. =A0But Christianity?
>> Besides, not only the Jews persisted. Chinese, English, Slovaks,
>> Armenians, Sikhs, name any other nation or race.
>>
>
>It is also valid for Christianity, given that Christianity and Judaism
>are so tied together.
>
>The  difference between the other peoples you mention is that they had
>their own land.  The Jews remained as a distinct identity without
>their own homeland for nearly 2000 years.  This is remarkable and
>should cause even the atheist to pause and ponder this.

Why?   Many peoples and tribes existed this way for eons.   Many
native American Indian tribes were nomadic.   The Sioux (and I believe
others) thought the idea of "owning" land was foreign.

Tatanka is my copilot.

Your arguments may resonate with believers, but not with most others.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:53:18 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 9/30/2011 7:09 AM, brent wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 11:50 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>>> On 9/29/2011 7:25 PM, brent wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>>> I have no doubt -- nobody should -- that religious fervor is a powerful
>>> psychological force for many people, much for good, too much for evil.
>>
>> I switch it around to a lot for good , also some for evil.  And that
>> is where our perspectives are different.
>
>We don't disagree much. I wrote "much", you wrote "a lot". I wrote "too 
>much for evil", you wrote "also some for evil". If you, like me, think 
>than ant amount of evil is too much, we don't disagree at all.
>
>>  I guess I honor the pilgrims
>> religious motivations for coming to the new world and their puritan
>> followers and look at how those people laid much of the foundation for
>> our country and see that as tremendous good.
>> I know they don't teach that too much any more, but it was taught all
>> the way up to the 1970's.
>
>You could make a good case for the Pilgrims having come here to be free 
>to persecute, as well as worship, in their own way.

Agreed.  Anybody who is proud of the Salem witch trials is somebody
I'm not interesting in engaging with.   Fortunately that heralded the
end of that movement.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

....
> Alvin Plantinga speaks pretty well to it:
>
> http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html  or buy
> the book (the Dawkins Delusion).

i just realized that, since i have read this review, they have now 
archived it and you have to pay to get it out of the archive (unless 
you're already a subscriber to CT, which i am not).  but, fortunately 
for me, i downloaded the article in pdf form back in 2007 or 2008.

if anyone is really interested in reading the Plantinga review, i would 
be happy to email them the pdf.

L8r,

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:16:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

> Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:48:57 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-
In-
>> Schools/index.html?1315892583
>>>>
>>>> God help us!
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>> --
>>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
>>>> get.
>>>
>>> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
>>> actual contestants:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> I watched the real vid.  Miss Arkansas was #1 and was OK -- it fits
>> right in with my prejudices that someone from down south should believe
>> that only what she believes should be taught in schools.  But Miss
>> Alaska (#2) made me bail out of it -- too many ums and wells, and
>> "Evolution is part of our belief system", as if science is a religion.
>>
>> Then I got to reflecting:  Science _is_ a belief system:  it's based on
>> the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that
>> whatever Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here)
>> liar.
> 
> Nah. I think that's pretty much a false dichotomy. I have known too many
> people, mostly older folks, people of my parent's generation and before
> that did both.
> 
> Evolution doesn't preclude gods or a God. And you have to remember that
> at one level, religion itself is a sort of technology; most of what you
> can lay hands on in religion was invented by people, or stolen from
> another religion. What makes it religious is the inspiration form
> Inscrutable sources.
> 
> The first volume of Will & Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization"
> outlines the development of all this up to the beginning of Greek
> civilization. Ideas from Persian and Babylonian religion (and others )
> got thrust wholesale into the Judaic tradition.
> 
>> I
>> haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at
>> work above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I
>> _did_ decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big joke
>> that the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't
>> deserve to get any belief from _me_.
>>
>>
> Evolution pretty much can't be wrong, because it's doesn't make specific
> predictions. It's a tool of analysis of existing data, nothing more. it
> is, IMO, a variation on various anthropic principles.
> 
> Where people go off the rails is thinking that there's measurable
> *intent*. If there is Intent, then it's Inscrutable. This, unfortunately
> is decoded by some folks as "there is no meaning" and they go off the
> rails.
> 
>> So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss
>> Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.
>>
>>
> It's a tool, like a socket wrench. The socket wrench is still there
> whether I believe in it or not.

My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.  
My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have 
happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:20:16 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:05:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>>Astronomy is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.
> 
> http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

I read a comment by Jay Gould that the theory of gravity has far less 
evidence to back it up than the theory of evolution, yet no one has 
attacked it.

I almost ran out and started a religious movement in response: we have 
gravity because God loves us, and holds us each down to earth 
individually, according to our masses.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 
>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
> 
> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?

As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:

Step 1: decide what you want.

Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.

It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve into.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On 9/30/2011 7:21 AM, brent wrote:


> As a Jew do you ponder why the Jewish people are still held together
> after so much time without a homeland?

I have a pretty good idea, seen dimly as an insider and laid out in 
another response to you.

[I wrote]

>> I see many theists as morally weak, their morality imposed from outside.
>> Moral atheists have internalized their beliefs about right and wrong,
>> not merely accepted a priest's or a Book's authority.
>>
>
> I think that you give yourself too much credit for having come up with
> your belief set from your own internal moral compass.  Would you have
> the same beliefs if you were born in China, or in the amazon in a
> small cannibal tribe?  Your belief system and morals are largely
> rooted in the Christian and Jewish traditions that made up your
> environment.

Of course my view of morality is shaped by my environment and (secular) 
upbringing. But it is _my_ view, and doesn't need skirt the often 
contradictory teachings of the Torah.

> You see these outside  morals as making someone weak, but when your
> parents told you to not do something did you tell them to stop
> instructing you because it is making you morally weak?
>
> The Christian beliefs embody 2000 years of human experience in
> addition to the bible authority.  I would rather rely on that
> accumulated wisdom than on my ability, in one lifetime, to figure out
> "the" proper moral code.

Am I then to agree that homosexuality is "an abomination unto God"? Note 
that the same book (Deuteronomy) tells me that eating shellfish or pork 
are also abominations.

   ...

> I am glad your wife died in peace.

Thank you.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/11 1:09 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>
>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?

now, this is changing the topic a bit from what is quoted from me.  my 
point quoted is that i find it odd that the belief of theists is 
dismissed as having a problem of infinite regress ("well then, if God 
created everything, who/what created God?") whereas we explicitly 
identify God as a terminal node.  and, on top of that, without 
identifying anything as a terminal node, the atheists don't seem to 
understand that the problem of infinite regress applies to *their* 
belief system (what ground do Dawkins' cranes stand on?  or what does 
the "mother crane", the "crane that supports all other cranes" stand on?)

> As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>
> Step 1: decide what you want.
>
> Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>
> It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve into.

to answer Vlad's question myself, is that it's similar to choosing 
persons that one relates to in life.  while we cannot choose our parents 
or family, we *do* have some choice in friends, mentors, spouses and the 
like.  i doubt that any of us brings our scientific calculator to that 
task.  somehow, we depend on some deeper sense of reality and value in 
making such a choice.  this is where i originally appealed to the 
concept of *meaning*.

but, if i were to itemize why *i* relate more to Christianity than to 
Islam or Judaism or any of the Dharmic faiths, i'm afraid of pissing off 
anyone coming from those directions.  i could focus in further and 
itemize reasons that i relate more strongly to Anabaptism (Mennonites, 
etc.) than to Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, 
etc., but again, i don't feel like pissing any of those folks.

but, Vlad, the bottom line for me is what is *meaningful*.  and like 
what one sees in a potential spouse, or even in a cat that one might 
adopt, that is a highly personal thing, and it requires, in my opinion, 
an atmosphere of trust and tolerance to engage in that discussion.  it's 
like me saying "i'm really attracted to red-heads" and i point to 
someone, and Vlad says "oh, she's an ugly Irish pig".  who knows, the 
chick that i pointed to might be my spouse or girl friend!  so then we 
come to blows over an issue that is completely subjective and such a 
conflict is just pointless.

but, much to Jerry's credit (and Eric's) in bringing up the original 
topic of this OT thread, for some inexplicable reason (or that's hard to 
explain), American right-wing Christians are, *themselves*, continually 
picking fights with non-Christians (and even lefty Christians like me) 
in the culture wars by trying to shove *their* faith down the throats of 
everyone else.  and they want to do it in the public sphere (public 
schools, government, etc.) where no one can choose to avoid it.  that is 
so totally despicable and it makes me ashamed to have any association 
with such people because of what we might have in common in our faith. 
it must be much worse for moderate and decent Muslims as they behold 
what the violent, extremist Jihadist Islamist such as al Queada or the 
Taliban or even the Saudi or Pakistani governments are doing.  go back 5 
centuries in Europe and you'll see people that are allegedly "Christian" 
doing much of the same.  it's shameful, and a milder form of it (the 
original topic of this thread) persists today, much of it here in the 
U.S.  such hypocrites!  and these assholes bring shame and ridicule to 
Jesus' name.


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Sep 30, 12:00=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT), brent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 29, 9:09=3DA0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> brent wrote:
> >> > On Sep 29, 7:13 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >> >>>and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it'=
s t=3D
> >he
> >> >>>other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> >> >>How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >> >>religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything els=
e?
>
> >> > For Christians , some things that come to mind are
>
> >> > 1. The success of Christian based societies
>
> >> That is cyclic.
> >> Today we observe the slump of the West and the raise of Asia, which is
> >> not associated with any religion.
> >> Only 1000 years ago while the Europe was tormented by Christianity the
> >> Middle East enjoyed cultural growth under Islam.
> >> Before that, there were Hindu, Greek, Roma, Egypt, Babylon and other
> >> civilizations.
>
> >> How could this prove that one religion is better then the other?
>
> >> > 2. The preservation of the Jewish people. =3DA0This is an incredible
> >> > thing.
>
> >> Valid point for Judaism, perhaps. =3DA0But Christianity?
> >> Besides, not only the Jews persisted. Chinese, English, Slovaks,
> >> Armenians, Sikhs, name any other nation or race.
>
> >It is also valid for Christianity, given that Christianity and Judaism
> >are so tied together.
>
> >The =A0difference between the other peoples you mention is that they had
> >their own land. =A0The Jews remained as a distinct identity without
> >their own homeland for nearly 2000 years. =A0This is remarkable and
> >should cause even the atheist to pause and ponder this.
>
> Why? =A0 Many peoples and tribes existed this way for eons. =A0 Many
> native American Indian tribes were nomadic. =A0 The Sioux (and I believe
> others) thought the idea of "owning" land was foreign.
>
> Tatanka is my copilot.
>
> Your arguments may resonate with believers, but not with most others.
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

I don't expect my ideas to resonate with non-believers.  (I have read
your website to know that you have some bitter experiences toward
Christianity [or organized Christianity] )

But, when I see these usenet postings where people start going down
the track of "religion has never done anything but kill people" or "I
use my vastly superior intellect to navigate my life" or "anyone who
has faith is stupid or weak minded" then I will jump in and try to
make the case that there are intelligent people who hold the faith
(even if I am not one of them) and there are logical and compelling
reasons for people to embrace faith.

On Sep 30, 12:04=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:53:18 -0400, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On 9/30/2011 7:09 AM, brent wrote:
> >> On Sep 29, 11:50 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >>> On 9/29/2011 7:25 PM, brent wrote:
>
> > =A0 ...
>
> >>> I have no doubt -- nobody should -- that religious fervor is a powerf=
ul
> >>> psychological force for many people, much for good, too much for evil=
..
>
> >> I switch it around to a lot for good , also some for evil. =A0And that
> >> is where our perspectives are different.
>
> >We don't disagree much. I wrote "much", you wrote "a lot". I wrote "too
> >much for evil", you wrote "also some for evil". If you, like me, think
> >than ant amount of evil is too much, we don't disagree at all.
>
> >> =A0I guess I honor the pilgrims
> >> religious motivations for coming to the new world and their puritan
> >> followers and look at how those people laid much of the foundation for
> >> our country and see that as tremendous good.
> >> I know they don't teach that too much any more, but it was taught all
> >> the way up to the 1970's.
>
> >You could make a good case for the Pilgrims having come here to be free
> >to persecute, as well as worship, in their own way.
>
> Agreed. =A0Anybody who is proud of the Salem witch trials is somebody
> I'm not interesting in engaging with. =A0 Fortunately that heralded the
> end of that movement.
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

To put the Salem witch trial in some perspective... At least they
stopped at some point and realized they had strayed from their own
principles.  On the other hand, the Bolsheviks just kept on killing
and killing and killing, never questioning it at all.

On 9/30/11 1:46 PM, brent wrote:
>
> To put the Salem witch trial in some perspective... At least they
> stopped at some point and realized they had strayed from their own
> principles.  On the other hand, the Bolsheviks just kept on killing
> and killing and killing, never questioning it at all.

*never*?

is, or was, Mikhail Gorbachev a Bolshevik?  at least one of political 
decent?

i surely think that he started questioning some of the direction and 
methods of the Soviet state and instituted reforms like Glasnost and 
Perestroika.

i certainly believe that there exists people, groups, and institutions 
that are absolutely evil.  but i am hesitant to identify specific 
persons as being outside of the reach of redemption.  even atheistic 
commies.  even Republican dicks.  even Michelle Bachmann.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Sep 30, 1:39=A0pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On 9/30/11 1:09 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> >> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
> >>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress=
..
>
> >> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> now, this is changing the topic a bit from what is quoted from me. =A0my
> point quoted is that i find it odd that the belief of theists is
> dismissed as having a problem of infinite regress ("well then, if God
> created everything, who/what created God?") whereas we explicitly
> identify God as a terminal node. =A0and, on top of that, without
> identifying anything as a terminal node, the atheists don't seem to
> understand that the problem of infinite regress applies to *their*
> belief system (what ground do Dawkins' cranes stand on? =A0or what does
> the "mother crane", the "crane that supports all other cranes" stand on?)
>
> > As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>
> > Step 1: decide what you want.
>
> > Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>
> > It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve into=
..
>
> to answer Vlad's question myself, is that it's similar to choosing
> persons that one relates to in life. =A0while we cannot choose our parent=
s
> or family, we *do* have some choice in friends, mentors, spouses and the
> like. =A0i doubt that any of us brings our scientific calculator to that
> task. =A0somehow, we depend on some deeper sense of reality and value in
> making such a choice. =A0this is where i originally appealed to the
> concept of *meaning*.
>
> but, if i were to itemize why *i* relate more to Christianity than to
> Islam or Judaism or any of the Dharmic faiths, i'm afraid of pissing off
> anyone coming from those directions. =A0i could focus in further and
> itemize reasons that i relate more strongly to Anabaptism (Mennonites,
> etc.) than to Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism,
> etc., but again, i don't feel like pissing any of those folks.
>
> but, Vlad, the bottom line for me is what is *meaningful*. =A0and like
> what one sees in a potential spouse, or even in a cat that one might
> adopt, that is a highly personal thing, and it requires, in my opinion,
> an atmosphere of trust and tolerance to engage in that discussion. =A0it'=
s
> like me saying "i'm really attracted to red-heads" and i point to
> someone, and Vlad says "oh, she's an ugly Irish pig". =A0who knows, the
> chick that i pointed to might be my spouse or girl friend! =A0so then we
> come to blows over an issue that is completely subjective and such a
> conflict is just pointless.
>
> but, much to Jerry's credit (and Eric's) in bringing up the original
> topic of this OT thread, for some inexplicable reason (or that's hard to
> explain), American right-wing Christians are, *themselves*, continually
> picking fights with non-Christians (and even lefty Christians like me)
> in the culture wars by trying to shove *their* faith down the throats of
> everyone else. =A0and they want to do it in the public sphere (public
> schools, government, etc.) where no one can choose to avoid it. =A0that i=
s

This cuts both ways, and it is why these fights take place.  The
schools have greatly swerved to secularism compared to 50 years ago.
That the Christians would fight back at this should not offend you nor
surprise you.  If the secular left pushes its views it is all done
under the argument of tolerance and science and enlightenment.  When
the Christian community fights these changes they are intolerant,
uneducated and non-scientific.


> so totally despicable and it makes me ashamed to have any >association  w=
ith such people because of what we might have in >common in our faith.

I do not put Christians that are pushing back against the forced
secularism into the same category as the very few cartoons characters
that the news likes to put forth as an example of typical Christian
extremism (like the guy from Kansas that interrupts military funerals)

> it must be much worse for moderate and decent Muslims as they behold
> what the violent, extremist Jihadist Islamist such as al Queada or the
> Taliban or even the Saudi or Pakistani governments are doing. =A0go back =
5
> centuries in Europe and you'll see people that are allegedly "Christian"
> doing much of the same. =A0it's shameful, and a milder form of it (the
> original topic of this thread) persists today, much of it here in the
> U.S. =A0such hypocrites! =A0and these assholes bring shame and ridicule t=
o
> Jesus' name.
>
> --
>
> r b-j =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0r...@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Sep 30, 2:03=A0pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On 9/30/11 1:46 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
> > To put the Salem witch trial in some perspective... At least they
> > stopped at some point and realized they had strayed from their own
> > principles. =A0On the other hand, the Bolsheviks just kept on killing
> > and killing and killing, never questioning it at all.
>
> *never*?
>

ok- compare approximately one year for the Salem witch trial to

the soviet purges and forced famines that went from the 1920's well
into the 1930's and probably right to WWII.

I am not defending the witch trials (as if anyone would even though
Eric Jacobson seems to think there are people out there that are proud
to defend these trials)  , but human beings are human beings, and I
personally believe that over the course of history that Christianity
has provided far more restraint to mass killings than provided
justification for mass killings.




> is, or was, Mikhail Gorbachev a Bolshevik? =A0at least one of political
> decent?
>
> i surely think that he started questioning some of the direction and
> methods of the Soviet state and instituted reforms like Glasnost and
> Perestroika.
>
> i certainly believe that there exists people, groups, and institutions
> that are absolutely evil. =A0but i am hesitant to identify specific
> persons as being outside of the reach of redemption. =A0even atheistic
> commies. =A0even Republican dicks. =A0even Michelle Bachmann.
>
> --
>
> r b-j =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0r...@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Sep 30, 1:03=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:16:12 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> > Tim Wescott wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:48:57 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:31:52 -0400, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wro=
te:
>
> >>>>http://cdn.videosift.com/static/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-
> In-
> >> Schools/index.html?1315892583
>
> >>>> God help us!
>
> >>>> Jerry
> >>>> --
> >>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
> >>>> get.
>
> >>> That's a very nicely done parody of this video, which is real with
> >>> actual contestants:
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DUkBmhM0R2A0&feature=3Dyoutu.be
>
> >> I watched the real vid. =A0Miss Arkansas was #1 and was OK -- it fits
> >> right in with my prejudices that someone from down south should believ=
e
> >> that only what she believes should be taught in schools. =A0But Miss
> >> Alaska (#2) made me bail out of it -- too many ums and wells, and
> >> "Evolution is part of our belief system", as if science is a religion.
>
> >> Then I got to reflecting: =A0Science _is_ a belief system: =A0it's bas=
ed on
> >> the belief that either there are no gods (or is no God), or that
> >> whatever Deity created the universe isn't a (insert bad word here)
> >> liar.
>
> > Nah. I think that's pretty much a false dichotomy. I have known too man=
y
> > people, mostly older folks, people of my parent's generation and before
> > that did both.
>
> > Evolution doesn't preclude gods or a God. And you have to remember that
> > at one level, religion itself is a sort of technology; most of what you
> > can lay hands on in religion was invented by people, or stolen from
> > another religion. What makes it religious is the inspiration form
> > Inscrutable sources.
>
> > The first volume of Will & Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization"
> > outlines the development of all this up to the beginning of Greek
> > civilization. Ideas from Persian and Babylonian religion (and others )
> > got thrust wholesale into the Judaic tradition.
>
> >> I
> >> haven't decided yet whether or not there are supernatural powers at
> >> work above and behind the Universe, or whether they're honest, but I
> >> _did_ decide a long time ago that if Evolution is just a great big jok=
e
> >> that the biologists haven't gotten yet, that it/he/she/they don't
> >> deserve to get any belief from _me_.
>
> > Evolution pretty much can't be wrong, because it's doesn't make specifi=
c
> > predictions. It's a tool of analysis of existing data, nothing more. it
> > is, IMO, a variation on various anthropic principles.
>
> > Where people go off the rails is thinking that there's measurable
> > *intent*. If there is Intent, then it's Inscrutable. This, unfortunatel=
y
> > is decoded by some folks as "there is no meaning" and they go off the
> > rails.
>
> >> So I guess that Evolution is part of my belief system, and that Miss
> >> Arkansas wants to believe in a God who's quite happy to lie to her.
>
> > It's a tool, like a socket wrench. The socket wrench is still there
> > whether I believe in it or not.
>
> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both. =
=A0
> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>

Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
the other extreme).

There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.

> --www.wescottdesign.com

On Sep 30, 1:09=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> > robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
> >> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>
> > How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> > religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>
> Step 1: decide what you want.
>
> Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>
> It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve into.
>
> --www.wescottdesign.com

I save my cynicism for the proponents of expansive government who want
to take away my free speech and push crappola onto my kids.  They are
far more threatening to my daily life then the people you describe
above.

On 9/30/11 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com>  wrote:
>>
>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.
>> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
>> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>
>
> Does it really matter?

i think it does.  according to the Christian bible, Jesus (as well as 
Lazerus and Jarius' daughter) was *physically*, *bodily* resurrected 
from death.  because i don't believe in a reality that is totally 
dictated by materialism, i actually believe in the factuality of this. 
it's important to my *faith*.  but this does not belong in a physiology 
textbook.

>  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
> the other extreme).

and there are some that don't.  like pharmacists that will not dispense 
birth control or RU-486 or similar, because they believe the use of such 
  is wrong.  i, personally, have some sympathy for these professionals 
of faith (even if i disagree with the specific actions) because i would 
have the same problem if the issue was, say, dispensing the drugs used 
in a lawful judicial execution of the sentence of death.  i would refuse 
to do it and would not want to lose my job for such refusal.

> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.

well, what defines a person as smart or very smart or very very smart is 
an issue that can be debatable.  i would disagree that every possible 
mix (such as young-earth creationism) is, itself, smart.  some of these 
beliefs are very, very dumb.  not only bad science, bad history, but 
they are also bad theology because it leads to a theology that is either 
or both hopelessly incoherent and/or to one (as someone alluded to 
earlier) that can only conclude that God lies to us.  that's a crappy 
theology.  at least it is in my opinion.

i gotta go (literally) crawl under my house again.  (still dealing with 
winterizing after what was stripped out after the spring flooding.  i 
have a bad habit of putting unpleasant chores off until the absolute 
last moment.)

care to comment on the other posts (regarding Dawkins vs. Plantinga) 
that i put into this thread?

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Jerry Avins wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 7:37 PM, brent wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 7:29 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>>
>>>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>>>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>>>
>>> They kinda don't. Not really, unless they're on a Crusade or something,
>>> and they need a Jungian Other to justify some killin' .
>>>
>> Well , the athiest* societies have a pretty bad track record of not
>> even needing a Jungian Other. They just start butchering and
>> butchering and butchering. (Soviet Russia, China and Cambodia comes
>> to mind).
>
> That's only one side. A lot of killing is done in the cause of religion.
> It's not just women stoned to death for the crime of having been raped,
> or pushed back into a burning building because they aren't properly
> dressed for the street. As A Jew, I have to think about holocausts,
> Inquisitions, and pogroms. (When my race is asked on forms, I write in
> Mongrel. My great great grandmother was raped by a Cossack -- a.k.a.
> Kazakh -- during a pogrom. I am of that line.)
>

I am sure there are exceptions, but killings over religion generally
are not about religion, they're a form of politics.

Daniel Goldhagen has written about this at length:
<http://www.booktv.org/Program/10968/Worse+Than+War+Genocide+Eliminationism+and+the+Ongoing+Assault+on+Humanity.aspx> 


The Muslim dissonance with Judaism, the Spanish Inquisition were not
specifically religious as you and I would think of it. Eliminationism
is a political ploy, and religion is only one "difference" it
can be based on.

>> I would think that as an athiest would see religion as a restraining
>> force on man more than the force that causes killing. The evidence of
>> the 20th century makes it clear that when societies are built by
>> tearing down the evils of religion, they go to killing at rates far
>> greater than the religious societies.
>
> I see many theists as morally weak, their morality imposed from outside.
> Moral atheists have internalized their beliefs about right and wrong,
> not merely accepted a priest's or a Book's authority.
>
> A devout Catholic hospice nurse told my late wife that her religious
> faith must be very strong for her to accept her lot so peacefully. Ann
> answered that if she believed in a god, she would be either angry at
> being singled out for cancer, or guilty wondering what she had done to
> deserve it. Her serenity came from knowing that her impending death was
> a matter of chance (and brac1). "Shit happens, and this time it happened
> to me." Her peace derived from her absolute faith that God either
> doesn't exist or isn't involved with humans.
>
> Jerry
> _________________
> * I before E except after C, and when sounding like A as in neighbor and
> weigh (and in science, their, weird, atheist, reiterate, etc.).

--
Les Cargill

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:07:34 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:20:16 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:05:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>Astronomy is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.
>> 
>> http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
>
>I read a comment by Jay Gould that the theory of gravity has far less 
>evidence to back it up than the theory of evolution, yet no one has 
>attacked it.
>
>I almost ran out and started a religious movement in response: we have 
>gravity because God loves us, and holds us each down to earth 
>individually, according to our masses.

As I understand it, the earliest theories reach back to the notion of
the four elements and the location of the spiritual up in the sky and
the material in the depths of the earth. The makeup of different things
influenced their behavior, with the most purely earthlike, material
objects attracted to the material pole below, while the most airy,
spiritual objects were attracted to the spiritual pole above.

Given the limited means that paleo- and neolithic populations had for
analytic chemistry and physics, it was a reasonable theory...

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

On Sep 30, 3:20=A0pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On 9/30/11 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> =A0wrote:
>
> >> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both=
..
> >> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
> >> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>
> > Does it really matter?
>
> i think it does. =A0according to the Christian bible, Jesus (as well as
> Lazerus and Jarius' daughter) was *physically*, *bodily* resurrected
> from death. =A0because i don't believe in a reality that is totally
> dictated by materialism, i actually believe in the factuality of this.
> it's important to my *faith*. =A0but this does not belong in a physiology
> textbook.
>
> > =A0There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
> > can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
> > that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
> > being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
> > the other extreme).
>
> and there are some that don't. =A0like pharmacists that will not dispense
> birth control or RU-486 or similar, because they believe the use of such
> =A0 is wrong. =A0i, personally, have some sympathy for these professional=
s
> of faith (even if i disagree with the specific actions) because i would
> have the same problem if the issue was, say, dispensing the drugs used
> in a lawful judicial execution of the sentence of death. =A0i would refus=
e
> to do it and would not want to lose my job for such refusal.
>
> > There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
> > God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>
> well, what defines a person as smart or very smart or very very smart is
> an issue that can be debatable. =A0i would disagree that every possible
> mix (such as young-earth creationism) is, itself, smart. =A0some of these
> beliefs are very, very dumb. =A0not only bad science, bad history, but
> they are also bad theology because it leads to a theology that is either
> or both hopelessly incoherent and/or to one (as someone alluded to
> earlier) that can only conclude that God lies to us. =A0that's a crappy
> theology. =A0at least it is in my opinion.
>
> i gotta go (literally) crawl under my house again. =A0(still dealing with
> winterizing after what was stripped out after the spring flooding. =A0i
> have a bad habit of putting unpleasant chores off until the absolute
> last moment.)
>
> care to comment on the other posts (regarding Dawkins vs. Plantinga)
> that i put into this thread?
>
> --
>
> r b-j =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0r...@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."


Starting with Dawkins:


The first sentence in the article is:
-------------------
America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century
enlightenmen
-----------------

Right off the bat the guy is spewing BS.  Nobody thought of the USA as
anything but a Christian nation until very recently. Perhaps one could
say that the institutions were to be secular to the extent to not
favour one expression of faith over another -- but pure secularism??
Remember when America was founded and run by WASPS (bad bad bad)? We
don't hear that anymore, now the left (as typified by this guy) has
the gall to simply say that America never was Christian but from its
very founding was secular.

Here is a website that tries to lay out the religious affiliations of
the founding fathers:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

So the Dawkins starts off with a lie, but I will try to comment from
here

(I mean who ever would have made such a preposterous statement 50
years ago or 100 years ago?  )

Here is another sentence:
-------------------
It [the religious right]  obsesses about gay marriage.
---------------------
 Again this is quite a twist.  Who obsesses over gay marriage?
It is the left that obsessed about it enough to insist on changing it,
and yet the religious right (and many many older non-religious folk) ,
who wants to leave things alone,  is portrayred as the obsesing party.

This is why arguing with the left is difficult.  This is so clearly a
twist, and he is so intellectualy dishonest to not see it as the twist
it is.


What does the beliefs of religious people have to do with the
existence of God?  In part, his justification of why there is no god
seems to start off with showing how stupid people that believe in God
are.  This hardly seems like a good argument.

It gets hard for me to read this article, but I think he is ultimately
claiming that natural selection is so powerful that it explains
everything.  He acknowledges that reasonable people (up until very
recently, of course) looked at the complications in nature and
naturally drew the conclusion that there must be a god (a designer).

So I guess his punchline paragraph is:
----------------
Even before Darwin's time, the illogicality was glaring: how could it
ever have been a good idea to postulate, in explanation for the
existence of improbable things, a designer who would have to be even
more improbable? The entire argument is a logical non-starter, as
David Hume realized before Darwin was born. What Hume didn't know was
the supremely elegant alternative to both chance and design that
Darwin was to give us. Natural selection is so stunningly powerful and
elegant, it not only explains the whole of life, it raises our
consciousness and boosts our confidence in science's future ability to
explain everything else.
-----------------

He further states:
---------------

Whether my conjecture is right that evolution is the only explanation
for life in the universe, there is no doubt that it is the explanation
for life on this planet.
-------------
I can almost guarantee you , that 100 or 200 years from now that what
he is  claiming above to be the only explanation for life in the
universe will be replaced by some new radically different theory.
That statement above is as dogmatic as anything a pope has said for
the last 1000 years.


His concluding sentence:
------------------------------
We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor,
fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those
other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very
very improbable.
------------------------------

He really should put "I" in for "we".  I see strawmen being set up and
knocked down by this guy, with very little reflection as to the holes
in his own line of thinking.

This is kind of a 25 minute perusal, so don't hold me to this too
tightly.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:28:27 -0700, brent wrote:


>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.
>> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
>> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>
>>
> Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at the
> other extreme).
> 
> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.

When it is used as justification for wrong action, yes.  When it is used 
to single out kids in school for believing 'the wrong things', when it is 
used to justify taking away people's rights, when it is used to justify 
allowing a child to die from neglect, or when it is used to justify 
outright slaughter, then yes, it is wrong.

In Russia in 1905, it was perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the church 
to kill Jewish folks because they were "Christ killers" and because "they 
sacrificed little Christian babies in their rites".  This was "OK" 
because the church leaders (and, by extension, the bible) said so.

In England in the 1600's it was perfectly acceptable to burn Catholics on 
the stake as heretics -- when it wasn't perfectly acceptable to burn 
Protestants on the stake as heretics.  This was perfectly OK by whatever 
church leaders happened to be ascendant at the time.

In Iran right after their revolution, it was standard practice to rape 
women condemned to death -- because Islam says it's a sin to execute a 
virgin, and they wanted to stay on the right side of their law.

And before you say "but what does that have to do with the evolution vs. 
creation debate", just allow me to say -- everything.  Because once the 
clock is rolled back to forbid the teaching of evolution in schools, 
it'll be time to roll the clock back to allowing pograms.  Or forbidding 
you to criticize priests who rape little boys and girls.  Or witch 
burnings.  Or forbidding you to teach modern astronomy.  Or use modern 
medicine.  And on, and on and on.

There is a _reason_ that the separation of church and state is enshrined 
in our constitution, and it isn't just because it sounded good at the 
time.  Go wiki England's "Glorious Revolution" and its aftermath if you 
want to see what happens when we tear down that wall.

Religion can be a beautiful thing, if it is in the hands of people with 
beautiful minds.  But in the hands of people with ugly minds, it has 
proven to be very ugly, indeed.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:39:12 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> On 9/30/11 1:09 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite
>>>> regress.
>>>
>>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
> 
> now, this is changing the topic a bit from what is quoted from me.  my
> point quoted is that i find it odd that the belief of theists is
> dismissed as having a problem of infinite regress ("well then, if God
> created everything, who/what created God?") whereas we explicitly
> identify God as a terminal node.  and, on top of that, without
> identifying anything as a terminal node, the atheists don't seem to
> understand that the problem of infinite regress applies to *their*
> belief system (what ground do Dawkins' cranes stand on?  or what does
> the "mother crane", the "crane that supports all other cranes" stand
> on?)
> 
>> As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>>
>> Step 1: decide what you want.
>>
>> Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>>
>> It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve
>> into.
> 
> to answer Vlad's question myself, is that it's similar to choosing
> persons that one relates to in life.  while we cannot choose our parents
> or family, we *do* have some choice in friends, mentors, spouses and the
> like.  i doubt that any of us brings our scientific calculator to that
> task.  somehow, we depend on some deeper sense of reality and value in
> making such a choice.  this is where i originally appealed to the
> concept of *meaning*.
> 
> but, if i were to itemize why *i* relate more to Christianity than to
> Islam or Judaism or any of the Dharmic faiths, i'm afraid of pissing off
> anyone coming from those directions.  i could focus in further and
> itemize reasons that i relate more strongly to Anabaptism (Mennonites,
> etc.) than to Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism,
> etc., but again, i don't feel like pissing any of those folks.
> 
> but, Vlad, the bottom line for me is what is *meaningful*.  and like
> what one sees in a potential spouse, or even in a cat that one might
> adopt, that is a highly personal thing, and it requires, in my opinion,
> an atmosphere of trust and tolerance to engage in that discussion.  it's
> like me saying "i'm really attracted to red-heads" and i point to
> someone, and Vlad says "oh, she's an ugly Irish pig".  who knows, the
> chick that i pointed to might be my spouse or girl friend!  so then we
> come to blows over an issue that is completely subjective and such a
> conflict is just pointless.
> 
> but, much to Jerry's credit (and Eric's) in bringing up the original
> topic of this OT thread, for some inexplicable reason (or that's hard to
> explain), American right-wing Christians are, *themselves*, continually
> picking fights with non-Christians (and even lefty Christians like me)
> in the culture wars by trying to shove *their* faith down the throats of
> everyone else.  and they want to do it in the public sphere (public
> schools, government, etc.) where no one can choose to avoid it.  that is
> so totally despicable and it makes me ashamed to have any association
> with such people because of what we might have in common in our faith.
> it must be much worse for moderate and decent Muslims as they behold
> what the violent, extremist Jihadist Islamist such as al Queada or the
> Taliban or even the Saudi or Pakistani governments are doing.  go back 5
> centuries in Europe and you'll see people that are allegedly "Christian"
> doing much of the same.  it's shameful, and a milder form of it (the
> original topic of this thread) persists today, much of it here in the
> U.S.  such hypocrites!  and these assholes bring shame and ridicule to
> Jesus' name.

Thank you for saying that Robert.  I think that the way that the 
Christian Right in the US* mix politics and religion damages both 
politics and religion.  As soon as you say "vote this way because God 
says so" you not only warp the political debate, but you put up a sign to 
all the unscrupulous** power-broker wannabees that says "GET RELIGION and 
GET POWER!!!".  Then after a while the only members of your church are 
the sheep and the wolves, without a shepherd to be seen.

* And, for that matter the Islamic Right in the middle east, and the 
Jewish Right in Israel, not to mention the Buddhist right and the Shinto 
right, etc., etc., etc.

** And the devoted who aren't clear on their scruples.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Sep 30, 4:57=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:28:27 -0700, brent wrote:
> >> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both=
..
> >> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
> >> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>
> > Does it really matter? =A0There are plenty of doctors and scientists wh=
o
> > can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
> > that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
> > being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at the
> > other extreme).
>
> > There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
> > God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>
> When it is used as justification for wrong action, yes. =A0When it is use=
d
> to single out kids in school for believing 'the wrong things', when it is
> used to justify taking away people's rights, when it is used to justify
> allowing a child to die from neglect, or when it is used to justify
> outright slaughter, then yes, it is wrong.
>
> In Russia in 1905, it was perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the church
> to kill Jewish folks because they were "Christ killers" and because "they
> sacrificed little Christian babies in their rites". =A0This was "OK"
> because the church leaders (and, by extension, the bible) said so.
>
> In England in the 1600's it was perfectly acceptable to burn Catholics on
> the stake as heretics -- when it wasn't perfectly acceptable to burn
> Protestants on the stake as heretics. =A0This was perfectly OK by whateve=
r
> church leaders happened to be ascendant at the time.
>
> In Iran right after their revolution, it was standard practice to rape
> women condemned to death -- because Islam says it's a sin to execute a
> virgin, and they wanted to stay on the right side of their law.
>
> And before you say "but what does that have to do with the evolution vs.
> creation debate", just allow me to say -- everything. =A0Because once the
> clock is rolled back to forbid the teaching of evolution in schools,
> it'll be time to roll the clock back to allowing pograms. =A0Or forbiddin=
g
> you to criticize priests who rape little boys and girls. =A0Or witch
> burnings. =A0Or forbidding you to teach modern astronomy. =A0Or use moder=
n
> medicine. =A0And on, and on and on.

There are philosophical problems with evolution that are evident to
people like me but not so much to people like you.  If you insist that
I own (so to speak)the problems of Russia killing jews and heretics
being burned, then how about you own the logical conclusions of
evolution as written by

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

or

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


or all kind of other philosophical conclusions that logically are
derived if evolution is a foundational belief.

Scientific reason was the basis of the Soviet Union and we know where
that led.  How about putting forth the philosophical dilemmas that
arise from an embracing of evolution?

and these go on and on and on.




>
> There is a _reason_ that the separation of church and state is enshrined
> in our constitution, and it isn't just because it sounded good at the
> time. =A0Go wiki England's "Glorious Revolution" and its aftermath if you
> want to see what happens when we tear down that wall.
>
> Religion can be a beautiful thing, if it is in the hands of people with
> beautiful minds. =A0But in the hands of people with ugly minds, it has
> proven to be very ugly, indeed.
>
> --www.wescottdesign.com

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(big snip)
> There are philosophical problems with evolution that are evident to
> people like me but not so much to people like you.  

There are no philosophical problems with evolution, but only with
some peoples' belief that there are.  The problems trace back
to early in the last century, and have little to do with the actual
science.  You can watch evolution in a cup of bacteria over a
few hours.  You can do that independent of which church you happen
to go to or believe in.

> If you insist that
> I own (so to speak)the problems of Russia killing jews and heretics
> being burned, then how about you own the logical conclusions of
> evolution as written by

-- glen

brent wrote:

> Scientific reason was the basis of the Soviet Union and we know where
> that led.

LOL

Scientific reason was never the basis of the Soviet Union. The basis was 
a political line of the Communist Party. Which was often against any 
logic or common sense.

VLV

On Sep 30, 5:59=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (big snip)
>
> > There are philosophical problems with evolution that are evident to
> > people like me but not so much to people like you. =A0
>
> There are no philosophical problems with evolution, but only with
> some peoples' belief that there are. =A0The problems trace back
> to early in the last century, and have little to do with the actual
> science. =A0You can watch evolution in a cup of bacteria over a
> few hours. =A0You can do that independent of which church you happen
> to go to or believe in.
>

if evolution (free from god's hand) is a fact then there are many
logical derivatives that should be embraced by believers in it.

For instance, what is wrong with genocide? Why is it wrong for the
Germans to rid themselves of the Jew in a materialistic/atheistic/
evolutionary world?  If one group chooses to make their environment
different by elimnating another group , this would is  ok in an
atheistic/evolutionary logic construct.

I can see where an evolutionist may come up with a reason that
genocide is wrong, but for an atheist-evolutionist to dismiss this
type of logical application of evolution as absurd... is ...
well...absurd.

There are many more applications of where evolutionary thought leads
to socially unacceptable conclusions.  A real scientific/rationale
person  (like Shockley for instance)would not be deterred by these
socially unacceptable conclusions and would rather be true to
themselves and their science rather than be socially accepted.

The point is that to claim to be scientific and objective and then
conveniently avoid the prickly extensions of that philosophy makes you
just as politically motivated as the non-scientific person and even
more hypocritical.



> > If you insist that
> > I own (so to speak)the problems of Russia killing jews and heretics
> > being burned, then how about you own the logical conclusions of
> > evolution as written by
>
> -- glen

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
> if evolution (free from god's hand) is a fact then there are many
> logical derivatives that should be embraced by believers in it.

Then how about believers in quantum gravity, global warming,
or, to get closer to on topic, z-transform theory?  
There is much in science that some may or may not believe in.

> For instance, what is wrong with genocide? Why is it wrong for the
> Germans to rid themselves of the Jew in a materialistic/atheistic/
> evolutionary world?  If one group chooses to make their environment
> different by elimnating another group , this would is  ok in an
> atheistic/evolutionary logic construct.

Genocide is right or wrong completely independent of the
molecular biology of DNA.  It is also independent of quantum
physics, atmospheric chemistry, and digital filter theory.

> I can see where an evolutionist may come up with a reason that
> genocide is wrong, but for an atheist-evolutionist to dismiss this
> type of logical application of evolution as absurd... is ...
> well...absurd.

An evolutionary biologist, a quantum physicist and an electrical
engineer may make comments on genocide, though they have nothing
to do with the science.

Some people in the 1920's got the idea that evolution mattered
to religion.  If you trace it back, it is more anti-science in
general, but evolution stuck.  

> There are many more applications of where evolutionary thought leads
> to socially unacceptable conclusions.  A real scientific/rationale
> person  (like Shockley for instance)would not be deterred by these
> socially unacceptable conclusions and would rather be true to
> themselves and their science rather than be socially accepted.

Certianly there are many who have unscientific beliefs and
try to use science to convince others to share those beliefs.
That has nothing to do with the truth, or lack thereof, of
the underlying science.  There are truly moral and ethical
questions to be discussed.  

> The point is that to claim to be scientific and objective and then
> conveniently avoid the prickly extensions of that philosophy makes you
> just as politically motivated as the non-scientific person and even
> more hypocritical.

Just because some, scientist or not, attempt to misuse science
for non-scientific fields doesn't mean that the science is wrong.
It is those misusing the science that are wrong.

>> > If you insist that
>> > I own (so to speak)the problems of Russia killing jews and heretics
>> > being burned, then how about you own the logical conclusions of
>> > evolution as written by

-- glen

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:35:41 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Sep 30, 4:57 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:28:27 -0700, brent wrote:
>> >> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution
>> >> both. My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't
>> >> have happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>
>> > Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists
>> > who can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they
>> > believe that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme)
>> > to life being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years
>> > ago (at the other extreme).
>>
>> > There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture
>> > of God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>>
>> When it is used as justification for wrong action, yes.  When it is
>> used to single out kids in school for believing 'the wrong things',
>> when it is used to justify taking away people's rights, when it is used
>> to justify allowing a child to die from neglect, or when it is used to
>> justify outright slaughter, then yes, it is wrong.
>>
>> In Russia in 1905, it was perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the
>> church to kill Jewish folks because they were "Christ killers" and
>> because "they sacrificed little Christian babies in their rites".  This
>> was "OK" because the church leaders (and, by extension, the bible) said
>> so.
>>
>> In England in the 1600's it was perfectly acceptable to burn Catholics
>> on the stake as heretics -- when it wasn't perfectly acceptable to burn
>> Protestants on the stake as heretics.  This was perfectly OK by
>> whatever church leaders happened to be ascendant at the time.
>>
>> In Iran right after their revolution, it was standard practice to rape
>> women condemned to death -- because Islam says it's a sin to execute a
>> virgin, and they wanted to stay on the right side of their law.
>>
>> And before you say "but what does that have to do with the evolution
>> vs. creation debate", just allow me to say -- everything.  Because once
>> the clock is rolled back to forbid the teaching of evolution in
>> schools, it'll be time to roll the clock back to allowing pograms.  Or
>> forbidding you to criticize priests who rape little boys and girls.  Or
>> witch burnings.  Or forbidding you to teach modern astronomy.  Or use
>> modern medicine.  And on, and on and on.
> 
> There are philosophical problems with evolution that are evident to
> people like me but not so much to people like you.  If you insist that I
> own (so to speak)the problems of Russia killing jews and heretics being
> burned,

I don't.  Is there a reason that you feel you should take them on?  
Feeling guilty?  You're edging off into "debate to win" rather than 
"discuss to illuminate" here.  I didn't impute anything at all to you as 
a person -- I merely pointed out that blind belief in "the bible" (which 
really means blind belief in someone's _interpretation_ of the bible) is 
a dangerous thing.

Frankly, I think if Jesus were alive today he'd be advising you to 
believe the world that God made before you believe the bible that Jimmy 
Swaggart's distant kin wrote.  As soon as you take that advise you find 
great swaths of the book falling away.

Of course, if Jesus had been crucified last week, Paul would be thumping 
the creationism drum as hard as he could today.

> then how about you own the logical conclusions of evolution as
> written by
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
> 
> or
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I'm not up on Shockley, but Eugenics has exactly the same problems as 
capital punishment (which, incidentally, many of the same folks who want 
to force creationism into the schools and evolution out believe in 
strongly).  Basically, as a species we're just not objective enough.  As 
soon as we start making life or death (or sterilization) decisions we 
start operating on negative emotions rather than on reason, and Bad 
Things result.

> or all kind of other philosophical conclusions that logically are
> derived if evolution is a foundational belief.

Well, if one is dumb enough to take evolution as a foundational belief, 
then one is dumb enough to do anything.  Evolution is a way of explaining 
the data, and has no deeper meaning.  Any other interpretation is 
erroneous -- possibly maliciously so.

One cannot justify Eugenics (or, William Shockley, or me, for that 
matter) by taking evolution by itself as a foundation belief.  You'd have 
to add in some goal ("improving the species", most likely).  Then the 
problem isn't with believing in evolution, the problem is misinterpreting 
a description for a prescription.  Hurrying evolution to its end goal is 
impossible -- because it has none.

> Scientific reason was the basis of the Soviet Union and we know where
> that led.  How about putting forth the philosophical dilemmas that arise
> from an embracing of evolution?

Could you point out the sections of The Communist Manifesto that point to 
scientific reason?  If found it a rather plaintive appeal to morality, 
and actually rather garden-variety when compared to other early 19th-
century Utopian philosophies.

Communism has remained Utopian (and, indeed, the Soviets never claimed to 
have achieved it -- just that they were trying to bring it about).  The 
folks that ended up running the Soviet Union used communism as an excuse 
to do a lot of Really Bad Things -- but they could have just as easily 
used Christianity or Islam, or some other invented religion as their 
invented philosophy of "socialism leading to communism".  All it takes is 
a vision that's perfect enough to be unattainable, and a propaganda 
machine that insists that people not think about how you're going about 
trying to attain your laudable (if unreal) goals.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:11:48 -0700, brent wrote:

> This cuts both ways, and it is why these fights take place.  The schools
> have greatly swerved to secularism compared to 50 years ago. That the
> Christians would fight back at this should not offend you nor surprise
> you.  If the secular left pushes its views it is all done under the
> argument of tolerance and science and enlightenment.  When the Christian
> community fights these changes they are intolerant, uneducated and
> non-scientific.
> 
> 
>> so totally despicable and it makes me ashamed to have any >association 
>> with such people because of what we might have in >common in our faith.
> 
> I do not put Christians that are pushing back against the forced
> secularism into the same category as the very few cartoons characters
> that the news likes to put forth as an example of typical Christian
> extremism (like the guy from Kansas that interrupts military funerals)

Actually the problem is that the people who just identify themselves as 
"the Christians" as if there were only one flavor thereof are generally 
really right wing, if not far right wing "Christians" who -- had they 
lived 1980 years ago -- would have been the very first in line to pay the 
Romans to nail Jesus to the cross.

And please note that when I say "Christian" as opposed to Christian 
that's just what I mean -- a fake Christian.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On 9/30/2011 1:03 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

   ...

> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.
> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.

That and another common falacy, the Argument from Disbelief: It cant be 
trus because there's no way I can see how it might be true. (I don't see 
how it _could_ be, therefor it _can't_ be.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com>  wrote:

   ...

>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.
>> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
>> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>
>
> Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
> the other extreme).
>
> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.

It only matters when people who believe one thing say "I'm better than 
you" or I'm more moral than you" or I'm not deluded the wat you are" to 
people who take the opposite view.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 1:43 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

> [W]hen I see these usenet postings where people start going down
> the track of "religion has never done anything but kill people" or "I
> use my vastly superior intellect to navigate my life" or "anyone who
> has faith is stupid or weak minded" then I will jump in and try to
> make the case that there are intelligent people who hold the faith
> (even if I am not one of them) and there are logical and compelling
> reasons for people to embrace faith.

I haven't seen much of those sentiments. More often, I see "You can't 
trust an atheist because he has no fear of hell to keep him honest." 
Personally, I see the idea of hell (with a devil) incompatible with 
monotheism, but that's another story.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 2:03 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 9/30/11 1:46 PM, brent wrote:
>>
>> To put the Salem witch trial in some perspective... At least they
>> stopped at some point and realized they had strayed from their own
>> principles. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks just kept on killing
>> and killing and killing, never questioning it at all.
>
> *never*?
>
> is, or was, Mikhail Gorbachev a Bolshevik? at least one of political
> decent?
>
> i surely think that he started questioning some of the direction and
> methods of the Soviet state and instituted reforms like Glasnost and
> Perestroika.
>
> i certainly believe that there exists people, groups, and institutions
> that are absolutely evil. but i am hesitant to identify specific persons
> as being outside of the reach of redemption. even atheistic commies.
> even Republican dicks. even Michelle Bachmann.

The Right's propaganda machine created the phrase "Godless Communism" 
and proceeded to attach the two descriptors in both directions.. In 
Brent's case, it seems to have worked, at least till now. Giving him a 
reason to think it through, that may change.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 2:20 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

> I am not defending the witch trials (as if anyone would even though
> Eric Jacobson seems to think there are people out there that are proud
> to defend these trials)  , but human beings are human beings, and I
> personally believe that over the course of history that Christianity
> has provided far more restraint to mass killings than provided
> justification for mass killings.

It's clear that you aren't Jewish, and that you think of a Crusade as a 
noble expedition.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 10:21 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>
>> My great great grandmother was raped by a Cossack -- a.k.a. Kazakh --
>> during a pogrom. I am of that line.)
>
> Cossacks (Kozaks): specific group of Russian or Ukrainian origin; from
> southern Russia.
>
> Kazakhs: asiatic type, from Kazakhstan.
>
> So, kazak or kazakh ?

Not sure. I wasn't there. Probably Kazak; thanks.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 11:45 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

   ...

> no one will be making a God-measuring instrument and no one will be
> making a Multiverse-measuring instrument.

There's some interesting reading at http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm.

I don't care what somebody believes about me, a god, or any other 
specific thing. I do care how that somebody behaves. A quote you can 
read above is " ... it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there 
are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my 
leg." I am privately amused (or disillusioned) by attempts to prove or 
disprove the existence of a god, and saddened by the self delusion of 
those who think they have succeeded. A large fraction of those who 
engage in that futile activity are motivated by a basic insecurity with 
their particular belief and the vain hope that by convincing others of 
their position's correctness, that position is somehow ratified. 
Whatever world view one may have, it is ultimately a matter of faith. 
That said, people try (often successfully) to restrict what I and others 
do because it goes against the rules set forth in their holy book. They 
should apply those restrictions to themselves and other followers.

I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism. I don't believe can save 
his soul, and if I were to shake his faith in this god or that, I could 
offer nothing to replace it. Even if it is, as I believe, a crutch, I 
wouldn't kick it out from under him.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 12:43 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> ...
>> Alvin Plantinga speaks pretty well to it:
>>
>> http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html or buy
>> the book (the Dawkins Delusion).
>
> i just realized that, since i have read this review, they have now
> archived it and you have to pay to get it out of the archive (unless
> you're already a subscriber to CT, which i am not). but, fortunately for
> me, i downloaded the article in pdf form back in 2007 or 2008.
>
> if anyone is really interested in reading the Plantinga review, i would
> be happy to email them the pdf.

Yes please.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 1:39 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 9/30/11 1:09 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>>>> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite regress.
>>>
>>> How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>>> religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything else?
>
> now, this is changing the topic a bit from what is quoted from me. my
> point quoted is that i find it odd that the belief of theists is
> dismissed as having a problem of infinite regress ("well then, if God
> created everything, who/what created God?") whereas we explicitly
> identify God as a terminal node.

When the argument is that there must be a god because nothing can exist 
without having been created (that sounds reasonable on its face) one id 
not entitled to a terminal node.
>                                      and, on top of that, without
> identifying anything as a terminal node, the atheists don't seem to
> understand that the problem of infinite regress applies to *their*
> belief system (what ground do Dawkins' cranes stand on? or what does the
> "mother crane", the "crane that supports all other cranes" stand on?)

I don't know Dawkins (presumably tongue-in-cheek) cranes, so I can't 
comment.

>> As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>>
>> Step 1: decide what you want.
>>
>> Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>>
>> It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve into.
>
> to answer Vlad's question myself, is that it's similar to choosing
> persons that one relates to in life. while we cannot choose our parents
> or family, we *do* have some choice in friends, mentors, spouses and the
> like. i doubt that any of us brings our scientific calculator to that
> task. somehow, we depend on some deeper sense of reality and value in
> making such a choice. this is where i originally appealed to the concept
> of *meaning*.
>
> but, if i were to itemize why *i* relate more to Christianity than to
> Islam or Judaism or any of the Dharmic faiths, i'm afraid of pissing off
> anyone coming from those directions. i could focus in further and
> itemize reasons that i relate more strongly to Anabaptism (Mennonites,
> etc.) than to Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism,
> etc., but again, i don't feel like pissing any of those folks.
>
> but, Vlad, the bottom line for me is what is *meaningful*. and like what
> one sees in a potential spouse, or even in a cat that one might adopt,
> that is a highly personal thing, and it requires, in my opinion, an
> atmosphere of trust and tolerance to engage in that discussion. it's
> like me saying "i'm really attracted to red-heads" and i point to
> someone, and Vlad says "oh, she's an ugly Irish pig". who knows, the
> chick that i pointed to might be my spouse or girl friend! so then we
> come to blows over an issue that is completely subjective and such a
> conflict is just pointless.
>
> but, much to Jerry's credit (and Eric's) in bringing up the original
> topic of this OT thread, for some inexplicable reason (or that's hard to
> explain), American right-wing Christians are, *themselves*, continually
> picking fights with non-Christians (and even lefty Christians like me)
> in the culture wars by trying to shove *their* faith down the throats of
> everyone else. and they want to do it in the public sphere (public
> schools, government, etc.) where no one can choose to avoid it. that is
> so totally despicable and it makes me ashamed to have any association
> with such people because of what we might have in common in our faith.
> it must be much worse for moderate and decent Muslims as they behold
> what the violent, extremist Jihadist Islamist such as al Queada or the
> Taliban or even the Saudi or Pakistani governments are doing. go back 5
> centuries in Europe and you'll see people that are allegedly "Christian"
> doing much of the same. it's shameful, and a milder form of it (the
> original topic of this thread) persists today, much of it here in the
> U.S. such hypocrites! and these assholes bring shame and ridicule to
> Jesus' name.

IO wish I had written much of that.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 9/30/2011 2:11 PM, brent wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:39 pm, robert bristow-johnson<r...@audioimagination.com>
> wrote:

   ...

>> but, much to Jerry's credit (and Eric's) in bringing up the original
>> topic of this OT thread, for some inexplicable reason (or that's hard to
>> explain), American right-wing Christians are, *themselves*, continually
>> picking fights with non-Christians (and even lefty Christians like me)
>> in the culture wars by trying to shove *their* faith down the throats of
>> everyone else.  and they want to do it in the public sphere (public
>> schools, government, etc.) where no one can choose to avoid it.  that is
>
> This cuts both ways, and it is why these fights take place.  The
> schools have greatly swerved to secularism compared to 50 years ago.

50 years ago (well, more like 65) they used to have a sectarian prayer 
during weekly assembly in my public school. At first, I was the only kid 
who stood up and walked out. When the number exceeded ten, the prayers 
stopped.

> That the Christians would fight back at this should not offend you nor
> surprise you.

what do you mean by secularism? Not teaching that creationism is a 
scientific explanation for the diversity of species? If so, then we fight.

>                   If the secular left pushes its views it is all done
> under the argument of tolerance and science and enlightenment.  When
> the Christian community fights these changes they are intolerant,
> uneducated and non-scientific.

What views do you feel are pushed? That according to the best 
information we have, the universe is expanding? That the world seems to 
be some four billion years old? That the continents are moving around? 
If so, then we fight.  All I see are pockets of mumbo-jumbo that are 
excluded.

>> so totally despicable and it makes me ashamed to have any>association with
 >> such people because of what we might have in>common in our faith.
>
> I do not put Christians that are pushing back against the forced
> secularism into the same category as the very few cartoons characters
> that the news likes to put forth as an example of typical Christian
> extremism (like the guy from Kansas that interrupts military funerals)

Please expand on what you feel is forced secularism. What I see is 
exclusion of overtly religious dogma.

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:37:12 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:

> On 9/30/2011 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com>  wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
>>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution
>>> both. My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't
>>> have happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>>
>>>
>> Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
>> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
>> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
>> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at the
>> other extreme).
>>
>> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
>> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
> 
> It only matters when people who believe one thing say "I'm better than
> you" or I'm more moral than you" or I'm not deluded the wat you are" to
> people who take the opposite view.

Yes.  And I know that I can take the morally superior position, here, 
precisely because of my position on my beliefs vs. my superiority:  _I_ 
don't believe that I'm better than everyone else because my beliefs are 
better -- in fact, I'm quite sure that my beliefs aren't any more special 
than anyone else's.

_I_ believe that I'm better than everyone else for the simple reason that 
I'm an arrogant a**hole, and I need no further justification!

:)

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:37:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 9/30/2011 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com>  wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.
>>> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
>>> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>>
>>
>> Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
>> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
>> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
>> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
>> the other extreme).
>>
>> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
>> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>
>It only matters when people who believe one thing say "I'm better than 
>you" or I'm more moral than you" or I'm not deluded the wat you are" to 
>people who take the opposite view.
>
>Jerry
>-- 
>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

It also matters when one tries to impose the values of their belief
system on others with no rationale other than the belief that that is
the preference of their deity.  This has been a significant problem
over history and continues to be so.  


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On 10/3/2011 4:31 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:37:12 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya@ieee.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2011 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com>   wrote:
>>
>>    ...
>>
>>>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution both.
>>>> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
>>>> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists who
>>> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
>>> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
>>> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
>>> the other extreme).
>>>
>>> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
>>> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>>
>> It only matters when people who believe one thing say "I'm better than
>> you" or I'm more moral than you" or I'm not deluded the wat you are" to
>> people who take the opposite view.
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> It also matters when one tries to impose the values of their belief
> system on others with no rationale other than the belief that that is
> the preference of their deity.  This has been a significant problem
> over history and continues to be so.

I had such cases in mind when I compiled my (evidently incomplete) list. 
There was very little economic impetus to the activities that led to the 
phrase, "The curse of Cromwell be upon you" remaining current.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 3, 4:31=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:37:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On 9/30/2011 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
> >> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> =A0wrote:
>
> > =A0 ...
>
> >>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution bot=
h.
> >>> My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't have
> >>> happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>
> >> Does it really matter? =A0There are plenty of doctors and scientists w=
ho
> >> can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they believe
> >> that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one extreme) to life
> >> being precisely crafted by God in six days about 6000 years ago (at
> >> the other extreme).
>
> >> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture of
> >> God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>
> >It only matters when people who believe one thing say "I'm better than
> >you" or I'm more moral than you" or I'm not deluded the wat you are" to
> >people who take the opposite view.
>
> >Jerry
> >--
> >Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> It also matters when one tries to impose the values of their belief
> system on others with no rationale other than the belief that that is
> the preference of their deity. =A0This has been a significant problem
> over history and continues to be so. =A0
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
others.  Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country
(or state/school/whatever).  Moderates also impose their beliefs on
others by advocating expediency over principles.

The "rationale" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as
a Christian fundamentalist. The "objective scientific" person who
believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
(they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:40:11 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

[earlier discussion snipped becuase Pan complained about quoted fraction]

>> It also matters when one tries to impose the values of their belief
>> system on others with no rationale other than the belief that that is
>> the preference of their deity.  This has been a significant problem
>> over history and continues to be so.
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
> 
> All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school or
> organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
> others.  Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
> and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country (or
> state/school/whatever).  Moderates also impose their beliefs on others
> by advocating expediency over principles.
> 
> The "rationale" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as a
> Christian fundamentalist. The "objective scientific" person who believes
> that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their morality is
> superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is (they believe)
> rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the Christians belief is
> rooted in simple minded, blind faith.

There is no particular virtue in reproducability, falsifiability or 
predictive power, then?

I suppose not: humans lived in various grades of civilisation without 
them for most of their history, but I prefer them, wherever applicable, 
myself.  I do understand that the spheres of discourse or activity where 
scientific (or even rational) approaches are applicable are really quite 
limited, and many people can successfully ignore those altogether and 
still get along.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

> All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
> or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
> others. Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
> and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country
> (or state/school/whatever).

I guess believing that makes you think that it's OK for you to impose 
your beliefs on me. I object.

>                                  Moderates also impose their beliefs on
> others by advocating expediency over principles.

So moderates have no principals, and operate on expediency? I think you 
have been misled.

> The "rationale" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as
> a Christian fundamentalist.

How so, by saying, "Don't tread on me?"

>                                 The "objective scientific" person who
> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
> morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
> (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.

I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought 
behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.

Someone is filling your mind with untruths. You have said that the 
United States was founded as a Christian nation, presumably because you 
have been told that for reasons I won't try to guess. A treaty was 
negotiated during Washington's second term and ultimately sent by Adams 
to the Senate where it was unanimously ratified. It reads in part, "... 
the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, 
founded on the Christian religion ..." I posted a quote from Jefferson 
the other day. Perhaps not Washington, Jefferson, Adams, nor any of the 
members of the Senate during Adams' first term are considered to be 
Founding Fathers? I think you have been misled.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 10/3/11 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
 >
> All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
> or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
> others.

no, Brent.

politics, in both its best and worst forms, is what happens when people 
disagree on what is the best (or preferred) thing to *do*.

the laws or regulations or rules of government do not require me to 
accept any set of beliefs of anyone.  it does not require me to believe 
that murder is wrong.  it proscribes me not to act to commit or conspire 
to murder and, if i do it anyway, the law prescribes punishment to be 
dispensed by the state after some judicial due process.

maybe a better example would be child porn, instead.  i don't approve of 
child porn, but there is *nothing* in the law that says i must believe 
anything for or against child porn and there are persons on both sides 
of that issue.

> The "rational" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as
> a Christian fundamentalist.

listen, i would say that people like Dawkins, whom i might describe as a 
"fundamentalist atheist" (Dawkins actually argues that Christians should 
not be allowed to impose upon their own children their theistic and 
Christian worldview and values) is trying to impose something, but i 
would every reach of Dawkins to always be rational.

> The "objective scientific" person who
> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
> morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
> (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.

dunno if you've been watching the Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition, 
but the "objective scientific" person (atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, 
don't-care, whatever) has, repeatedly over history, demonstrated a moral 
superiority over fundamentalists precisely by granting fundamentalists 
freedom of thought which the fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, 
whatever) do not return the favor.  sometime, religious fundamentalists 
have taken the moral high road objecting to slavery and oppression, 
where others have conveniently kept quiet.

fundamentalists do fine when they do not demand conformance of thought 
to their worldview.  it's when they become the Thought Police (Scopes 
trial, etc.) that they are morally inferior.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Oct 3, 11:56=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> > All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
> > or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
> > others. Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
> > and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country
> > (or state/school/whatever).
>
> I guess believing that makes you think that it's OK for you to impose
> your beliefs on me. I object.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Mode=
rates also impose their beliefs on
> > others by advocating expediency over principles.
>
> So moderates have no principals, and operate on expediency? I think you
> have been misled.
>
> > The "rationale" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as
> > a Christian fundamentalist.
>
> How so, by saying, "Don't tread on me?"
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The "ob=
jective scientific" person who
> > believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
> > morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
> > (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
> > Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>
> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought
> behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.
>
> Someone is filling your mind with untruths. You have said that the
> United States was founded as a Christian nation, presumably because you
> have been told that for reasons I won't try to guess. A treaty was
> negotiated during Washington's second term and ultimately sent by Adams
> to the Senate where it was unanimously ratified. It reads in part, "...
> the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
> founded on the Christian religion ..." I posted a quote from Jefferson
> the other day. Perhaps not Washington, Jefferson, Adams, nor any of the
> members of the Senate during Adams' first term are considered to be
> Founding Fathers? I think you have been misled.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

You are right about not decoding that.  I usually write stuff down
then have to rearrange my thoughts.  I rearranged some stuff without
finishing then rushed the post.

I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others must
live is really no different than a person who uses religious reason.
The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon others.
Especially since much of religious reason (in this country)is to stop
the updating of laws.  More so than trying to craft new laws, given
that most of the Christians right feel that American society did a
pretty good job of reflecting Christian thought in the older existing
laws.

On Oct 4, 12:12=A0am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On 10/3/11 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
> =A0>
>
> > All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
> > or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
> > others.
>
> no, Brent.
>
> politics, in both its best and worst forms, is what happens when people
> disagree on what is the best (or preferred) thing to *do*.
>
> the laws or regulations or rules of government do not require me to
> accept any set of beliefs of anyone. =A0it does not require me to believe
> that murder is wrong. =A0it proscribes me not to act to commit or conspir=
e
> to murder and, if i do it anyway, the law prescribes punishment to be
> dispensed by the state after some judicial due process.
>
> maybe a better example would be child porn, instead. =A0i don't approve o=
f
> child porn, but there is *nothing* in the law that says i must believe
> anything for or against child porn and there are persons on both sides
> of that issue.
>
> > The "rational" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as
> > a Christian fundamentalist.
>
> listen, i would say that people like Dawkins, whom i might describe as a
> "fundamentalist atheist" (Dawkins actually argues that Christians should
> not be allowed to impose upon their own children their theistic and
> Christian worldview and values) is trying to impose something, but i
> would every reach of Dawkins to always be rational.
>
> > The "objective scientific" person who
> > believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
> > morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
> > (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
> > Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>
> dunno if you've been watching the Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition,
> but the "objective scientific" person (atheist, agnostic, deist, theist,
> don't-care, whatever) has, repeatedly over history, demonstrated a moral
> superiority over fundamentalists precisely by granting fundamentalists
> freedom of thought which the fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim,
> whatever) do not return the favor. =A0sometime, religious fundamentalists
> have taken the moral high road objecting to slavery and oppression,
> where others have conveniently kept quiet.
>
> fundamentalists do fine when they do not demand conformance of thought
> to their worldview. =A0it's when they become the Thought Police (Scopes
> trial, etc.) that they are morally inferior.
>
> --
>
> r b-j =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0r...@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

You make some interesting points, but I do not fully agree with you.
I do not think that you can judge what an atheistic society does based
upon 100 years of watching one.  What the west has , that does seem to
work, is an accepted tension between believers and unbelievers.  I
think that Christianity is much more tolerant of unbelief than
atheists give it credit for.  It is really in the whole Christian
dogma that there are always lots of non believers within society that
need to be won over.

I think that if one could look at Europe 100 to 200 years from now
that we could get a pretty good idea of what "objective" unbelief
turns into (perhaps the USA too).  It usually (in my opinion) turns
into socialism which then turns into unsustainable socialism.  I
personally believe that creeping socialism in this country is directly
rooted in unbelief.  Most of the Christian right believes this too.  I
do not think that socialism can be fended off without Christianity,
and in the end socialism rots the soul and takes away many personal
freedoms.

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)
>> > All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
>> > or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
>> > others. Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
>> > and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country
>> > (or state/school/whatever).

(someone else wrote)
>> I guess believing that makes you think that it's OK for you to impose
>> your beliefs on me. I object.

OK, how about the laws against speeding, or parking too long on
one street?  I suppose that is a belief, too, but the former is 
usually for safety, and the latter to allow fair use of street
parking by everyone.  

-- glen

On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

>>>                                  The "objective scientific" person who
>>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
>>> morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
>>> (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
>>> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>>
>> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought
>> behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.

   ...

> You are right about not decoding that.  I usually write stuff down
> then have to rearrange my thoughts.  I rearranged some stuff without
> finishing then rushed the post.
>
> I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
> objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others must
> live is really no different than a person who uses religious reason.
> The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon others.
> Especially since much of religious reason (in this country)is to stop
> the updating of laws.  More so than trying to craft new laws, given
> that most of the Christians right feel that American society did a
> pretty good job of reflecting Christian thought in the older existing
> laws.

I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements on 
all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative 
Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston), 
banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties 
(engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants to 
close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or 
Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure 
you can enumerate yourself. In Israel, public transportation shuts down 
on Saturday. Do you believe that these are good public policies? The 
Christian Right seems to think they are. I remember when it was illegal 
to sell or use contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving 
black market.) Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean by 
"a pretty good thing."

Jerry
-- 
             Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

brent wrote:

> On Oct 4, 12:12 am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
> wrote:
> 

> You make some interesting points, but I do not fully agree with you.
> I do not think that you can judge what an atheistic society does based
> upon 100 years of watching one.  What the west has , that does seem to
> work, is an accepted tension between believers and unbelievers.  I
> think that Christianity is much more tolerant of unbelief than
> atheists give it credit for.  It is really in the whole Christian
> dogma that there are always lots of non believers within society that
> need to be won over.
> 
> I think that if one could look at Europe 100 to 200 years from now
> that we could get a pretty good idea of what "objective" unbelief
> turns into (perhaps the USA too).  It usually (in my opinion) turns
> into socialism which then turns into unsustainable socialism.  I
> personally believe that creeping socialism in this country is directly
> rooted in unbelief.  Most of the Christian right believes this too.  I
> do not think that socialism can be fended off without Christianity,
> and in the end socialism rots the soul and takes away many personal
> freedoms.

Republican party = Taliban
Democratic party = Communists
Give me the party of none.

VLV

On 10/4/2011 9:34 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> brent<bulegoge@columbus.rr.com>  wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>>>> All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school
>>>> or organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
>>>> others. Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
>>>> and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country
>>>> (or state/school/whatever).
>
> (someone else wrote)
>>> I guess believing that makes you think that it's OK for you to impose
>>> your beliefs on me. I object.
>
> OK, how about the laws against speeding, or parking too long on
> one street?  I suppose that is a belief, too, but the former is
> usually for safety, and the latter to allow fair use of street
> parking by everyone.

I'm fine with speeding laws provided they're fairly enforced. My 
objection is to Sunday blue laws, regulating the private interactions of 
adults in ways not related to public safety, and to laws that promote 
the interests of one group over an other. (Whites only, in the extreme.) 
Laws grants couples some special privileges not granted to individuals. 
I don't object to the exaltation of couplehood provided the status is 
available to all. Let our government issue couplehood certificates and 
leave marriage to whatever organizations want to set up for it 
(religious, mostly) using whatever criteria they like. Not being 
governmental, they can exclude whomever they like. By imposing beliefs, 
I mean laws that prohibit cohabitation. An action should not be outlawed 
merely because someone considers it to be sinful.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 4, 10:03=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Th=
e "objective scientific" person who
> >>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their
> >>> morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is
> >>> (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
> >>> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>
> >> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought
> >> behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> > You are right about not decoding that. =A0I usually write stuff down
> > then have to rearrange my thoughts. =A0I rearranged some stuff without
> > finishing then rushed the post.
>
> > I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
> > objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others must
> > live is really no different than a person who uses religious reason.
> > The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon others.
> > Especially since much of religious reason (in this country)is to stop
> > the updating of laws. =A0More so than trying to craft new laws, given
> > that most of the Christians right feel that American society did a
> > pretty good job of reflecting Christian thought in the older existing
> > laws.
>
> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements on
> all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative
> Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston),
> banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties
> (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants to
> close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or
> Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure
> you can enumerate yourself. In Israel, public transportation shuts down
> on Saturday. Do you believe that these are good public policies? The
> Christian Right seems to think they are. I remember when it was illegal
> to sell or use contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving
> black market.) Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean by
> "a pretty good thing."
>
> Jerry
> --
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Jerry,

Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.

But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.

Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.

Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.

All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:40:11 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:37:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On 9/30/2011 2:28 PM, brent wrote:
>> >> On Sep 30, 1:03 pm, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com>  wrote:
>>
>> >   ...
>>
>> >>> My argument isn't with folks who can believe in God and evolution
>> >>> both. My argument is with folks who insist that evolution couldn't
>> >>> have happened because it wasn't detailed in the Bible.
>>
>> >> Does it really matter?  There are plenty of doctors and scientists
>> >> who can perform their scientific duties regardless of whether they
>> >> believe that life spontaneously started from nothing (at one
>> >> extreme) to life being precisely crafted by God in six days about
>> >> 6000 years ago (at the other extreme).
>>
>> >> There are very very smart people who embrace every possible mixture
>> >> of God-creation vs. random-no god- spontaneous evolution.
>>
>> >It only matters when people who believe one thing say "I'm better than
>> >you" or I'm more moral than you" or I'm not deluded the wat you are"
>> >to people who take the opposite view.
>>
>> >Jerry
>> >--
>> >Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
>> >get.
>>
>> It also matters when one tries to impose the values of their belief
>> system on others with no rationale other than the belief that that is
>> the preference of their deity.  This has been a significant problem
>> over history and continues to be so.
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
> 
> All laws and all regulations and all rules in a government (or school or
> organization) boil down to the imposition of a set of beliefs upon
> others.  Liberals are trying to impose their beliefs upon the country
> and conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs on the country (or
> state/school/whatever).  Moderates also impose their beliefs on others
> by advocating expediency over principles.
> 
> The "rationale" agnostic is imposing his beliefs every bit as much as a
> Christian fundamentalist. The "objective scientific" person who believes
> that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that their morality is
> superior to the fundamentalists morality because it is (they believe)
> rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the Christians belief is
> rooted in simple minded, blind faith.

Actually, the wise moderate tries to find an accommodation for everyone, 
even in the face of polemics aimed against the very idea of moderation.

Everyone wants to see all of their morals enforced, and no one will. In 
response to this we can all drink Dick Enlarging Potions and wave the 
results at each other in a hopeless effort to achieve victory, while 
destroying that which we wish to preserve.  Or we can all look for a 
rational middle ground, where each of us sees most of our wishes 
fulfilled.

Which tack are you taking?

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:49:58 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Oct 4, 10:03 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> >> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>>
>>    ...
>>
>> >>>                                  The "objective
>> >>>                                  scientific"
>> >>>                                  person who
>> >>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that
>> >>> their morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because
>> >>> it is (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
>> >>> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>>
>> >> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought
>> >> behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.
>>
>>    ...
>>
>> > You are right about not decoding that.  I usually write stuff down
>> > then have to rearrange my thoughts.  I rearranged some stuff without
>> > finishing then rushed the post.
>>
>> > I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
>> > objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others must
>> > live is really no different than a person who uses religious reason.
>> > The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon others.
>> > Especially since much of religious reason (in this country)is to stop
>> > the updating of laws.  More so than trying to craft new laws, given
>> > that most of the Christians right feel that American society did a
>> > pretty good job of reflecting Christian thought in the older existing
>> > laws.
>>
>> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements on
>> all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative
>> Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston),
>> banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties
>> (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants to
>> close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or
>> Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure
>> you can enumerate yourself. In Israel, public transportation shuts down
>> on Saturday. Do you believe that these are good public policies? The
>> Christian Right seems to think they are. I remember when it was illegal
>> to sell or use contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving
>> black market.) Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean by
>> "a pretty good thing."
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>>              Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.

I do not believe that at all.  As you so aptly point out below, the left 
has no shortage of narrow-minded, short-thinking folks.  But the members 
of the "Christian" right that stand shouting on street corners, as well 
as those who put politicians in power, are, in my opinion, every bit as 
narrow-minded and more.  Their world will not be perfect until every 
aspect of our lives are regulated, and regulated their way.

I think that, given an inch, they'll take a thousand miles, and they 
won't stop until they've choked the life out of the country.  It's just 
the nature of any extremist to do so (see below for examples).

> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws that
> the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly as what
> you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling. That is
> done for reasons of morality because, for the most art recycling causes
> more harm to the environment than it does good.
> 
> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
> 
> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
> 
> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.

And they're all good examples of why I despair for this country -- not 
because it's leaning to the left, but because it can never seem to find a 
sensible middle.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:49:58 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Oct 4, 10:03 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> >> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>>
>>    ...
>>
>> >>>                                  The "objective
>> >>>                                  scientific"
>> >>>                                  person who
>> >>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that
>> >>> their morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because
>> >>> it is (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
>> >>> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>>
>> >> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought
>> >> behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.
>>
>>    ...
>>
>> > You are right about not decoding that.  I usually write stuff down
>> > then have to rearrange my thoughts.  I rearranged some stuff without
>> > finishing then rushed the post.
>>
>> > I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
>> > objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others must
>> > live is really no different than a person who uses religious reason.
>> > The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon others.
>> > Especially since much of religious reason (in this country)is to stop
>> > the updating of laws.  More so than trying to craft new laws, given
>> > that most of the Christians right feel that American society did a
>> > pretty good job of reflecting Christian thought in the older existing
>> > laws.
>>
>> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements on
>> all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative
>> Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston),
>> banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties
>> (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants to
>> close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or
>> Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure
>> you can enumerate yourself. In Israel, public transportation shuts down
>> on Saturday. Do you believe that these are good public policies? The
>> Christian Right seems to think they are. I remember when it was illegal
>> to sell or use contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving
>> black market.) Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean by
>> "a pretty good thing."
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>>              Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
> 
> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws that
> the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly as what
> you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling. That is
> done for reasons of morality because, for the most art recycling causes
> more harm to the environment than it does good.

I love the way you just drop "facts" into the argument without 
citations.  Who says that recycling causes more harm to the environment 
than good?  Your preacher?  Your local Republican candidate for mayor?  
Or can you point to some reputable scientific work on this (I'm not 
denying it, by the way -- folks tend to go overboard on that).

Would you also rail against laws that say that I have to put my garbage 
out for the garbage man?  Isn't it an offense against my personal 
liberties to constrain me from just throwing it into my basement, back 
yard or the street?  All that folderol about "breeding vermin" is just 
legend, right?

> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.

Mayor Bloomberg wants votes.

> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.

Which one?  The one that says that you shouldn't be free to smoke (which 
I kind of disagree with, although one could stretch reasons to fit), or 
the one that says that you shouldn't be free to pollute my personal air 
space with smoke that'll be immediately harmful to me, my wife, and my 
children (all of whom are sensitive to cigarette smoke)?

> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.

All three of these things actually have roots in public health concerns.  
Given that the biggest advances in overall public health in the past 500 
years have been from things like laws to pick up the garbage and to shit 
in the sewer (yes, now I'm dropping facts -- wiki it) rather than 
advances in individual medical technology, there's certainly a precedent.

Go buy a plot of land on a side hill above some other housing, in any 
county in the US that has more than 10000 people in it, in the reddest 
state you can find.  Tell the county commissioners that you're going to 
build a shack and dig a three foot deep latrine hole to do your business 
in.  See how far you get.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Oct 4, 11:48=A0am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:49:58 -0700, brent wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 10:03=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> >> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>
> >> =A0 =A0...
>
> >> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0The "objective
> >> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0scientific"
> >> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0person who
> >> >>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that
> >> >>> their morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality because
> >> >>> it is (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason, whereas the
> >> >>> Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind faith.
>
> >> >> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the thought
> >> >> behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted in faith.
>
> >> =A0 =A0...
>
> >> > You are right about not decoding that. =A0I usually write stuff down
> >> > then have to rearrange my thoughts. =A0I rearranged some stuff witho=
ut
> >> > finishing then rushed the post.
>
> >> > I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
> >> > objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others must
> >> > live is really no different than a person who uses religious reason.
> >> > The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon others.
> >> > Especially since much of religious reason (in this country)is to sto=
p
> >> > the updating of laws. =A0More so than trying to craft new laws, give=
n
> >> > that most of the Christians right feel that American society did a
> >> > pretty good job of reflecting Christian thought in the older existin=
g
> >> > laws.
>
> >> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements o=
n
> >> all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative
> >> Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston)=
,
> >> banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties
> >> (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants t=
o
> >> close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or
> >> Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure
> >> you can enumerate yourself. In Israel, public transportation shuts dow=
n
> >> on Saturday. Do you believe that these are good public policies? The
> >> Christian Right seems to think they are. I remember when it was illega=
l
> >> to sell or use contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving
> >> black market.) Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean b=
y
> >> "a pretty good thing."
>
> >> Jerry
> >> --
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
>
> > Jerry,
>
> > Most of those things you bring up are straw men. =A0There are very few
> > with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> > But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws that
> > the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly as wha=
t
> > you mention above. =A0The first example is mandatory recycling. That is
> > done for reasons of morality because, for the most art recycling causes
> > more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> I love the way you just drop "facts" into the argument without
> citations. =A0Who says that recycling causes more harm to the environment
> than good? =A0Your preacher? =A0Your local Republican candidate for mayor=
? =A0
> Or can you point to some reputable scientific work on this (I'm not
> denying it, by the way -- folks tend to go overboard on that).
>
> Would you also rail against laws that say that I have to put my garbage
> out for the garbage man? =A0Isn't it an offense against my personal
> liberties to constrain me from just throwing it into my basement, back
> yard or the street? =A0All that folderol about "breeding vermin" is just
> legend, right?
>

I am not aware of anyone from the religious right advocating throwing
their garbage on the streets.  Saying that  the alternative to  a
forced recycling policy  is  throwing garbage on the sreets is a red
herring.

As far as recycling causing more harm than good I watched a Penn and
Teller episode on Youtube a while ago that convinced me :-)

But seriously, does anyone talk about the costs of deisel trucks
driving through neighborhoods and belching their smoke and spilling
their oil on the streets?  What is the harm of putting plastic and
paper and metal and glass into a big hole?  I believe that recycling
is done as a feel good (morality forcing exercize) and that if you did
the true cost/benefit analysis that it would be determined to cause
more harm than good.




> > Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> > Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> Mayor Bloomberg wants votes.
>
> > Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> Which one? =A0The one that says that you shouldn't be free to smoke (whic=
h
> I kind of disagree with, although one could stretch reasons to fit), or
> the one that says that you shouldn't be free to pollute my personal air
> space with smoke that'll be immediately harmful to me, my wife, and my
> children (all of whom are sensitive to cigarette smoke)?
>
> > All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> > pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> All three of these things actually have roots in public health concerns. =
=A0
> Given that the biggest advances in overall public health in the past 500
> years have been from things like laws to pick up the garbage and to shit
> in the sewer (yes, now I'm dropping facts -- wiki it) rather than
> advances in individual medical technology, there's certainly a precedent.
>

Prohibition also had its roots in public health.  So why is
prohibition EVIL (which BTW the proponants of it at least understood
they needs a constitutional ammendment to implement it) but the
smoking crusade is OK if done for the public health.  Let me ask you,
if you were a child would you rather have a father with asmoking
problem or a drinking problem?

I do not understand why you use extreme examples like throwing sewage
on the streets to counteract the concerns cited about how the left
jams its agenda on ciizens.


> Go buy a plot of land on a side hill above some other housing, in any
> county in the US that has more than 10000 people in it, in the reddest
> state you can find. =A0Tell the county commissioners that you're going to
> build a shack and dig a three foot deep latrine hole to do your business
> in. =A0See how far you get.
>

Actually, I hope that if I bought 1000 acres in Montana and wanted to
set up a mini camp on the hillside, I hope that I could stay at my
camp site and poop in a hole that is three feet deep without worring
about the county commisioner or the EPA telling me that I cannot do
that.


> --www.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:48:15 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Oct 4, 11:48 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:49:58 -0700, brent wrote:
>> > On Oct 4, 10:03 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> >> >> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>>
>> >>    ...
>>
>> >> >>>                                  The "objective
>> >> >>>                                  scientific"
>> >> >>>                                  person who
>> >> >>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that
>> >> >>> their morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality
>> >> >>> because it is (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason,
>> >> >>> whereas the Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind
>> >> >>> faith.
>>
>> >> >> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the
>> >> >> thought behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted
>> >> >> in faith.
>>
>> >>    ...
>>
>> >> > You are right about not decoding that.  I usually write stuff down
>> >> > then have to rearrange my thoughts.  I rearranged some stuff
>> >> > without finishing then rushed the post.
>>
>> >> > I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
>> >> > objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others
>> >> > must live is really no different than a person who uses religious
>> >> > reason. The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon
>> >> > others. Especially since much of religious reason (in this
>> >> > country)is to stop the updating of laws.  More so than trying to
>> >> > craft new laws, given that most of the Christians right feel that
>> >> > American society did a pretty good job of reflecting Christian
>> >> > thought in the older existing laws.
>>
>> >> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements
>> >> on all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that
>> >> conservative Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on
>> >> Sunday (in Boston), banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some
>> >> southern counties (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae)
>> >> required merchants to close their stores on Sunday, even if their
>> >> own sabbath was Friday or Saturday, and many more restrictions on
>> >> people's freedom that I'm sure you can enumerate yourself. In
>> >> Israel, public transportation shuts down on Saturday. Do you believe
>> >> that these are good public policies? The Christian Right seems to
>> >> think they are. I remember when it was illegal to sell or use
>> >> contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving black market.)
>> >> Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean by "a pretty
>> >> good thing."
>>
>> >> Jerry
>> >> --
>> >>              Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
>>
>> > Jerry,
>>
>> > Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
>> > with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>>
>> > But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
>> > that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
>> > as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
>> > That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
>> > recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>>
>> I love the way you just drop "facts" into the argument without
>> citations.  Who says that recycling causes more harm to the environment
>> than good?  Your preacher?  Your local Republican candidate for mayor?
>> Or can you point to some reputable scientific work on this (I'm not
>> denying it, by the way -- folks tend to go overboard on that).
>>
>> Would you also rail against laws that say that I have to put my garbage
>> out for the garbage man?  Isn't it an offense against my personal
>> liberties to constrain me from just throwing it into my basement, back
>> yard or the street?  All that folderol about "breeding vermin" is just
>> legend, right?
>>
>>
> I am not aware of anyone from the religious right advocating throwing
> their garbage on the streets.  Saying that  the alternative to  a forced
> recycling policy  is  throwing garbage on the sreets is a red herring.
> 
> As far as recycling causing more harm than good I watched a Penn and
> Teller episode on Youtube a while ago that convinced me :-)
> 
> But seriously, does anyone talk about the costs of deisel trucks driving
> through neighborhoods and belching their smoke and spilling their oil on
> the streets?  What is the harm of putting plastic and paper and metal
> and glass into a big hole?  I believe that recycling is done as a feel
> good (morality forcing exercize) and that if you did the true
> cost/benefit analysis that it would be determined to cause more harm
> than good.

Well, let's see your math -- keeping in mind that at the same time that 
recycling is increasing the mileage of the recycling trucks, it is 
reducing the mileage of the garbage trucks.  This is an engineering 
newsgroup, surely even in a thread as off-topic as this you can 
understand that complex problems demand a little bit of analysis.

And note that you are assuming that just because I am pointing to 
shortcomings to your hyperventilating arguments that I am disagreeing 
with your sub-thesis that total recycling is a good idea -- I'm part of 
the jury that's still out on that, but I certainly don't think that 
either side is "proven".

>> > Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
>> > Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>>
>> Mayor Bloomberg wants votes.
>>
>> > Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>>
>> Which one?  The one that says that you shouldn't be free to smoke
>> (which I kind of disagree with, although one could stretch reasons to
>> fit), or the one that says that you shouldn't be free to pollute my
>> personal air space with smoke that'll be immediately harmful to me, my
>> wife, and my children (all of whom are sensitive to cigarette smoke)?
>>
>> > All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
>> > pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>>
>> All three of these things actually have roots in public health
>> concerns. Given that the biggest advances in overall public health in
>> the past 500 years have been from things like laws to pick up the
>> garbage and to shit in the sewer (yes, now I'm dropping facts -- wiki
>> it) rather than advances in individual medical technology, there's
>> certainly a precedent.
>>
>>
> Prohibition also had its roots in public health. 

Hardy hardy har.  Prohibition had it's _excuses_ rooted in public health.

> So why is prohibition
> EVIL (which BTW the proponants of it at least understood they needs a
> constitutional ammendment to implement it) but the smoking crusade is OK
> if done for the public health.  Let me ask you, if you were a child
> would you rather have a father with asmoking problem or a drinking
> problem?

You very conveniently ignore the fact that I most specifically think that 
extending the anti-smoking campaign to everyone everywhere is going too 
far.  In fact, I said that.

So why are _you_ painting people with "opponent colored" paint then 
arguing with the painting?

> I do not understand why you use extreme examples like throwing sewage on
> the streets to counteract the concerns cited about how the left jams its
> agenda on ciizens.

Possibly because the campaign to keep people from throwing sewage in the 
streets was done by the left-leaning liberals of their day, who limited 
peoples individual rights with claims of improving the public good.  So 
there are strong parallels with things like recycling and smoking and 
blue laws (which, after all, seek to keep your neighbor's souls clean 
along with their streets).

>> Go buy a plot of land on a side hill above some other housing, in any
>> county in the US that has more than 10000 people in it, in the reddest
>> state you can find.  Tell the county commissioners that you're going to
>> build a shack and dig a three foot deep latrine hole to do your
>> business in.  See how far you get.
>>
>>
> Actually, I hope that if I bought 1000 acres in Montana and wanted to
> set up a mini camp on the hillside, I hope that I could stay at my camp
> site and poop in a hole that is three feet deep without worring about
> the county commisioner or the EPA telling me that I cannot do that.

Would you care if it was your neighbor's campsite, and your children who 
got cholera?

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

Is there an ETA for the end of this thread? It's not what I lurk on this 
list for, really. Rather than check each day, it would be more efficient 
for me just to ignore comp.dsp for a week or two...


Richard Dobson

On Oct 4, 1:28=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:48:15 -0700, brent wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 11:48=A0am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:49:58 -0700, brent wrote:
> >> > On Oct 4, 10:03=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> On 10/4/2011 6:52 AM, brent wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Oct 3, 11:56 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10/3/2011 7:40 PM, brent wrote:
>
> >> >> =A0 =A0...
>
> >> >> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
 =A0The "objective
> >> >> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
 =A0scientific"
> >> >> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
 =A0person who
> >> >> >>> believes that his shares the same arrogance for the belief that
> >> >> >>> their morality is superior to the fundamentalists morality
> >> >> >>> because it is (they believe) rooted in objectivity and reason,
> >> >> >>> whereas the Christians belief is rooted in simple minded, blind
> >> >> >>> faith.
>
> >> >> >> I can't decode that. If you rephrase it, we can discuss the
> >> >> >> thought behind it. In any event, all belief is ultimately rooted
> >> >> >> in faith.
>
> >> >> =A0 =A0...
>
> >> >> > You are right about not decoding that. =A0I usually write stuff d=
own
> >> >> > then have to rearrange my thoughts. =A0I rearranged some stuff
> >> >> > without finishing then rushed the post.
>
> >> >> > I was trying to say that the person who believes themselves to be
> >> >> > objective and scientific in coming up with laws by which others
> >> >> > must live is really no different than a person who uses religious
> >> >> > reason. The end result is the imposition of their beliefs upon
> >> >> > others. Especially since much of religious reason (in this
> >> >> > country)is to stop the updating of laws. =A0More so than trying t=
o
> >> >> > craft new laws, given that most of the Christians right feel that
> >> >> > American society did a pretty good job of reflecting Christian
> >> >> > thought in the older existing laws.
>
> >> >> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirement=
s
> >> >> on all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that
> >> >> conservative Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on
> >> >> Sunday (in Boston), banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some
> >> >> southern counties (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae)
> >> >> required merchants to close their stores on Sunday, even if their
> >> >> own sabbath was Friday or Saturday, and many more restrictions on
> >> >> people's freedom that I'm sure you can enumerate yourself. In
> >> >> Israel, public transportation shuts down on Saturday. Do you believ=
e
> >> >> that these are good public policies? The Christian Right seems to
> >> >> think they are. I remember when it was illegal to sell or use
> >> >> contraceptives in Connecticut. (There was a thriving black market.)
> >> >> Was that a good thing? I have to wonder what you mean by "a pretty
> >> >> good thing."
>
> >> >> Jerry
> >> >> --
> >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
>
> >> > Jerry,
>
> >> > Most of those things you bring up are straw men. =A0There are very f=
ew
> >> > with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> >> > But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> >> > that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as sill=
y
> >> > as what you mention above. =A0The first example is mandatory recycli=
ng.
> >> > That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> >> > recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> >> I love the way you just drop "facts" into the argument without
> >> citations. =A0Who says that recycling causes more harm to the environm=
ent
> >> than good? =A0Your preacher? =A0Your local Republican candidate for ma=
yor?
> >> Or can you point to some reputable scientific work on this (I'm not
> >> denying it, by the way -- folks tend to go overboard on that).
>
> >> Would you also rail against laws that say that I have to put my garbag=
e
> >> out for the garbage man? =A0Isn't it an offense against my personal
> >> liberties to constrain me from just throwing it into my basement, back
> >> yard or the street? =A0All that folderol about "breeding vermin" is ju=
st
> >> legend, right?
>
> > I am not aware of anyone from the religious right advocating throwing
> > their garbage on the streets. =A0Saying that =A0the alternative to =A0a=
 forced
> > recycling policy =A0is =A0throwing garbage on the sreets is a red herri=
ng.
>
> > As far as recycling causing more harm than good I watched a Penn and
> > Teller episode on Youtube a while ago that convinced me :-)
>
> > But seriously, does anyone talk about the costs of deisel trucks drivin=
g
> > through neighborhoods and belching their smoke and spilling their oil o=
n
> > the streets? =A0What is the harm of putting plastic and paper and metal
> > and glass into a big hole? =A0I believe that recycling is done as a fee=
l
> > good (morality forcing exercize) and that if you did the true
> > cost/benefit analysis that it would be determined to cause more harm
> > than good.
>
> Well, let's see your math -- keeping in mind that at the same time that
> recycling is increasing the mileage of the recycling trucks, it is
> reducing the mileage of the garbage trucks. =A0This is an engineering
> newsgroup, surely even in a thread as off-topic as this you can
> understand that complex problems demand a little bit of analysis.
>

I agree that providing that analysis might be hard.  But I have never
seen a convincing argument that recycling saves the environment
either.  And it is the recyclists who demand that I conform to their
moral agenda by modifying my behavior.


> And note that you are assuming that just because I am pointing to
> shortcomings to your hyperventilating arguments that I am disagreeing

My "hyperventaling" arguments were about smoking, recycling and food
police.  These are relevent examples of how the left uses their sense
of morality to force an agenda on everyone else.  This is the very
thing that the Christian right gets accused of.  There are many more,
but these three are simple and yet relevant examples.



> with your sub-thesis that total recycling is a good idea -- I'm part of
> the jury that's still out on that, but I certainly don't think that
> either side is "proven".
>
Right.  Its not proven... so lets go with the side that says that we
must all modify our behavior to save the planet?


>
> >> > Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> >> > Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> >> Mayor Bloomberg wants votes.
>
> >> > Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> >> Which one? =A0The one that says that you shouldn't be free to smoke
> >> (which I kind of disagree with, although one could stretch reasons to
> >> fit), or the one that says that you shouldn't be free to pollute my
> >> personal air space with smoke that'll be immediately harmful to me, my
> >> wife, and my children (all of whom are sensitive to cigarette smoke)?
>
> >> > All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> >> > pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> >> All three of these things actually have roots in public health
> >> concerns. Given that the biggest advances in overall public health in
> >> the past 500 years have been from things like laws to pick up the
> >> garbage and to shit in the sewer (yes, now I'm dropping facts -- wiki
> >> it) rather than advances in individual medical technology, there's
> >> certainly a precedent.
>
> > Prohibition also had its roots in public health.
>
> Hardy hardy har. =A0Prohibition had it's _excuses_ rooted in public healt=
h.
>

You really minimize the motives of the people who pushed for this 100
years ago.  There were real problems that they tried to address.  It
has been determined to not have been the right approach.  But at least
those folks who tried to impose their morality on everyone else knew
they were stripping rights and put it into the constitution.  I wish
the left would get 35 states (or whatever the technical threshold is -
which I don't exactly remember at the moment) to agree to their crap
before it became law.


> > So why is prohibition
> > EVIL (which BTW the proponants of it at least understood they needs a
> > constitutional ammendment to implement it) but the smoking crusade is O=
K
> > if done for the public health. =A0Let me ask you, if you were a child
> > would you rather have a father with asmoking problem or a drinking
> > problem?
>
> You very conveniently ignore the fact that I most specifically think that
> extending the anti-smoking campaign to everyone everywhere is going too
> far. =A0In fact, I said that.
>


> So why are _you_ painting people with "opponent colored" paint then
> arguing with the painting?
>
> > I do not understand why you use extreme examples like throwing sewage o=
n
> > the streets to counteract the concerns cited about how the left jams it=
s
> > agenda on ciizens.
>
> Possibly because the campaign to keep people from throwing sewage in the
> streets was done by the left-leaning liberals of their day, who limited
> peoples individual rights with claims of improving the public good.

Well, how can I argue about how the left pushes their morality on
people when I find out that it was the left who 500 years ago pushed
for sanitation laws in spite of the religious right not wanting it?

How come those lefties back then did not address global warming?


>=A0So
> there are strong parallels with things like recycling and smoking and
> blue laws (which, after all, seek to keep your neighbor's souls clean
> along with their streets).
>

Yes, they all are rooted in morality being forced on others.
Sometimes this morality is good and sometimes it is bad.  What the
left thinks is good differs from what the right thinks is good.
Much of the time both sides agree and there is no debate (like basic
sanitation laws)


> >> Go buy a plot of land on a side hill above some other housing, in any
> >> county in the US that has more than 10000 people in it, in the reddest
> >> state you can find. =A0Tell the county commissioners that you're going=
 to
> >> build a shack and dig a three foot deep latrine hole to do your
> >> business in. =A0See how far you get.
>
> > Actually, I hope that if I bought 1000 acres in Montana and wanted to
> > set up a mini camp on the hillside, I hope that I could stay at my camp
> > site and poop in a hole that is three feet deep without worring about
> > the county commisioner or the EPA telling me that I cannot do that.
>
> Would you care if it was your neighbor's campsite, and your children who
> got cholera?
>

This is not what you said.  I provided an example and you moved the
target.  I go to places that use outhouses and I sure hope that
someone cannot cry out "CHOLERA" and force those establishments to
spend thousands of dollars to have to upgrade their sanitation
system.

Heck, porta poddies are pretty unsanitary, should we outlaw them?

If the campsite was 1000 acres away would you reall be concerned?

> --www.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:01:08 +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:

> Is there an ETA for the end of this thread? It's not what I lurk on this
> list for, really. Rather than check each day, it would be more efficient
> for me just to ignore comp.dsp for a week or two...

I keep _trying_ to stop.  I really do.

Maybe I need to killfile me...

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)
>> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements on
>> all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative
>> Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston),
>> banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties
>> (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants to
>> close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or
>> Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure
>> you can enumerate yourself. 

(snip)
> Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.

There are still many laws promoted by the religious right, though.

> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
> as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
> That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.

If our society is going to be around more than about 50 years from now,
we will have to greatly decrease our environmental footprint.  There
likely are questions about how well we are doing in recycling, but
have to start somewhere.

> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.

I haven't followed that one so closely, but there is a health care
cost to overeating.

> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.

Mostly I don't care if someone wants to smoke inside their own house.
I very much believe in my right to breathe tobacco smoke free air.
Even outdoors smoke goes farther than many smokers think it does.
(Mostly, they can't smell it as the receptors for it have been
killed long ago.)

There is also a health care cost.  As far as I know, that is compensated
for by the decrease in social security cost due to shorter lifespan.

> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.

I disagree.

-- glen

On Oct 4, 2:01=A0pm, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> Is there an ETA for the end of this thread?

To answer the question... No there is not

>It's not what I lurk on this
> list for, really.

It is what some participants come here for.  In addition to dsp.  As
evidenced by the number of posters on this thread.

>Rather than check each day, it would be more efficient
> for me just to ignore comp.dsp for a week or two...
>

I suggest you stay away for a week or two if seeing posts that you
don't like in an unmoderated newsgroup causes you emotional stress.


> Richard Dobson

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
> I am not aware of anyone from the religious right advocating throwing
> their garbage on the streets.  Saying that  the alternative to  a
> forced recycling policy  is  throwing garbage on the sreets is a red
> herring.

> As far as recycling causing more harm than good I watched a Penn and
> Teller episode on Youtube a while ago that convinced me :-)

> But seriously, does anyone talk about the costs of deisel trucks
> driving through neighborhoods and belching their smoke and spilling
> their oil on the streets?  What is the harm of putting plastic and
> paper and metal and glass into a big hole?  I believe that recycling
> is done as a feel good (morality forcing exercize) and that if you did
> the true cost/benefit analysis that it would be determined to cause
> more harm than good.

Recycling needs to occur at a high enough rate to cover the truck
costs.  As recycling plants get better, more is recyclable, and
it does help.  Still, one does have to ask.

One that is definitely still in question is biofuel.  The direct and
indirect costs of biofuel are pretty high.  Increases food prices as
more food goes to ethanol production have influence around the world,
especially in poor countries.  

Much of the cost of paper, metal, plastic, and glass is the energy
needed to produce them.  That is especially true for aluminum, which
is why recycling for it started long ago.  For the others, the energy
cost is still significant, but it takes a higher recycling rate to
cover the costs.

-- glen

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:01:08 +0100, Richard Dobson
<richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Is there an ETA for the end of this thread? It's not what I lurk on this 
>list for, really. Rather than check each day, it would be more efficient 
>for me just to ignore comp.dsp for a week or two...
>
>
>Richard Dobson

Is it not possible to just ignore this thread?   My news reader allows
this pretty easily, but I don't know what you're using.

Regardless, this is a bit OT.  Seems kind of fun to me, though.   ;)


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

On Oct 4, 1:20=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:01:08 +0100, Richard Dobson
>
> <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >Is there an ETA for the end of this thread? It's not what I lurk on this
> >list for, really. Rather than check each day, it would be more efficient
> >for me just to ignore comp.dsp for a week or two...
>
> >Richard Dobson
>
> Is it not possible to just ignore this thread? =A0 My news reader allows
> this pretty easily, but I don't know what you're using.
>
> Regardless, this is a bit OT. =A0Seems kind of fun to me, though. =A0 ;)
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com



Is this boiling down to right vs left, who=92s the craziest?

Is it a quest to demonstrate which group has done more damage to this
country?

What=92s religion got to do with these claims, if anything?

Just trying to figure out what this thread is about.

On Oct 4, 2:30 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>
> >> I agree with most of that; laws impose restrictions and requirements on
> >> all people, whatever their religion or belief. Laws that conservative
> >> Christians wanted upheld forbade couples to kiss on Sunday (in Boston),
> >> banned carbonated beverages on Sunday in some southern counties
> >> (engendering the non-carbonated ice-cream sundae) required merchants to
> >> close their stores on Sunday, even if their own sabbath was Friday or
> >> Saturday, and many more restrictions on people's freedom that I'm sure
> >> you can enumerate yourself.
>
> (snip)
>
> > Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
> > with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> There are still many laws promoted by the religious right, though.
>
> > But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> > that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
> > as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
> > That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> > recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> If our society is going to be around more than about 50 years from now,

That is a very bold statement.

> we will have to greatly decrease our environmental footprint.  There

And what does "greatly decrease" mean?  Does it mean we have to
increase our gasoline tax by $1 / gallon so that the money can be
spent on alternate energy programs?

No thanks.

Does it mean shutting down coal fired power plants?

No thanks.




> likely are questions about how well we are doing in recycling, but
> have to start somewhere.
>

Rather than starting there, why not start by making church attendance
mandatory for everyone.  I am obviously being absurd, but the argument
that we have to start somewhere is absurd if the underlying problems
are only agreed to by one side.



> > Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> > Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> I haven't followed that one so closely, but there is a health care
> cost to overeating.
>
> > Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> Mostly I don't care if someone wants to smoke inside their own house.
> I very much believe in my right to breathe tobacco smoke free air.
> Even outdoors smoke goes farther than many smokers think it does.
> (Mostly, they can't smell it as the receptors for it have been
> killed long ago.)
>

> There is also a health care cost.  As far as I know, that is compensated
> for by the decrease in social security cost due to shorter lifespan.
>


> > All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> > pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> I disagree.

Of course you disagree :-)

But it gets tiring to listen to how the religious right is constantly
trying to cram morality down everyone's throat, and yet there is a
convenient blind spot to how the "objective, scientific, atheistic "
left has an agenda which amounts to ... well.. cramming morality down
everyone's throat.




>
> -- glen

On Oct 4, 10:37=A0am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> brent wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 12:12 am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > You make some interesting points, but I do not fully agree with you.
> > I do not think that you can judge what an atheistic society does based
> > upon 100 years of watching one. =A0What the west has , that does seem t=
o
> > work, is an accepted tension between believers and unbelievers. =A0I
> > think that Christianity is much more tolerant of unbelief than
> > atheists give it credit for. =A0It is really in the whole Christian
> > dogma that there are always lots of non believers within society that
> > need to be won over.
>
> > I think that if one could look at Europe 100 to 200 years from now
> > that we could get a pretty good idea of what "objective" unbelief
> > turns into (perhaps the USA too). =A0It usually (in my opinion) turns
> > into socialism which then turns into unsustainable socialism. =A0I
> > personally believe that creeping socialism in this country is directly
> > rooted in unbelief. =A0Most of the Christian right believes this too. =
=A0I
> > do not think that socialism can be fended off without Christianity,
> > and in the end socialism rots the soul and takes away many personal
> > freedoms.
>
> Republican party =3D Taliban
> Democratic party =3D Communists
> Give me the party of none.
>
> VLV

Two out of three ain't bad.

On Oct 4, 2:39=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I am not aware of anyone from the religious right advocating throwing
> > their garbage on the streets. =A0Saying that =A0the alternative to =A0a
> > forced recycling policy =A0is =A0throwing garbage on the sreets is a re=
d
> > herring.
> > As far as recycling causing more harm than good I watched a Penn and
> > Teller episode on Youtube a while ago that convinced me :-)
> > But seriously, does anyone talk about the costs of deisel trucks
> > driving through neighborhoods and belching their smoke and spilling
> > their oil on the streets? =A0What is the harm of putting plastic and
> > paper and metal and glass into a big hole? =A0I believe that recycling
> > is done as a feel good (morality forcing exercize) and that if you did
> > the true cost/benefit analysis that it would be determined to cause
> > more harm than good.
>
> Recycling needs to occur at a high enough rate to cover the truck
> costs. =A0As recycling plants get better, more is recyclable, and
> it does help. =A0Still, one does have to ask.
>
> One that is definitely still in question is biofuel. =A0The direct and
> indirect costs of biofuel are pretty high. =A0Increases food prices as
> more food goes to ethanol production have influence around the world,

If you broadly take the tea party movement to be the "right" , I would
say that the tea party/right is definitely against ethonal subsidies.
I am not sure if the left is for them but it seems more in tune with
the left's fantasy quest for alternate energy sources (and we now have
a real dream come true - shale fuels - that of course - the left can't
get too exited about). The ethanol subsidies seem to be more of a
federal pork issue now - and those are hard to stop.


> especially in poor countries. =A0
>
> Much of the cost of paper, metal, plastic, and glass is the energy
> needed to produce them. =A0That is especially true for aluminum, which

Penn and Teller said that aluminum recycling is the only recycling
that makes sense financially.  And it happens pretty much
automatically by individual scavengers or  skimming it at the dumping
grounds.

> is why recycling for it started long ago. =A0For the others, the energy
> cost is still significant, but it takes a higher recycling rate to
> cover the costs.
>
> -- glen

>
> But it gets tiring to listen to how the religious right is constantly
> trying to cram morality down everyone's throat ...



So what specific social issues of the =93right=94 are you not in lock step
with?

On Oct 4, 6:59=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But it gets tiring to listen to how the religious right is constantly
> > trying to cram morality down everyone's throat ...
>
> So what specific social issues of the =93right=94 are you not in lock ste=
p
> with?

You prejudice shows through by using "lock step" .  My postings are to
demonstrate how nonobjective and hypocritical many of the critics of
the religious right are.  Not so much to discuss the fine points of
the conservative agenda.

On Oct 4, 4:07=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:59=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > But it gets tiring to listen to how the religious right is constantly
> > > trying to cram morality down everyone's throat ...
>
> > So what specific social issues of the =93right=94 are you not in lock s=
tep
> > with?
>
> You prejudice shows through by using "lock step" . =A0My postings are to
> demonstrate how nonobjective and hypocritical many of the critics of
> the religious right are. =A0Not so much to discuss the fine points of
> the conservative agenda.



You're correct I am biased =85 I being a fiscal conservative but social
liberal feel like I don=92t have a voice.

You know the old saying =93damned if you do, damned if you don=92t=94.

The political spectrum is so polarized that a discussions re which
side, the right or left is more whacked is just =93crazy=94.

A more useful topic might be speculation on how to fix such a screwed
up system.

On 04/10/2011 21:20, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
...
>
>
> Regardless, this is a bit OT.  Seems kind of fun to me, though.   ;)
>

In parts. I just hope the ad hominems don't get out of hand. A few posts 
have been, shall we say, a bit heated. It's always a danger when 
arguments (if we may call them that) get polarised. I hope when this is 
all done, everyone will still feel they can share a beer (or a pot of 
tea) together!

Richard Dobson

On Oct 4, 7:26=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 4, 4:07=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 6:59=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > But it gets tiring to listen to how the religious right is constant=
ly
> > > > trying to cram morality down everyone's throat ...
>
> > > So what specific social issues of the =93right=94 are you not in lock=
 step
> > > with?
>
> > You prejudice shows through by using "lock step" . =A0My postings are t=
o
> > demonstrate how nonobjective and hypocritical many of the critics of
> > the religious right are. =A0Not so much to discuss the fine points of
> > the conservative agenda.
>
> You're correct I am biased =85 I being a fiscal conservative but social
> liberal feel like I don=92t have a voice.
>
> You know the old saying =93damned if you do, damned if you don=92t=94.
>
> The political spectrum is so polarized that a discussions re which
> side, the right or left is more whacked is just =93crazy=94.
>
> A more useful topic might be speculation on how to fix such a screwed
> up system.

Social liberal can mean Ron Paul (libertarian - leave me alone) or it
can mean Barack Obama ( actively legislate a liberal social agenda).
If it is the Ron Paul variety, then you have a voice in Ron Paul and
the guy from NM.  If it is the Barack Obama variety, then there
probably is not too many voices out there, but oddly enough, maybe
Coumo of NY (though by sheer necessity) or even Chris Christie would
be to your liking.

On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:

   ...

> Jerry,
>
> Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.

True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain 
them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting now to 
maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run 
clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need to be 
legislated against.

> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
> as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
> That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.

Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people 
whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen the 
Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. Have 
you seen anything comparable?

> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.

History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I 
see, they are motivated by concerns for health.

Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to global 
warming, or even that the earth is warming at all. Yet it is 
incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human 
activity produces vast quantities of it, and climate records show a 
clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be 
(barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do that 
is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and 
irrational making laws for you?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 10/4/2011 2:01 PM, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Is there an ETA for the end of this thread? It's not what I lurk on this
> list for, really. Rather than check each day, it would be more efficient
> for me just to ignore comp.dsp for a week or two...
>
>
> Richard Dobson

I can set my reader to ignore a thread. In Firefox, type 'k' when 
reading the beginning message.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 4, 9:08=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> > Jerry,
>
> > Most of those things you bring up are straw men. =A0There are very few
> > with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain
> them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting now to
> maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run
> clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need to be
> legislated against.
>
> > But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> > that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
> > as what you mention above. =A0The first example is mandatory recycling.
> > That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> > recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people
> whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen the


By bad for the environment I meant that the resources used to recycle
are probably equal to or nearly equal to the resources saved by
recycling.  If the resources expended to recycle exceed the resources
saved then it is a net detriment to the environment.  From a financial
perspective it is a detriment.  If you take into consideration that
the discarded product ( Specifically, metal, glass, paper and plastic)
simply get put into a landfill then I don't see the benefit.  These
products are not detrimental to the environment sitting in a
landfill.


> Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. Have
> you seen anything comparable?
>

I never heard of it, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia.  It looks
like the model example of how to turn lemons into lemonade based upon
my quick perusal of the website.  They have a picture of the reclaimed
land that looks pretty darn nice to me.


> > Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> > Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> > Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> > All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> > pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I
> see, they are motivated by concerns for health.
>

> Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to global

> warming, or even that the earth is warming at all.

>Yet it is
> incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human
> activity produces vast quantities of it,


>and climate records show a
> clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be
> (barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do that
> is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and
> irrational making laws for you?
>


There are several aspects to global warming that I find hard to
overcome.

1.  Is global warming occurring?

Not convinced it is occurring.

2. If it is occurring is it actually detrimental to the world?

This is not so easy to answer.  Just because someone claims that
Florida will be underwater does not mean it will be. Global warming
occurred in Europe/ Greenland 800? years ago and seemed to be a
blessing in many respects.

3.  Is man causing it?

This is really difficult to answer.  Credible scientists point to sun
activity as the primary driver of temperature differences.  In spite
of the left claiming that the science is settled, it is not.

4. If man is causing it is it realistic to assume that man is really
going to stop it?

Is China going to give up coal? Is India going to give up
automobiles?  Is the USA going to give up heating their homes.  They
won't and all the energy will still be used.  Cheap energy drives
everything.  without cheap energy we go straight back to the 1600's
with slavery and sustenance farming and all kinds of social problems.
Windmills and solar panels are not going to cut it.

5.  why is the solution to global warming a massive increase in taxes
that will likely be used to push further leftist agendas?

This is a real sticking point.  If this really is a earth shattering
problem, then why isn't the left promoting a massive nuclear power
plant construction program?  It is the only logical way to radically
stop greenhouse gasses and maintain our current lifestyle.  I do not
propose this, but it is the ONLY logical way out in my opinion, and
yet nobody on the left seems to even consider this option.

6.  Why do ridiculous claims about global warming go  unchecked by the
scientific community?

The scientific community does not do a very good job of ferreting out
exaggerated claims which are made about global warming.  Why is that?
As an example, about four years ago some global warming proponent was
claiming that if we did  not do something radical about global warming
in 4 years that it would be too late.  I took that guy at his word.
The four years is up and so now it is too late to do anything about
global warming, so lets stop talking about it.

I mean - come on - these kind of absurd claims were made daily a few
years ago, and no rebuff at all from the scientists.

7.  The left is evolutionist, so why don't they just accept the
natural flow of things?

The earth will take care of itself.  If global warming screws
everything up then the earth will find a way to correct itself.  This
should not bother an evolutionist. Eventually the world will die out
and freeze over so why does it matter?  Likely, the planet would
automatically reduce population by 50% or more and everything will be
ok again and the environmentalists, who say the earth is
overpopulated, get what they want anyhow.

> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 4, 5:47=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 7:26=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 4:07=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 4, 6:59=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > But it gets tiring to listen to how the religious right is consta=
ntly
> > > > > trying to cram morality down everyone's throat ...
>
> > > > So what specific social issues of the =93right=94 are you not in lo=
ck step
> > > > with?
>
> > > You prejudice shows through by using "lock step" . =A0My postings are=
 to
> > > demonstrate how nonobjective and hypocritical many of the critics of
> > > the religious right are. =A0Not so much to discuss the fine points of
> > > the conservative agenda.
>
> > You're correct I am biased =85 I being a fiscal conservative but social
> > liberal feel like I don=92t have a voice.
>
> > You know the old saying =93damned if you do, damned if you don=92t=94.
>
> > The political spectrum is so polarized that a discussions re which
> > side, the right or left is more whacked is just =93crazy=94.
>
> > A more useful topic might be speculation on how to fix such a screwed
> > up system.
>
> Social liberal can mean Ron Paul (libertarian - leave me alone) or it
> can mean Barack Obama ( actively legislate a liberal social agenda).
> If it is the Ron Paul variety, then you have a voice in Ron Paul and
> the guy from NM. =A0If it is the Barack Obama variety, then there
> probably is not too many voices out there, but oddly enough, maybe
> Coumo of NY (though by sheer necessity) or even Chris Christie would
> be to your liking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Surely you jest, you honestly believe that there=92s a fiscal
conservative / social liberal in this crop?  Interesting.

From a philosophical position, I lean libertarian but I=92m a pragmatist
as well.

Ron is on the verge of becoming an isolationist and in my opinion,
totally out of touch with reality.

Christi has potential, but his social views were way too liberal for
today=92s conservative crowd.  He left before the party started.

Same with old Mitt --- it=92s clear that he recognized the problem, now
he=92s branded as the =93flopper=94.  Why are the Pubs having such a hard
time swallowing =93Romney=94?

Long before Herman Cain showed up I pined for a flat tax.

I appreciate the fact that Cain has come out with a plan.  From a
fiscal point of view, I could see myself exploring more of this guy
but he and I just have this big disconnect when it comes to social
positions.

Unfortunately, =93individual rights=94 of the =93social nature=94 are not t=
he
corner stone of the Republican Party platform.  I could go into a
litany of issues but I suspect you can guess.  The Pubs need to dump
the right wing social agenda.  It=92s a big loser for people like me.  I
stopped voting Repub when the =93value=94 vote made the scene.

You bring up the issue of, =93actively legislate a liberal social
agenda=94 =85 are you implying that social conservatives aren=92t chopping
at the bit for an opportunity?   Get real!

For me, Obama is just a really bad politician and a worse leader. In
my opinion he=92s made some really bad political decisions that have
only succeed to enhance the political divide.  I do wish the Dems
would put up an alternative.

However, given the choice of between a =93bumbler=94 and =93social
repressionist=94,  I=92ll take my chances with the =93bumbler=94.

Like it or not, the US is part of a global economy.  The days of
fiscal independence, self-direction and economic isolation are long
gone.  In the short term, whether we have a Republican or a Democrat
in the executive office isn=92t going to radically change our economic
position.

However, placing a social abolitionist in office could have some
drastic irreversible consequences both in the short and long term.

On Oct 4, 7:20=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 9:08=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0...
>
> > > Jerry,
>
> > > Most of those things you bring up are straw men. =A0There are very fe=
w
> > > with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> > True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain
> > them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting now t=
o
> > maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run
> > clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need to b=
e
> > legislated against.
>
> > > But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> > > that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
> > > as what you mention above. =A0The first example is mandatory recyclin=
g.
> > > That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> > > recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> > Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people
> > whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen the
>
> By bad for the environment I meant that the resources used to recycle
> are probably equal to or nearly equal to the resources saved by
> recycling. =A0If the resources expended to recycle exceed the resources
> saved then it is a net detriment to the environment. =A0From a financial
> perspective it is a detriment. =A0If you take into consideration that
> the discarded product ( Specifically, metal, glass, paper and plastic)
> simply get put into a landfill then I don't see the benefit. =A0These
> products are not detrimental to the environment sitting in a
> landfill.
>
> > Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. Hav=
e
> > you seen anything comparable?
>
> I never heard of it, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia. =A0It looks
> like the model example of how to turn lemons into lemonade based upon
> my quick perusal of the website. =A0They have a picture of the reclaimed
> land that looks pretty darn nice to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> > > Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> > > Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> > > All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> > > pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> > History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I
> > see, they are motivated by concerns for health.
>
> > Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to global
> > warming, or even that the earth is warming at all.
> >Yet it is
> > incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human
> > activity produces vast quantities of it,
> >and climate records show a
> > clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be
> > (barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do tha=
t
> > is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and
> > irrational making laws for you?
>
> There are several aspects to global warming that I find hard to
> overcome.
>
> 1. =A0Is global warming occurring?
>
> Not convinced it is occurring.
>
> 2. If it is occurring is it actually detrimental to the world?
>
> This is not so easy to answer. =A0Just because someone claims that
> Florida will be underwater does not mean it will be. Global warming
> occurred in Europe/ Greenland 800? years ago and seemed to be a
> blessing in many respects.
>
> 3. =A0Is man causing it?
>
> This is really difficult to answer. =A0Credible scientists point to sun
> activity as the primary driver of temperature differences. =A0In spite
> of the left claiming that the science is settled, it is not.
>
> 4. If man is causing it is it realistic to assume that man is really
> going to stop it?
>
> Is China going to give up coal? Is India going to give up
> automobiles? =A0Is the USA going to give up heating their homes. =A0They
> won't and all the energy will still be used. =A0Cheap energy drives
> everything. =A0without cheap energy we go straight back to the 1600's
> with slavery and sustenance farming and all kinds of social problems.
> Windmills and solar panels are not going to cut it.
>
> 5. =A0why is the solution to global warming a massive increase in taxes
> that will likely be used to push further leftist agendas?
>
> This is a real sticking point. =A0If this really is a earth shattering
> problem, then why isn't the left promoting a massive nuclear power
> plant construction program? =A0It is the only logical way to radically
> stop greenhouse gasses and maintain our current lifestyle. =A0I do not
> propose this, but it is the ONLY logical way out in my opinion, and
> yet nobody on the left seems to even consider this option.
>
> 6. =A0Why do ridiculous claims about global warming go =A0unchecked by th=
e
> scientific community?
>
> The scientific community does not do a very good job of ferreting out
> exaggerated claims which are made about global warming. =A0Why is that?
> As an example, about four years ago some global warming proponent was
> claiming that if we did =A0not do something radical about global warming
> in 4 years that it would be too late. =A0I took that guy at his word.
> The four years is up and so now it is too late to do anything about
> global warming, so lets stop talking about it.
>
> I mean - come on - these kind of absurd claims were made daily a few
> years ago, and no rebuff at all from the scientists.
>
> 7. =A0The left is evolutionist, so why don't they just accept the
> natural flow of things?
>
> The earth will take care of itself. =A0If global warming screws
> everything up then the earth will find a way to correct itself. =A0This
> should not bother an evolutionist. Eventually the world will die out
> and freeze over so why does it matter? =A0Likely, the planet would
> automatically reduce population by 50% or more and everything will be
> ok again and the environmentalists, who say the earth is
> overpopulated, get what they want anyhow.
>
>
>
> > Jerry
> > --
> > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.=
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Listen the planet is getting warmer.  Enough to get our panties in a
wad, I don=92t know.

However, the real issue is that we don=92t have an energy policy.
Obama=92s mish-mash of political talking points doesn=92t cut it for
policy.  He=92s the little engine that couldn=92t.

Get a working policy based on facts and not political hyperbole and
the global warming crap settles into the noise.

Intended or not, it=92s a diversion.  You give politicians more credit
than I do for competence.

On 10/4/2011 6:47 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

> If you broadly take the tea party movement to be the "right" , I would
> say that the tea party/right is definitely against ethonal subsidies.
> I am not sure if the left is for them but it seems more in tune with
> the left's fantasy quest for alternate energy sources (and we now have
> a real dream come true - shale fuels - that of course - the left can't
> get too exited about). The ethanol subsidies seem to be more of a
> federal pork issue now - and those are hard to stop.

   ...

As far as I know, the only people who favor subsidized ethanol in 
gasoline are corn-state legislators and growers like 
Archer-Daniels-Midland. But together, they are a powerful lobby who 
usually get their way.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 10/4/2011 10:20 PM, brent wrote:
> On Oct 4, 9:08 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:
>>
>>     ...
>>
>>> Jerry,
>>
>>> Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
>>> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>>
>> True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain
>> them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting now to
>> maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run
>> clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need to be
>> legislated against.
>>
>>> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
>>> that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
>>> as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
>>> That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
>>> recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>>
>> Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people
>> whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen the
>
>
> By bad for the environment I meant that the resources used to recycle
> are probably equal to or nearly equal to the resources saved by
> recycling.  If the resources expended to recycle exceed the resources
> saved then it is a net detriment to the environment.  From a financial
> perspective it is a detriment.  If you take into consideration that
> the discarded product ( Specifically, metal, glass, paper and plastic)
> simply get put into a landfill then I don't see the benefit.  These
> products are not detrimental to the environment sitting in a
> landfill.
>
>
>> Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. Have
>> you seen anything comparable?
>>
>
> I never heard of it, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia.  It looks
> like the model example of how to turn lemons into lemonade based upon
> my quick perusal of the website.  They have a picture of the reclaimed
> land that looks pretty darn nice to me.
>
>
>>> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
>>> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>>
>>> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>>
>>> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
>>> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>>
>> History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I
>> see, they are motivated by concerns for health.
>>
>
>> Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to global
>
>> warming, or even that the earth is warming at all.
>
>> Yet it is
>> incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human
>> activity produces vast quantities of it,
>
>
>> and climate records show a
>> clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be
>> (barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do that
>> is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and
>> irrational making laws for you?
>>
>
>
> There are several aspects to global warming that I find hard to
> overcome.
>
> 1.  Is global warming occurring?
>
> Not convinced it is occurring.
>
> 2. If it is occurring is it actually detrimental to the world?
>
> This is not so easy to answer.  Just because someone claims that
> Florida will be underwater does not mean it will be. Global warming
> occurred in Europe/ Greenland 800? years ago and seemed to be a
> blessing in many respects.
>
> 3.  Is man causing it?
>
> This is really difficult to answer.  Credible scientists point to sun
> activity as the primary driver of temperature differences.  In spite
> of the left claiming that the science is settled, it is not.
>
> 4. If man is causing it is it realistic to assume that man is really
> going to stop it?
>
> Is China going to give up coal? Is India going to give up
> automobiles?  Is the USA going to give up heating their homes.  They
> won't and all the energy will still be used.  Cheap energy drives
> everything.  without cheap energy we go straight back to the 1600's
> with slavery and sustenance farming and all kinds of social problems.
> Windmills and solar panels are not going to cut it.
>
> 5.  why is the solution to global warming a massive increase in taxes
> that will likely be used to push further leftist agendas?
>
> This is a real sticking point.  If this really is a earth shattering
> problem, then why isn't the left promoting a massive nuclear power
> plant construction program?  It is the only logical way to radically
> stop greenhouse gasses and maintain our current lifestyle.  I do not
> propose this, but it is the ONLY logical way out in my opinion, and
> yet nobody on the left seems to even consider this option.
>
> 6.  Why do ridiculous claims about global warming go  unchecked by the
> scientific community?
>
> The scientific community does not do a very good job of ferreting out
> exaggerated claims which are made about global warming.  Why is that?
> As an example, about four years ago some global warming proponent was
> claiming that if we did  not do something radical about global warming
> in 4 years that it would be too late.  I took that guy at his word.
> The four years is up and so now it is too late to do anything about
> global warming, so lets stop talking about it.
>
> I mean - come on - these kind of absurd claims were made daily a few
> years ago, and no rebuff at all from the scientists.
>
> 7.  The left is evolutionist, so why don't they just accept the
> natural flow of things?
>
> The earth will take care of itself.  If global warming screws
> everything up then the earth will find a way to correct itself.  This
> should not bother an evolutionist. Eventually the world will die out
> and freeze over so why does it matter?  Likely, the planet would
> automatically reduce population by 50% or more and everything will be
> ok again and the environmentalists, who say the earth is
> overpopulated, get what they want anyhow.

Numbers, please.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 5, 10:27=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 10:20 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 9:08 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 ...
>
> >>> Jerry,
>
> >>> Most of those things you bring up are straw men. =A0There are very fe=
w
> >>> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> >> True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain
> >> them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting now =
to
> >> maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run
> >> clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need to =
be
> >> legislated against.
>
> >>> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> >>> that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
> >>> as what you mention above. =A0The first example is mandatory recyclin=
g.
> >>> That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> >>> recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> >> Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people
> >> whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen th=
e
>
> > By bad for the environment I meant that the resources used to recycle
> > are probably equal to or nearly equal to the resources saved by
> > recycling. =A0If the resources expended to recycle exceed the resources
> > saved then it is a net detriment to the environment. =A0From a financia=
l
> > perspective it is a detriment. =A0If you take into consideration that
> > the discarded product ( Specifically, metal, glass, paper and plastic)
> > simply get put into a landfill then I don't see the benefit. =A0These
> > products are not detrimental to the environment sitting in a
> > landfill.
>
> >> Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. Ha=
ve
> >> you seen anything comparable?
>
> > I never heard of it, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia. =A0It looks
> > like the model example of how to turn lemons into lemonade based upon
> > my quick perusal of the website. =A0They have a picture of the reclaime=
d
> > land that looks pretty darn nice to me.
>
> >>> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
> >>> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> >>> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> >>> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> >>> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> >> History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I
> >> see, they are motivated by concerns for health.
>
> >> Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to globa=
l
>
> >> warming, or even that the earth is warming at all.
>
> >> Yet it is
> >> incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that huma=
n
> >> activity produces vast quantities of it,
>
> >> and climate records show a
> >> clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be
> >> (barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do th=
at
> >> is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and
> >> irrational making laws for you?
>
> > There are several aspects to global warming that I find hard to
> > overcome.
>
> > 1. =A0Is global warming occurring?
>
> > Not convinced it is occurring.
>
> > 2. If it is occurring is it actually detrimental to the world?
>
> > This is not so easy to answer. =A0Just because someone claims that
> > Florida will be underwater does not mean it will be. Global warming
> > occurred in Europe/ Greenland 800? years ago and seemed to be a
> > blessing in many respects.
>
> > 3. =A0Is man causing it?
>
> > This is really difficult to answer. =A0Credible scientists point to sun
> > activity as the primary driver of temperature differences. =A0In spite
> > of the left claiming that the science is settled, it is not.
>
> > 4. If man is causing it is it realistic to assume that man is really
> > going to stop it?
>
> > Is China going to give up coal? Is India going to give up
> > automobiles? =A0Is the USA going to give up heating their homes. =A0The=
y
> > won't and all the energy will still be used. =A0Cheap energy drives
> > everything. =A0without cheap energy we go straight back to the 1600's
> > with slavery and sustenance farming and all kinds of social problems.
> > Windmills and solar panels are not going to cut it.
>
> > 5. =A0why is the solution to global warming a massive increase in taxes
> > that will likely be used to push further leftist agendas?
>
> > This is a real sticking point. =A0If this really is a earth shattering
> > problem, then why isn't the left promoting a massive nuclear power
> > plant construction program? =A0It is the only logical way to radically
> > stop greenhouse gasses and maintain our current lifestyle. =A0I do not
> > propose this, but it is the ONLY logical way out in my opinion, and
> > yet nobody on the left seems to even consider this option.
>
> > 6. =A0Why do ridiculous claims about global warming go =A0unchecked by =
the
> > scientific community?
>
> > The scientific community does not do a very good job of ferreting out
> > exaggerated claims which are made about global warming. =A0Why is that?
> > As an example, about four years ago some global warming proponent was
> > claiming that if we did =A0not do something radical about global warmin=
g
> > in 4 years that it would be too late. =A0I took that guy at his word.
> > The four years is up and so now it is too late to do anything about
> > global warming, so lets stop talking about it.
>
> > I mean - come on - these kind of absurd claims were made daily a few
> > years ago, and no rebuff at all from the scientists.
>
> > 7. =A0The left is evolutionist, so why don't they just accept the
> > natural flow of things?
>
> > The earth will take care of itself. =A0If global warming screws
> > everything up then the earth will find a way to correct itself. =A0This
> > should not bother an evolutionist. Eventually the world will die out
> > and freeze over so why does it matter? =A0Likely, the planet would
> > automatically reduce population by 50% or more and everything will be
> > ok again and the environmentalists, who say the earth is
> > overpopulated, get what they want anyhow.
>
> Numbers, please.
>

This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
advocats who are trying to push their morality on me.  The global
warming advocates claim that I need to fund alternative enrgy, recycle
my garbage, pay massive energy taxes, shut down coal plants that drive
up electricity costs.

As a global warming skeptic, who wishes to not be subjected to thes
oppresive rules, I am the one who deserves the numbers.

It is the global warmists that owe the skeptics reams and reams of
data.  It is the skeptics who should be able to look at the source
code of global warming models and look at all the original temperature
data.

And yet, the skeptics are told to pound salt and told that they are
ignorant for even questioning the global warming ideas (sure seems
like the Catholic-heretic type of environment).  By mocking the
skeptics as Neandrathals and unscientific idiots,  the left has turned
global warming into a massive morality push.

It is the global warmists that insist that I change my behavior.  I am
not telling them to change their behavior.  Who owes who the numbers?






> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.- =
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On 10/5/2011 1:02 PM, brent wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:27 am, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/4/2011 10:20 PM, brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 9:08 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>    wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:
>>
>>>>      ...
>>
>>>>> Jerry,
>>
>>>>> Most of those things you bring up are straw men.  There are very few
>>>>> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>>
>>>> True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain
>>>> them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting now to
>>>> maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run
>>>> clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need to be
>>>> legislated against.
>>
>>>>> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
>>>>> that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as silly
>>>>> as what you mention above.  The first example is mandatory recycling.
>>>>> That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
>>>>> recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>>
>>>> Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people
>>>> whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen the
>>
>>> By bad for the environment I meant that the resources used to recycle
>>> are probably equal to or nearly equal to the resources saved by
>>> recycling.  If the resources expended to recycle exceed the resources
>>> saved then it is a net detriment to the environment.  From a financial
>>> perspective it is a detriment.  If you take into consideration that
>>> the discarded product ( Specifically, metal, glass, paper and plastic)
>>> simply get put into a landfill then I don't see the benefit.  These
>>> products are not detrimental to the environment sitting in a
>>> landfill.
>>
>>>> Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. Have
>>>> you seen anything comparable?
>>
>>> I never heard of it, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia.  It looks
>>> like the model example of how to turn lemons into lemonade based upon
>>> my quick perusal of the website.  They have a picture of the reclaimed
>>> land that looks pretty darn nice to me.
>>
>>>>> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayor
>>>>> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>>
>>>>> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>>
>>>>> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
>>>>> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>>
>>>> History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I
>>>> see, they are motivated by concerns for health.
>>
>>>> Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to global
>>
>>>> warming, or even that the earth is warming at all.
>>
>>>> Yet it is
>>>> incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human
>>>> activity produces vast quantities of it,
>>
>>>> and climate records show a
>>>> clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be
>>>> (barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do that
>>>> is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and
>>>> irrational making laws for you?
>>
>>> There are several aspects to global warming that I find hard to
>>> overcome.
>>
>>> 1.  Is global warming occurring?
>>
>>> Not convinced it is occurring.
>>
>>> 2. If it is occurring is it actually detrimental to the world?
>>
>>> This is not so easy to answer.  Just because someone claims that
>>> Florida will be underwater does not mean it will be. Global warming
>>> occurred in Europe/ Greenland 800? years ago and seemed to be a
>>> blessing in many respects.
>>
>>> 3.  Is man causing it?
>>
>>> This is really difficult to answer.  Credible scientists point to sun
>>> activity as the primary driver of temperature differences.  In spite
>>> of the left claiming that the science is settled, it is not.
>>
>>> 4. If man is causing it is it realistic to assume that man is really
>>> going to stop it?
>>
>>> Is China going to give up coal? Is India going to give up
>>> automobiles?  Is the USA going to give up heating their homes.  They
>>> won't and all the energy will still be used.  Cheap energy drives
>>> everything.  without cheap energy we go straight back to the 1600's
>>> with slavery and sustenance farming and all kinds of social problems.
>>> Windmills and solar panels are not going to cut it.
>>
>>> 5.  why is the solution to global warming a massive increase in taxes
>>> that will likely be used to push further leftist agendas?
>>
>>> This is a real sticking point.  If this really is a earth shattering
>>> problem, then why isn't the left promoting a massive nuclear power
>>> plant construction program?  It is the only logical way to radically
>>> stop greenhouse gasses and maintain our current lifestyle.  I do not
>>> propose this, but it is the ONLY logical way out in my opinion, and
>>> yet nobody on the left seems to even consider this option.
>>
>>> 6.  Why do ridiculous claims about global warming go  unchecked by the
>>> scientific community?
>>
>>> The scientific community does not do a very good job of ferreting out
>>> exaggerated claims which are made about global warming.  Why is that?
>>> As an example, about four years ago some global warming proponent was
>>> claiming that if we did  not do something radical about global warming
>>> in 4 years that it would be too late.  I took that guy at his word.
>>> The four years is up and so now it is too late to do anything about
>>> global warming, so lets stop talking about it.
>>
>>> I mean - come on - these kind of absurd claims were made daily a few
>>> years ago, and no rebuff at all from the scientists.
>>
>>> 7.  The left is evolutionist, so why don't they just accept the
>>> natural flow of things?
>>
>>> The earth will take care of itself.  If global warming screws
>>> everything up then the earth will find a way to correct itself.  This
>>> should not bother an evolutionist. Eventually the world will die out
>>> and freeze over so why does it matter?  Likely, the planet would
>>> automatically reduce population by 50% or more and everything will be
>>> ok again and the environmentalists, who say the earth is
>>> overpopulated, get what they want anyhow.
>>
>> Numbers, please.
>>
>
> This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> advocats who are trying to push their morality on me.  The global
> warming advocates claim that I need to fund alternative enrgy, recycle
> my garbage, pay massive energy taxes, shut down coal plants that drive
> up electricity costs.

The numbers I wanted related to your claims about the cost/benefit ratio 
of recycling. I should instead have picked up on your laisez faire 
approach to upsetting the climate balance. You seem to say that we 
shouldn't bail the boat because in the long run it will sink anyway, and 
it will make little difference then if we reached shore or not.

> As a global warming skeptic, who wishes to not be subjected to thes
> oppresive rules, I am the one who deserves the numbers.

You don't believe those numbers when you see them, so we should talk 
about something else, or agree that we're done.

> It is the global warmists that owe the skeptics reams and reams of
> data.  It is the skeptics who should be able to look at the source
> code of global warming models and look at all the original temperature
> data.

If I can get you the source code to at least one of those models, would 
you study and maybe improve its accuracy?

> And yet, the skeptics are told to pound salt and told that they are
> ignorant for even questioning the global warming ideas (sure seems
> like the Catholic-heretic type of environment).  By mocking the
> skeptics as Neandrathals and unscientific idiots,  the left has turned
> global warming into a massive morality push.
>
> It is the global warmists that insist that I change my behavior.  I am
> not telling them to change their behavior.  Who owes who the numbers?

When passengers and crew are bailing twelve hours a day but you stand by 
because you don't see a problem, I suspect you'd have to change your 
behavior or get thrown overboard. It seems to me that you say, "I don't 
care if it sinks. It's not my ship."

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 5, 6:01=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 1:02 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 10:27 am, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2011 10:20 PM, brent wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 4, 9:08 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> On 10/4/2011 10:49 AM, brent wrote:
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> >>>>> Jerry,
>
> >>>>> Most of those things you bring up are straw men. =A0There are very =
few
> >>>>> with the Christian right that would want to bring those laws back.
>
> >>>> True, but they fought tooth and claw -- in my lifetime -- to retain
> >>>> them. They fought to retain racial segregation. They are fighting no=
w to
> >>>> maintain prohibition of mentioning contraception in government run
> >>>> clinics. Apparently, even knowing about it is a sin, and sins need t=
o be
> >>>> legislated against.
>
> >>>>> But some things to think about that are not straw men are the laws
> >>>>> that the silly laws that the laft imposes that are every bit as sil=
ly
> >>>>> as what you mention above. =A0The first example is mandatory recycl=
ing.
> >>>>> That is done for reasons of morality because, for the most art
> >>>>> recycling causes more harm to the environment than it does good.
>
> >>>> Mandatory recycling is said to be bad for the environment by people
> >>>> whose income it hurts. Can you provide credible backup? I have seen =
the
>
> >>> By bad for the environment I meant that the resources used to recycle
> >>> are probably equal to or nearly equal to the resources saved by
> >>> recycling. =A0If the resources expended to recycle exceed the resourc=
es
> >>> saved then it is a net detriment to the environment. =A0From a financ=
ial
> >>> perspective it is a detriment. =A0If you take into consideration that
> >>> the discarded product ( Specifically, metal, glass, paper and plastic=
)
> >>> simply get put into a landfill then I don't see the benefit. =A0These
> >>> products are not detrimental to the environment sitting in a
> >>> landfill.
>
> >>>> Fresh Kills landfill in operation, 2,200 acres of stinking garbage. =
Have
> >>>> you seen anything comparable?
>
> >>> I never heard of it, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia. =A0It look=
s
> >>> like the model example of how to turn lemons into lemonade based upon
> >>> my quick perusal of the website. =A0They have a picture of the reclai=
med
> >>> land that looks pretty darn nice to me.
>
> >>>>> Another example is the food police that is starting to emerge. Mayo=
r
> >>>>> Bloomberg is on a moral crusade regarding this.
>
> >>>>> Another example is the anti smoking crusade in society.
>
> >>>>> All three of these items are rooted in morality and they are being
> >>>>> pushed far more by the left than by the religious right.
>
> >>>> History will judge whether those laws are misguided, but as far as I
> >>>> see, they are motivated by concerns for health.
>
> >>>> Conservatives today deny that human activity may be connected to glo=
bal
>
> >>>> warming, or even that the earth is warming at all.
>
> >>>> Yet it is
> >>>> incontrovertible that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that hu=
man
> >>>> activity produces vast quantities of it,
>
> >>>> and climate records show a
> >>>> clear warming trend. Whether humans affect the climate may still be
> >>>> (barely) open to debate, but maintaining that it cannot possibly do =
that
> >>>> is hardly rational. Are you comfortable with someone so dogmatic and
> >>>> irrational making laws for you?
>
> >>> There are several aspects to global warming that I find hard to
> >>> overcome.
>
> >>> 1. =A0Is global warming occurring?
>
> >>> Not convinced it is occurring.
>
> >>> 2. If it is occurring is it actually detrimental to the world?
>
> >>> This is not so easy to answer. =A0Just because someone claims that
> >>> Florida will be underwater does not mean it will be. Global warming
> >>> occurred in Europe/ Greenland 800? years ago and seemed to be a
> >>> blessing in many respects.
>
> >>> 3. =A0Is man causing it?
>
> >>> This is really difficult to answer. =A0Credible scientists point to s=
un
> >>> activity as the primary driver of temperature differences. =A0In spit=
e
> >>> of the left claiming that the science is settled, it is not.
>
> >>> 4. If man is causing it is it realistic to assume that man is really
> >>> going to stop it?
>
> >>> Is China going to give up coal? Is India going to give up
> >>> automobiles? =A0Is the USA going to give up heating their homes. =A0T=
hey
> >>> won't and all the energy will still be used. =A0Cheap energy drives
> >>> everything. =A0without cheap energy we go straight back to the 1600's
> >>> with slavery and sustenance farming and all kinds of social problems.
> >>> Windmills and solar panels are not going to cut it.
>
> >>> 5. =A0why is the solution to global warming a massive increase in tax=
es
> >>> that will likely be used to push further leftist agendas?
>
> >>> This is a real sticking point. =A0If this really is a earth shatterin=
g
> >>> problem, then why isn't the left promoting a massive nuclear power
> >>> plant construction program? =A0It is the only logical way to radicall=
y
> >>> stop greenhouse gasses and maintain our current lifestyle. =A0I do no=
t
> >>> propose this, but it is the ONLY logical way out in my opinion, and
> >>> yet nobody on the left seems to even consider this option.
>
> >>> 6. =A0Why do ridiculous claims about global warming go =A0unchecked b=
y the
> >>> scientific community?
>
> >>> The scientific community does not do a very good job of ferreting out
> >>> exaggerated claims which are made about global warming. =A0Why is tha=
t?
> >>> As an example, about four years ago some global warming proponent was
> >>> claiming that if we did =A0not do something radical about global warm=
ing
> >>> in 4 years that it would be too late. =A0I took that guy at his word.
> >>> The four years is up and so now it is too late to do anything about
> >>> global warming, so lets stop talking about it.
>
> >>> I mean - come on - these kind of absurd claims were made daily a few
> >>> years ago, and no rebuff at all from the scientists.
>
> >>> 7. =A0The left is evolutionist, so why don't they just accept the
> >>> natural flow of things?
>
> >>> The earth will take care of itself. =A0If global warming screws
> >>> everything up then the earth will find a way to correct itself. =A0Th=
is
> >>> should not bother an evolutionist. Eventually the world will die out
> >>> and freeze over so why does it matter? =A0Likely, the planet would
> >>> automatically reduce population by 50% or more and everything will be
> >>> ok again and the environmentalists, who say the earth is
> >>> overpopulated, get what they want anyhow.
>
> >> Numbers, please.
>
> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> > advocats who are trying to push their morality on me. =A0The global
> > warming advocates claim that I need to fund alternative enrgy, recycle
> > my garbage, pay massive energy taxes, shut down coal plants that drive
> > up electricity costs.
>
> The numbers I wanted related to your claims about the cost/benefit ratio
> of recycling. I should instead have picked up on your laisez faire
> approach to upsetting the climate balance. You seem to say that we
> shouldn't bail the boat because in the long run it will sink anyway, and
> it will make little difference then if we reached shore or not.
>
> > As a global warming skeptic, who wishes to not be subjected to thes
> > oppresive rules, I am the one who deserves the numbers.
>
> You don't believe those numbers when you see them, so we should talk
> about something else, or agree that we're done.
>
> > It is the global warmists that owe the skeptics reams and reams of
> > data. =A0It is the skeptics who should be able to look at the source
> > code of global warming models and look at all the original temperature
> > data.
>
> If I can get you the source code to at least one of those models, would
> you study and maybe improve its accuracy?
>
> > And yet, the skeptics are told to pound salt and told that they are
> > ignorant for even questioning the global warming ideas (sure seems
> > like the Catholic-heretic type of environment). =A0By mocking the
> > skeptics as Neandrathals and unscientific idiots, =A0the left has turne=
d
> > global warming into a massive morality push.
>
> > It is the global warmists that insist that I change my behavior. =A0I a=
m
> > not telling them to change their behavior. =A0Who owes who the numbers?
>
> When passengers and crew are bailing twelve hours a day but you stand by
> because you don't see a problem, I suspect you'd have to change your
> behavior or get thrown overboard. It seems to me that you say, "I don't
> care if it sinks. It's not my ship."
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

Here is some food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzzLebC0mjCQ

On 10/5/2011 6:28 PM, brent wrote:

   ...

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLebC0mjCQ

I see a lot ao bombast, some parody, but if there are numbers, I missed 
them.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 30-09-2011 at 15:39:23 brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:


(...)
> I stand by my assessment
(...)


This is all you can do
because you believe you are right.

-- 
Mikolaj

On Oct 6, 3:23=A0am, Mikolaj
<sterowanie_komputerowe@[haha]poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> On 30-09-2011 at 15:39:23 brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (...)> I stand by my assessment
>
> (...)
>
> This is all you can do
> because you believe you are right.
>
> --
> Mikolaj

You are making progress!  Good sentence structure and no over-the-top
insults.  I feel that I have taught you something of value.

On Oct 5, 9:19=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 6:28 PM, brent wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzzLebC0mjCQ
>
> I see a lot ao bombast, some parody, but if there are numbers, I missed
> them.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

There was mention of 8 billion dollars as to the cost of recycling,
but , granted, no putting numbers to the benefit side of the equation.

I  googled "recycling benefits and cost" and lots of articles came
up.  I could go cherry pick an article to make my point (The articles
cut both ways), but I am not going to do that :-)

The point remains, who owes who the numbers?  Is it the side that
wants to force a their morality onto others or is it the "objective"
skeptic who does not wish to be told by the government to change their
behavior?

On Oct 6, 4:46=A0am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:19=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/2011 6:28 PM, brent wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0...
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzzLebC0mjCQ
>
> > I see a lot ao bombast, some parody, but if there are numbers, I missed
> > them.
>
> > Jerry
> > --
> > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> There was mention of 8 billion dollars as to the cost of recycling,
> but , granted, no putting numbers to the benefit side of the equation.
>
> I =A0googled "recycling benefits and cost" and lots of articles came
> up. =A0I could go cherry pick an article to make my point (The articles
> cut both ways), but I am not going to do that :-)
>
> The point remains, who owes who the numbers? =A0Is it the side that
> wants to force a their morality onto others or is it the "objective"
> skeptic who does not wish to be told by the government to change their
> behavior?


Brent,

Just curious, being you=92re a small government kind of guy, are you
pro or anti drug war?

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
> The point remains, who owes who the numbers?  Is it the side that
> wants to force a their morality onto others or is it the "objective"
> skeptic who does not wish to be told by the government to change their
> behavior?

The whole idea behind free market is that everything has an appropriate
cost, and people make decisions based on the cost.  Pretty often, 
though, the costs are distorted.

In Seattle, water, garbage, recycling, yard waste, sewage, and 
electric power are all city run services.  Morality is one thing,
cost is another.  If you don't want to change, and would rather pay
extra for your behavior, fine with me.  If you don't want to pay,
then follow the rules.  

I don't know that I have known it to happen, but in Seattle you
can be fined for putting too much recyclable material in the garbage.
The goal is to keep costs down for everyone.

-- glen

On Oct 6, 9:54=A0am, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 6, 4:46=A0am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 9:19=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/5/2011 6:28 PM, brent wrote:
>
> > > =A0 =A0...
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzzLebC0mjCQ
>
> > > I see a lot ao bombast, some parody, but if there are numbers, I miss=
ed
> > > them.
>
> > > Jerry
> > > --
> > > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can ge=
t.
>
> > There was mention of 8 billion dollars as to the cost of recycling,
> > but , granted, no putting numbers to the benefit side of the equation.
>
> > I =A0googled "recycling benefits and cost" and lots of articles came
> > up. =A0I could go cherry pick an article to make my point (The articles
> > cut both ways), but I am not going to do that :-)
>
> > The point remains, who owes who the numbers? =A0Is it the side that
> > wants to force a their morality onto others or is it the "objective"
> > skeptic who does not wish to be told by the government to change their
> > behavior?
>
> Brent,
>
> Just curious, being you=92re a small government kind of guy, are you
> pro or anti drug war?

I do not know.  I am a libertarian at heart but I am not so naive to
believe that if you make hard drugs easily available that drug
problems will go away. But I do believe that if people could support
their drug habits for an hours wage per day that it might be good, but
if people get hooked on drugs they won't show up to work. And there
will be more ruined lives in minors as they become cheaper.

On Oct 6, 3:27=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > The point remains, who owes who the numbers? =A0Is it the side that
> > wants to force a their morality onto others or is it the "objective"
> > skeptic who does not wish to be told by the government to change their
> > behavior?
>
> The whole idea behind free market is that everything has an appropriate
> cost, and people make decisions based on the cost. =A0Pretty often,
> though, the costs are distorted.
>
> In Seattle, water, garbage, recycling, yard waste, sewage, and
> electric power are all city run services. =A0Morality is one thing,
> cost is another. =A0If you don't want to change, and would rather pay
> extra for your behavior, fine with me. =A0If you don't want to pay,
> then follow the rules. =A0
>

If the costs can not be laid out in a way that it convincing to a
panel of skeptical engineers , then it becomes a morality push.


> I don't know that I have known it to happen, but in Seattle you
> can be fined for putting too much recyclable material in the garbage.
> The goal is to keep costs down for everyone.
>
> -- glen

On Sep 30, 1:07=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:20:16 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:05:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >>Astronomy is just a theory. It's not at all what the Bible teaches.
>
> >http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
>
> I read a comment by Jay Gould that the theory of gravity has far less
> evidence to back it up than the theory of evolution, yet no one has
> attacked it.
>

Does this really surprise you?  If you find this perplexing I will
explain this to you.  The  quantum mechanics - or whatever - of
gravity may not be well understood.  However, gravity is easily
modeled by engineers and scientists.  Gravity is fully understood by
little babies and dogs and even insects.

Evolution is a theory which does not translate into a daily experience
and nor can be modeled in a laboratory as gravity can.  As a result,
people are more inclined to question whether evolution exists, as
opposed to gravity.

This seems like a  no brainer to me.  But if Jay Gould is surprised
about this (and you) then you both are not very good students of
science or human nature.


> I almost ran out and started a religious movement in response: we have
> gravity because God loves us, and holds us each down to earth
> individually, according to our masses.
>
> --www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:53:26 -0700, brent wrote:

> If the costs can not be laid out in a way that it convincing to a panel
> of skeptical engineers , then it becomes a morality push.

Or maybe just democracy and business.  Sometimes the majority get to make 
decisions, and then everyone has to go along with them, at least until 
you get a different disposition in the electorate, or move to a different 
catchment with a different set of suppliers and policies.

Democracy is a discussion within the population about how best to solve 
these sorts of issues.  Positions and answers change over time, and it is 
a natural consequence that a fair chunk of the population are going to be 
unhappy about the results.  Rationality and science don't get much of a 
look in to the process, other than (occasionaly) an informational or 
motivational instrument.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

On Oct 6, 10:29=A0pm, Andrew Reilly <areilly...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:53:26 -0700, brent wrote:
> > If the costs can not be laid out in a way that it convincing to a panel
> > of skeptical engineers , then it becomes a morality push.
>
> Or maybe just democracy and business. =A0Sometimes the majority get to ma=
ke
> decisions, and then everyone has to go along with them, at least until
> you get a different disposition in the electorate, or move to a different
> catchment with a different set of suppliers and policies.
>
> Democracy is a discussion within the population about how best to solve
> these sorts of issues. =A0Positions and answers change over time, and it =
is
> a natural consequence that a fair chunk of the population are going to be
> unhappy about the results. =A0Rationality and science don't get much of a
> look in to the process, other than (occasionaly) an informational or
> motivational instrument.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Andrew

I agree with you.  It is essentially the point I have been trying to
make.  When the laws are made that favor the leanings of Christians
the left cries that  the church pushing their morality on everyone.
But when the left makes a law that the Christians or conservatives
don't like , the Christians or conservatives  are told - that is
democracy... live with it. Or worse, our laws are based on science ,
yours are based on religious prejudice.

On Oct 5, 1:02=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:27=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > Numbers, please.

yeah, Brent.  if you can't do the numbers, your worthiness for this
newsgroup is dubious.

> This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.

i see.  so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
purveyors and consumers of child porn?

you see, Brent.  those who keep saying (they repeated it on the
Prohibition documentary on PBS) that "you cannot legislate morality"
are half wrong.  the half that isn't wrong is that society cannot
legislate morality in thought or belief.  but societies legislate
regarding moral behavior all the time.  we PUSH our morality
proscribing homicide onto you and other people.

but you can still believe whatever you want.  even believe that
homicide is okay, but don't expect society to go along in your belief,
such be the case.

> =A0The global
> warming advocates claim that I need to fund alternative energy, recycle
> my garbage, pay massive energy taxes, shut down coal plants that drive
> up electricity costs.
>
> As a global warming skeptic, who wishes to not be subjected to these
> oppressive rules, I am the one who deserves the numbers.

that is so arrogant and foolish.

 numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
          385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010

          10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
          7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010

          20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th century
          1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.

sufficient ice covering Greenland to raise oceans 7 meters.
sufficient ice covering Antarctica to raise oceans 70 meters.

and i didn't say anything about the world temperature trend nor the
human population trend in the last couple of hundred years.

do you think worldwide per-capita emissions per year are 1)
increasing, 2) decreasing, 3) staying about the same?

do you think that the world human population is 1) increasing, 2)
decreasing, 3) staying about the same?

> It is the global warmists that owe the skeptics reams and reams of
> data. =A0It is the skeptics who should be able to look at the source
> code of global warming models and look at all the original temperature
> data.
>
> And yet, the skeptics are told to pound salt and told that they are
> ignorant for even questioning the global warming ideas (sure seems
> like the Catholic-heretic type of environment). =A0By mocking the
> skeptics as Neandrathals and unscientific idiots,

no, just deniers.  denial might succeed in leaving the problem for the
next generation.  "out of sight, out of mind."  convenient.

> =A0the left has turned
> global warming into a massive morality push.

"don't worry, be happy."

> It is the global warmists that insist that I change my behavior. =A0I am
> not telling them to change their behavior. =A0Who owes who the numbers?

what a chicken-shit way to avoid justifying claims you make, Brent.

"cluck, cluck"

r b-j

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip on free market and distorted price models)

> If the costs can not be laid out in a way that it convincing to a
> panel of skeptical engineers , then it becomes a morality push.

Sometimes it is just more efficient.  If you made all roads toll
roads then you could price each according to its cost.  It is more
efficient, though, to pay for them with taxes even though the cost
doesn't go directly to the users.

There is a county in Washington with a free bus system.  They
figured out that the cost to collect fares would be more than the
fares that would be collected.

-- glen

On Oct 6, 3:50=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:54=A0am, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 4:46=A0am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 9:19=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On 10/5/2011 6:28 PM, brent wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 =A0...
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzzLebC0mjCQ
>
> > > > I see a lot ao bombast, some parody, but if there are numbers, I mi=
ssed
> > > > them.
>
> > > > Jerry
> > > > --
> > > > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can =
get.
>
> > > There was mention of 8 billion dollars as to the cost of recycling,
> > > but , granted, no putting numbers to the benefit side of the equation=
..
>
> > > I =A0googled "recycling benefits and cost" and lots of articles came
> > > up. =A0I could go cherry pick an article to make my point (The articl=
es
> > > cut both ways), but I am not going to do that :-)
>
> > > The point remains, who owes who the numbers? =A0Is it the side that
> > > wants to force a their morality onto others or is it the "objective"
> > > skeptic who does not wish to be told by the government to change thei=
r
> > > behavior?
>
> > Brent,
>
> > Just curious, being you=92re a small government kind of guy, are you
> > pro or anti drug war?
>
> I do not know. =A0I am a libertarian at heart but I am not so naive to
> believe that if you make hard drugs easily available that drug
> problems will go away. But I do believe that if people could support
> their drug habits for an hours wage per day that it might be good, but
> if people get hooked on drugs they won't show up to work. And there
> will be more ruined lives in minors as they become cheaper.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Cagy, since you never really seem to take a position on the =93war on
drugs=94 policy I=92ll assume you=92re more for it than against.

The point is that I suspect, you accept some policies as acceptable
moral imperatives and others not so.  Your choices appear to have less
to do with the impact or restriction on individual rights or freedom
of choice but something more intrinsic within the policy.

It=92s curious how people come up with the ranking of these issues.  If
fiscal prudence, cost efficiency and evaluation of the effectiveness
of the approach were examined, I suspect the =93war on drugs=94 would be
declared a complete failure.

As a policy it certainly is one the biggest restrictors of individual
rights.

Interestingly, the choice to participate is party independent.

On Oct 7, 12:10=A0am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 5, 1:02=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 10:27=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > Numbers, please.
>
> yeah, Brent. =A0if you can't do the numbers, your worthiness for this
> newsgroup is dubious.
>

This is an unmoderated group, so all people are worthy.  Perhaps you
can put "STUPIDENT" on all my postings so that others will know that I
am not worthy of this group.

I have 100 emails from University professors, retired engineers and
scientists, practicing engineers, amateur radio operators and students
who thank me for presenting/teaching them engineering formulas and
mathematical concepts. I am not too worried if you do not think I know
enough about numbers to be on this usenet group. If you care to see
them I will redact some names and send them to you privately.

My problem is not with numbers.  My problem is when numbers are used
in deceptive ways to push political agendas.


> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.
>
> i see. =A0so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
> purveyors and consumers of child porn?
>
> you see, Brent. =A0those who keep saying (they repeated it on the
> Prohibition documentary on PBS) that "you cannot legislate morality"
> are half wrong. =A0the half that isn't wrong is that society cannot
> legislate morality in thought or belief. =A0but societies legislate
> regarding moral behavior all the time. =A0we PUSH our morality
> proscribing homicide onto you and other people.
>
> but you can still believe whatever you want. =A0even believe that
> homicide is okay, but don't expect society to go along in your belief,
> such be the case.
>
> > =A0The global
> > warming advocates claim that I need to fund alternative energy, recycle
> > my garbage, pay massive energy taxes, shut down coal plants that drive
> > up electricity costs.
>
> > As a global warming skeptic, who wishes to not be subjected to these
> > oppressive rules, I am the one who deserves the numbers.
>
> that is so arrogant and foolish.
>
> =A0numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010

Here is the first manipulation of "number"  You are leaving out your
underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
in water levels.

I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
laid them out there and  leave the reader to draw their own
conclusions.

So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm.  I reject that this is
going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.



>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th centur=
y
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.
>
> sufficient ice covering Greenland to raise oceans 7 meters.
> sufficient ice covering Antarctica to raise oceans 70 meters.
>
> and i didn't say anything about the world temperature trend nor the
> human population trend in the last couple of hundred years.
>
> do you think worldwide per-capita emissions per year are 1)
> increasing, 2) decreasing, 3) staying about the same?
>
> do you think that the world human population is 1) increasing, 2)
> decreasing, 3) staying about the same?
>

Human population.  OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drastically
reduce it?  I am all ears.


> > It is the global warmists that owe the skeptics reams and reams of
> > data. =A0It is the skeptics who should be able to look at the source
> > code of global warming models and look at all the original temperature
> > data.
>
> > And yet, the skeptics are told to pound salt and told that they are
> > ignorant for even questioning the global warming ideas (sure seems
> > like the Catholic-heretic type of environment). =A0By mocking the
> > skeptics as Neandrathals and unscientific idiots,
>
> no, just deniers. =A0denial might succeed in leaving the problem for the
> next generation. =A0"out of sight, out of mind." =A0convenient.
>
> > =A0the left has turned
> > global warming into a massive morality push.
>
> "don't worry, be happy."
>
> > It is the global warmists that insist that I change my behavior. =A0I a=
m
> > not telling them to change their behavior. =A0Who owes who the numbers?
>
> what a chicken-shit way to avoid justifying claims you make, Brent.
>
> "cluck, cluck"
>
> r b-j

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:32:42 -0700, brent wrote:

> On Sep 30, 1:09 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>> > robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>> >> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it's
>> >> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite
>> >> regress.
>>
>> > How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
>> > religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything
>> > else?
>>
>> As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>>
>> Step 1: decide what you want.
>>
>> Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>>
>> It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve
>> into.
>>
>> --www.wescottdesign.com
> 
> I save my cynicism for the proponents of expansive government who want
> to take away my free speech and push crappola onto my kids.  They are
> far more threatening to my daily life then the people you describe
> above.

Oh, so you voted against Bush, did you?  He certainly meets your criteria.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

On Oct 7, 11:59=A0am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:32:42 -0700, brent wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 1:09=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:13:04 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> >> > robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> >> >> and, what kills me, is that it's the atheists that contend that it'=
s
> >> >> the other side (the theists) that has a problem with infinite
> >> >> regress.
>
> >> > How do the theists evaluate their religion of choice wrt other
> >> > religions? Do they appeal to conformity to The Book, or anything
> >> > else?
>
> >> As near as I can tell the algorithm goes like this:
>
> >> Step 1: decide what you want.
>
> >> Step 2: find evidence in the Bible (or whatever) to back it up.
>
> >> It helps to have a large body of contradictory literature to delve
> >> into.
>
> >> --www.wescottdesign.com
>
> > I save my cynicism for the proponents of expansive government who want
> > to take away my free speech and push crappola onto my kids. =A0They are
> > far more threatening to my daily life then the people you describe
> > above.
>
> Oh, so you voted against Bush, did you? =A0He certainly meets your criter=
ia.
>
> --www.wescottdesign.com

I thought you swore these threads off

On Oct 7, 12:10=A0am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 5, 1:02=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 10:27=A0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > Numbers, please.
>
> yeah, Brent. =A0if you can't do the numbers, your worthiness for this
> newsgroup is dubious.
>
> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.
>
> i see. =A0so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
> purveyors and consumers of child porn?
>
> you see, Brent. =A0those who keep saying (they repeated it on the
> Prohibition documentary on PBS) that "you cannot legislate morality"
> are half wrong. =A0the half that isn't wrong is that society cannot
> legislate morality in thought or belief. =A0but societies legislate
> regarding moral behavior all the time. =A0we PUSH our morality
> proscribing homicide onto you and other people.
>
> but you can still believe whatever you want. =A0even believe that
> homicide is okay, but don't expect society to go along in your belief,
> such be the case.
>

BTW, I pretty much totally agree with the three paragraphs above.
It is kind of the point I am trying to make.


> > =A0The global
> > warming advocates claim that I need to fund alternative energy, recycle
> > my garbage, pay massive energy taxes, shut down coal plants that drive
> > up electricity costs.
>
> > As a global warming skeptic, who wishes to not be subjected to these
> > oppressive rules, I am the one who deserves the numbers.
>
> that is so arrogant and foolish.
>
> =A0numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th centur=
y
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.
>
> sufficient ice covering Greenland to raise oceans 7 meters.
> sufficient ice covering Antarctica to raise oceans 70 meters.
>
> and i didn't say anything about the world temperature trend nor the
> human population trend in the last couple of hundred years.
>
> do you think worldwide per-capita emissions per year are 1)
> increasing, 2) decreasing, 3) staying about the same?
>
> do you think that the world human population is 1) increasing, 2)
> decreasing, 3) staying about the same?
>
> > It is the global warmists that owe the skeptics reams and reams of
> > data. =A0It is the skeptics who should be able to look at the source
> > code of global warming models and look at all the original temperature
> > data.
>
> > And yet, the skeptics are told to pound salt and told that they are
> > ignorant for even questioning the global warming ideas (sure seems
> > like the Catholic-heretic type of environment). =A0By mocking the
> > skeptics as Neandrathals and unscientific idiots,
>
> no, just deniers. =A0denial might succeed in leaving the problem for the
> next generation. =A0"out of sight, out of mind." =A0convenient.
>
> > =A0the left has turned
> > global warming into a massive morality push.
>
> "don't worry, be happy."
>
> > It is the global warmists that insist that I change my behavior. =A0I a=
m
> > not telling them to change their behavior. =A0Who owes who the numbers?
>
> what a chicken-shit way to avoid justifying claims you make, Brent.
>
> "cluck, cluck"
>
> r b-j

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
> My problem is not with numbers.  My problem is when numbers are used
> in deceptive ways to push political agendas.

Certainly that does happen.  But more often non-scientists make
that claim without even trying to understand the actual problem.

>> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
>> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.

>> i see. �so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
>> purveyors and consumers of child porn?

(snip)
>> �numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
>> � � � � � 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010

> Here is the first manipulation of "number"  You are leaving out your
> underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
> of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
> in water levels.

The math is pretty complicated.  I don't claim to have followed it
in detail, but I know people who have.  As well as I understand it,
most readers of this group would have to work pretty hard to get 
through it.  Some of it involves subtracting large numbers that
are close together.  Tiny errors can have big results.

OK, say you are driving down the freeway at full speed, and hear
on the radio that a bridge has washed out.  You don't know where or
even which road it is on.  Do you slow down, just a little, in case
it is in front of you?  Or full speed ahead, if it is your day
to die there is nothing you can do about it.

One of the complications is equilibrium between air and ocean.
Much CO2 goes into the ocean each year, and much comes out.  The
difference between those two is very important, but not at all
easy to calculate.   (Ocean acidification is another CO2 related
problem, also not so well understood.)  

> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
> laid them out there and  leave the reader to draw their own
> conclusions.

> So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm.  I reject that this is
> going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.

Have you done the calculation to show that it won't?  Would you
bet your life that it wouldn't?  Would you bet your family and 
friends' lives?

>> � � � � � 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
>> � � � � � 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010

>> � � � � � 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th century
>> � � � � � 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.

(snip)
> Human population.  OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drastically
> reduce it?  I am all ears.

If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
came out, it would have been easier.  We didn't, but that doesn't
mean we shouldn't start working on it now.

-- glen

On Oct 7, 2:07=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > My problem is not with numbers. =A0My problem is when numbers are used
> > in deceptive ways to push political agendas.
>
> Certainly that does happen. =A0But more often non-scientists make
> that claim without even trying to understand the actual problem.
>

But when scientists get involved in number manipulation - to me - they
are entering the domain of evil.  And I sense evil in the global
warming - scientific community.

> >> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> >> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.
> >> i see. so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
> >> purveyors and consumers of child porn?
>
> (snip)
>
> >> numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
> >> 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010
> > Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out your
> > underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
> > of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
> > in water levels.
>
> The math is pretty complicated. =A0I don't claim to have followed it
> in detail, but I know people who have. =A0As well as I understand it,
> most readers of this group would have to work pretty hard to get
> through it. =A0Some of it involves subtracting large numbers that
> are close together. =A0Tiny errors can have big results.
>
> OK, say you are driving down the freeway at full speed, and hear
> on the radio that a bridge has washed out. =A0You don't know where or
> even which road it is on. =A0Do you slow down, just a little, in case
> it is in front of you? =A0Or full speed ahead, if it is your day
> to die there is nothing you can do about it.
>

I don't respond by saying to myself, "let's stop the car an write out
a big check to Billy Graham and that will save us"

Yet, somehow, the cautious thing to do is to structure a massive tax
increase that the government can then use to pick new winners and
losers in society.

I still do not understand why no prominent person who wants a massive
tax increase ( because the oceans are going to rise 250 feet ) can
ever vehemently propose such an obvious thing like building hundreds
more nuclear power plants and forcing the nuclear dumping ground in
Nevada to be used.  I look at things like this, and when the most
logical things are not proposed then I get mighty suspicious about the
underlying motivations.



> One of the complications is equilibrium between air and ocean.
> Much CO2 goes into the ocean each year, and much comes out. =A0The
> difference between those two is very important, but not at all
> easy to calculate. =A0 (Ocean acidification is another CO2 related
> problem, also not so well understood.) =A0
>
> > I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
> > laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> > conclusions.
> > So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that this is
> > going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> Have you done the calculation to show that it won't? =A0Would you
> bet your life that it wouldn't? =A0Would you bet your family and
> friends' lives?
>
> >> 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
> >> 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010
> >> 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th century
> >> 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.
>
> (snip)
>
> > Human population. =A0OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drastically
> > reduce it? =A0I am all ears.
>
> If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
> came out, it would have been easier. =A0We didn't, but that doesn't
> mean we shouldn't start working on it now.
>
> -- glen

You are dancing around this.  How exactly do we get the human
population down?  or at least put on the table a few specific
approaches to getting human population down.

On Oct 7, 11:30=A0am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:07=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > My problem is not with numbers. =A0My problem is when numbers are use=
d
> > > in deceptive ways to push political agendas.
>
> > Certainly that does happen. =A0But more often non-scientists make
> > that claim without even trying to understand the actual problem.
>
> But when scientists get involved in number manipulation - to me - they
> are entering the domain of evil. =A0And I sense evil in the global
> warming - scientific community.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warming
> > >> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.
> > >> i see. so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
> > >> purveyors and consumers of child porn?
>
> > (snip)
>
> > >> numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
> > >> 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010
> > > Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out you=
r
> > > underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amoun=
t
> > > of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
> > > in water levels.
>
> > The math is pretty complicated. =A0I don't claim to have followed it
> > in detail, but I know people who have. =A0As well as I understand it,
> > most readers of this group would have to work pretty hard to get
> > through it. =A0Some of it involves subtracting large numbers that
> > are close together. =A0Tiny errors can have big results.
>
> > OK, say you are driving down the freeway at full speed, and hear
> > on the radio that a bridge has washed out. =A0You don't know where or
> > even which road it is on. =A0Do you slow down, just a little, in case
> > it is in front of you? =A0Or full speed ahead, if it is your day
> > to die there is nothing you can do about it.
>
> I don't respond by saying to myself, "let's stop the car an write out
> a big check to Billy Graham and that will save us"
>
> Yet, somehow, the cautious thing to do is to structure a massive tax
> increase that the government can then use to pick new winners and
> losers in society.
>
> I still do not understand why no prominent person who wants a massive
> tax increase ( because the oceans are going to rise 250 feet ) can
> ever vehemently propose such an obvious thing like building hundreds
> more nuclear power plants and forcing the nuclear dumping ground in
> Nevada to be used. =A0I look at things like this, and when the most
> logical things are not proposed then I get mighty suspicious about the
> underlying motivations.
>
>
>
>
>
> > One of the complications is equilibrium between air and ocean.
> > Much CO2 goes into the ocean each year, and much comes out. =A0The
> > difference between those two is very important, but not at all
> > easy to calculate. =A0 (Ocean acidification is another CO2 related
> > problem, also not so well understood.) =A0
>
> > > I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind o=
f
> > > laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> > > conclusions.
> > > So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that this is
> > > going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> > Have you done the calculation to show that it won't? =A0Would you
> > bet your life that it wouldn't? =A0Would you bet your family and
> > friends' lives?
>
> > >> 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
> > >> 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010
> > >> 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th century
> > >> 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > Human population. =A0OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drasticall=
y
> > > reduce it? =A0I am all ears.
>
> > If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
> > came out, it would have been easier. =A0We didn't, but that doesn't
> > mean we shouldn't start working on it now.
>
> > -- glen
>
> You are dancing around this. =A0How exactly do we get the human
> population down? =A0or at least put on the table a few specific
> approaches to getting human population down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You=92re argument would be much more creditable if you were honest.

You don=92t mind if government shapes morality via legislation, if out
of control fiscal spending occurs or if personal and civil rights are
violated =85 in fact you=92re more than likely not against evil.

What you=92re complaining about is that it=92s not your morality, not your
pet project receiving the funding and that it=92s your personal behavior
that is being asked to change.

>
> You are dancing around this. =A0How exactly do we get the human
> population down? =A0or at least put on the table a few specific
> approaches to getting human population down.- Hide quoted text -
>

Now you=92re headed in the right direction.

Establish economic, psychological and intellectual thresholds prior to
issuing a reproduction permit.  The economic requirement could be a
50K escrow account.

Enforcement could be something as simple as a reversible birth control
that all eight graders must be subjected to.

On Oct 7, 2:49=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:30=A0am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2:07=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > > brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > My problem is not with numbers. =A0My problem is when numbers are u=
sed
> > > > in deceptive ways to push political agendas.
>
> > > Certainly that does happen. =A0But more often non-scientists make
> > > that claim without even trying to understand the actual problem.
>
> > But when scientists get involved in number manipulation - to me - they
> > are entering the domain of evil. =A0And I sense evil in the global
> > warming - scientific community.
>
> > > >> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global warmi=
ng
> > > >> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.
> > > >> i see. so is it also smug that society pushes their morality onto
> > > >> purveyors and consumers of child porn?
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > >> numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
> > > >> 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010
> > > > Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out y=
our
> > > > underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amo=
unt
> > > > of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter ris=
e
> > > > in water levels.
>
> > > The math is pretty complicated. =A0I don't claim to have followed it
> > > in detail, but I know people who have. =A0As well as I understand it,
> > > most readers of this group would have to work pretty hard to get
> > > through it. =A0Some of it involves subtracting large numbers that
> > > are close together. =A0Tiny errors can have big results.
>
> > > OK, say you are driving down the freeway at full speed, and hear
> > > on the radio that a bridge has washed out. =A0You don't know where or
> > > even which road it is on. =A0Do you slow down, just a little, in case
> > > it is in front of you? =A0Or full speed ahead, if it is your day
> > > to die there is nothing you can do about it.
>
> > I don't respond by saying to myself, "let's stop the car an write out
> > a big check to Billy Graham and that will save us"
>
> > Yet, somehow, the cautious thing to do is to structure a massive tax
> > increase that the government can then use to pick new winners and
> > losers in society.
>
> > I still do not understand why no prominent person who wants a massive
> > tax increase ( because the oceans are going to rise 250 feet ) can
> > ever vehemently propose such an obvious thing like building hundreds
> > more nuclear power plants and forcing the nuclear dumping ground in
> > Nevada to be used. =A0I look at things like this, and when the most
> > logical things are not proposed then I get mighty suspicious about the
> > underlying motivations.
>
> > > One of the complications is equilibrium between air and ocean.
> > > Much CO2 goes into the ocean each year, and much comes out. =A0The
> > > difference between those two is very important, but not at all
> > > easy to calculate. =A0 (Ocean acidification is another CO2 related
> > > problem, also not so well understood.) =A0
>
> > > > I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind=
 of
> > > > laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> > > > conclusions.
> > > > So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that this =
is
> > > > going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> > > Have you done the calculation to show that it won't? =A0Would you
> > > bet your life that it wouldn't? =A0Would you bet your family and
> > > friends' lives?
>
> > > >> 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
> > > >> 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010
> > > >> 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th century
> > > >> 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > Human population. =A0OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drastica=
lly
> > > > reduce it? =A0I am all ears.
>
> > > If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
> > > came out, it would have been easier. =A0We didn't, but that doesn't
> > > mean we shouldn't start working on it now.
>
> > > -- glen
>
> > You are dancing around this. =A0How exactly do we get the human
> > population down? =A0or at least put on the table a few specific
> > approaches to getting human population down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You=92re argument would be much more creditable if you were honest.
>
> You don=92t mind if government shapes morality via legislation,

My point is that pretty much all legislation is a statement of
morality. The government shapes morality whether it passes prohibition
or whether it passes recycling laws.  The left cannot cry that
legislation from the right is a morality push while legislation from
the left is a push to reach science harmony.

>if out of control fiscal spending occurs

What have I ever said that would lead you to think I want out of
control fiscal spending.  Right here - right now - lets eliminate the
Energy Dept, lets eliminate Dept. of Education, lets get rid of all
Federal backstopping of Banks via FDIC, lets get rid of all  alternate
energy subsidies.  Lets Cut the EPA by 75%, Get rid of all farm
subsidies.  Roll back the Drug plan for seniors that Bush put in.
After we have realized 18 months of real saving from thins, then we
can talk about a 20 % reduction in the military.
Get rid of all the federal mandates that burden the states.  Increase
oil taxes by allowing more drilling.  I can go on.

>or if personal and civil rights are violated =85

This is so nebulous.  Who rights are being violated?  With anti
smoking legislation are the bar owners civil rights to dictate what
happens on his own property being violated?



> in fact you=92re more than likely not against evil.


> What you=92re complaining about is that it=92s not your morality, not you=
r
> pet project receiving the funding and that it=92s your personal behavior
> that is being asked to change.

I am proposing that "objective" scientific people who try to ram their
agendas down peoples throats while crying about the christian right
imposing their morality on others  - that they are the biggest
hypocrites and most self deceived folks in our political environment.

On Oct 7, 3:02=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You are dancing around this. =A0How exactly do we get the human
> > population down? =A0or at least put on the table a few specific
> > approaches to getting human population down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Now you=92re headed in the right direction.
>
> Establish economic, psychological and intellectual thresholds prior to
> issuing a reproduction permit. =A0The economic requirement could be a
> 50K escrow account.
>
> Enforcement could be something as simple as a reversible birth control
> that all eight graders must be subjected to.

Do tell more.

On Oct 7, 12:08=A0pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:49=A0pm, me0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 11:30=A0am, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 2:07=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > My problem is not with numbers. =A0My problem is when numbers are=
 used
> > > > > in deceptive ways to push political agendas.
>
> > > > Certainly that does happen. =A0But more often non-scientists make
> > > > that claim without even trying to understand the actual problem.
>
> > > But when scientists get involved in number manipulation - to me - the=
y
> > > are entering the domain of evil. =A0And I sense evil in the global
> > > warming - scientific community.
>
> > > > >> > This is a rather smug response given that it is the global war=
ming
> > > > >> > advocates who are trying to push their morality on me.
> > > > >> i see. so is it also smug that society pushes their morality ont=
o
> > > > >> purveyors and consumers of child porn?
>
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > >> numbers: 315 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 1960
> > > > >> 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 in 2010
> > > > > Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out=
 your
> > > > > underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) a=
mount
> > > > > of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter r=
ise
> > > > > in water levels.
>
> > > > The math is pretty complicated. =A0I don't claim to have followed i=
t
> > > > in detail, but I know people who have. =A0As well as I understand i=
t,
> > > > most readers of this group would have to work pretty hard to get
> > > > through it. =A0Some of it involves subtracting large numbers that
> > > > are close together. =A0Tiny errors can have big results.
>
> > > > OK, say you are driving down the freeway at full speed, and hear
> > > > on the radio that a bridge has washed out. =A0You don't know where =
or
> > > > even which road it is on. =A0Do you slow down, just a little, in ca=
se
> > > > it is in front of you? =A0Or full speed ahead, if it is your day
> > > > to die there is nothing you can do about it.
>
> > > I don't respond by saying to myself, "let's stop the car an write out
> > > a big check to Billy Graham and that will save us"
>
> > > Yet, somehow, the cautious thing to do is to structure a massive tax
> > > increase that the government can then use to pick new winners and
> > > losers in society.
>
> > > I still do not understand why no prominent person who wants a massive
> > > tax increase ( because the oceans are going to rise 250 feet ) can
> > > ever vehemently propose such an obvious thing like building hundreds
> > > more nuclear power plants and forcing the nuclear dumping ground in
> > > Nevada to be used. =A0I look at things like this, and when the most
> > > logical things are not proposed then I get mighty suspicious about th=
e
> > > underlying motivations.
>
> > > > One of the complications is equilibrium between air and ocean.
> > > > Much CO2 goes into the ocean each year, and much comes out. =A0The
> > > > difference between those two is very important, but not at all
> > > > easy to calculate. =A0 (Ocean acidification is another CO2 related
> > > > problem, also not so well understood.) =A0
>
> > > > > I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just ki=
nd of
> > > > > laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> > > > > conclusions.
> > > > > So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that thi=
s is
> > > > > going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> > > > Have you done the calculation to show that it won't? =A0Would you
> > > > bet your life that it wouldn't? =A0Would you bet your family and
> > > > friends' lives?
>
> > > > >> 10 billion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 1800
> > > > >> 7 trillion kg anthropogenic CO2 in 2010
> > > > >> 20 cm increase of mean ocean depth in the 20th century
> > > > >> 1 meter projected increase in the 21st century.
>
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > Human population. =A0OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drasti=
cally
> > > > > reduce it? =A0I am all ears.
>
> > > > If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
> > > > came out, it would have been easier. =A0We didn't, but that doesn't
> > > > mean we shouldn't start working on it now.
>
> > > > -- glen
>
> > > You are dancing around this. =A0How exactly do we get the human
> > > population down? =A0or at least put on the table a few specific
> > > approaches to getting human population down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You=92re argument would be much more creditable if you were honest.
>
> > You don=92t mind if government shapes morality via legislation,
>
> My point is that pretty much all legislation is a statement of
> morality. The government shapes morality whether it passes prohibition
> or whether it passes recycling laws. =A0The left cannot cry that
> legislation from the right is a morality push while legislation from
> the left is a push to reach science harmony.
>
> >if out of control fiscal spending occurs
>
> What have I ever said that would lead you to think I want out of
> control fiscal spending. =A0Right here - right now - lets eliminate the
> Energy Dept, lets eliminate Dept. of Education, lets get rid of all
> Federal backstopping of Banks via FDIC, lets get rid of all =A0alternate
> energy subsidies. =A0Lets Cut the EPA by 75%, Get rid of all farm
> subsidies. =A0Roll back the Drug plan for seniors that Bush put in.
> After we have realized 18 months of real saving from thins, then we
> can talk about a 20 % reduction in the military.
> Get rid of all the federal mandates that burden the states. =A0Increase
> oil taxes by allowing more drilling. =A0I can go on.
>
> >or if personal and civil rights are violated =85
>
> This is so nebulous. =A0Who rights are being violated? =A0With anti
> smoking legislation are the bar owners civil rights to dictate what
> happens on his own property being violated?
>
> > in fact you=92re more than likely not against evil.
> > What you=92re complaining about is that it=92s not your morality, not y=
our
> > pet project receiving the funding and that it=92s your personal behavio=
r
> > that is being asked to change.
>
> I am proposing that "objective" scientific people who try to ram their
> agendas down peoples throats while crying about the christian right
> imposing their morality on others =A0- that they are the biggest
> hypocrites and most self deceived folks in our political environment.- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re morality:
Sure the can, people claim stuff all the time.  Doesn=92t mean it
correct.  But, if the claim that the right isn=92t pushing =93morality=94
why do they claim it=92s a =93culture change=94 they=92re after?

Re fiscal stuff:
The cost drivers are the entitlement programs and military.  The other
crap is chump change.  I haven=92t looked for a while but I believe
these two items make up 75% of the budget.

Re civil rights:

Hey we agree when it comes to property rights.

I suspect its social polices like:

Who=92s rights trump who=92s when it comes to abortion, the fertilized egg
or the incubator?

Why does it matter who marries who, or why limit the number of
consenting adults?

Why limit what chemicals an individual can consume.  It=92s his/her
body.  We have regulations that are intended to enforce responsible
behavior, enforce those.  Make citizens accountable and responsible
for their own behavior.  Violate somebody else=92s safety or property
than you have a problem.

My counter point, is that to claim either side has it wrapped up when
it comes to hierocracy is crazy.

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:


(snip)
>> > Human population. �OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drastically
>> > reduce it? �I am all ears.

>> If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
>> came out, it would have been easier. �We didn't, but that doesn't
>> mean we shouldn't start working on it now.

> You are dancing around this.  How exactly do we get the human
> population down?  or at least put on the table a few specific
> approaches to getting human population down.

It seems to me that the Chinese "one child" policy wouldn't work here.
The American way is not to force people to do something, but to provide
incentives and penalties instead.

The current tax system has a small reward for additional kids, though
small enough that I doubt many decide to have, or not have, kids based
on the tax deduction.

So the first thought is a tax rate dependent on how many kids
one has.  That doesn't seem like a very good way, though maybe not
a bad start.  Some will believe that they can afford the higher tax,
for one.

My second thought is a tax rate based on number of siblings.  While
parents might feel rich enough to afford a penalty on their own tax,
they would feel different about burdening thier kids with a higher
tax rate.  

Maybe not fast, but one does have to start somewhere, sometime.

-- glen

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
>> You???re argument would be much more creditable if you were honest.

>> You don???t mind if government shapes morality via legislation,

> My point is that pretty much all legislation is a statement of
> morality. The government shapes morality whether it passes prohibition
> or whether it passes recycling laws.  The left cannot cry that
> legislation from the right is a morality push while legislation from
> the left is a push to reach science harmony.

It seems to me that you way overdo it with this morality thing.
Yes some laws have a morality component, some more than others.

I am not against assistide suicide for terminal patients, as that
seems to me mostly a moral question.  (A small part might be the
cost of health care, though.)

Now, consider seat belt laws.  You might say that it only affects
you, that you have the right to die by being ejected from the car
in an accident.  (You might even call it assisted suicide!)
But it is much harder to steer while you are flying around inside
the car, and so harder to avoid or reduce the effect of an
accident.  The cost to others can be pretty high, and so, to me,
it isn't a 100% moral question.

>>if out of control fiscal spending occurs

(snip on fiscal spending)

>>or if personal and civil rights are violated ???

> This is so nebulous.  Who rights are being violated?  With anti
> smoking legislation are the bar owners civil rights to dictate what
> happens on his own property being violated?

What about bar employees?  The bar owner might not care about his
own lungs, but his choice also affects others.  If one allows smoking,
others will claim to lose customers by not allowing it.  (I believe that
is pretty much known not to be true now, but the question always
comes up.)  

Washington state has pretty strict smoking laws now, not only not
inside stores or restaurants, but not within 25 feet of doors.
There were complaints when it first went into effect, but most
are pretty used to it by now.  

(snip)

>> What you???re complaining about is that it???s not your morality, not your
>> pet project receiving the funding and that it???s your personal behavior
>> that is being asked to change.

> I am proposing that "objective" scientific people who try to ram their
> agendas down peoples throats while crying about the christian right
> imposing their morality on others  - that they are the biggest
> hypocrites and most self deceived folks in our political environment.

Some may have a moral component, but much larger economic and
health component, which, to me, makes them reasonable targets.

-- glen

On Oct 7, 5:36=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> > Human population. OK . Lets hear your plan about how to drastically
> >> > reduce it? I am all ears.
> >> If we started 40 years ago, when books like "The Population Bomb"
> >> came out, it would have been easier. We didn't, but that doesn't
> >> mean we shouldn't start working on it now.
> > You are dancing around this. =A0How exactly do we get the human
> > population down? =A0or at least put on the table a few specific
> > approaches to getting human population down.
>
> It seems to me that the Chinese "one child" policy wouldn't work here.
> The American way is not to force people to do something, but to provide
> incentives and penalties instead.
>
> The current tax system has a small reward for additional kids, though
> small enough that I doubt many decide to have, or not have, kids based
> on the tax deduction.
>
> So the first thought is a tax rate dependent on how many kids
> one has. =A0That doesn't seem like a very good way, though maybe not
> a bad start. =A0Some will believe that they can afford the higher tax,
> for one.
>
> My second thought is a tax rate based on number of siblings. =A0While
> parents might feel rich enough to afford a penalty on their own tax,
> they would feel different about burdening thier kids with a higher
> tax rate. =A0
>
> Maybe not fast, but one does have to start somewhere, sometime.
>

You are only addressing reducing the population in the USA.  If you
cut off all immigration and deported all illegals, the population of
the USA would probably start declining on its own after a relatively
short period of time.  The USA/Canada population of 300-400 million is
not where the population problems in the world would be (I am trying
to put myself into the mindset of the global warmist who thinks we
need to reduce population)

The real population problems (If I had a "we must reduce the
population" mindset)are in places like Indonesia, Nigeria, India,
China (lets forget China if you think they have already solved this),
Mexico , as examples.  So, I would think that the global warmists
should be fretting about how to reduce those countries populations
first.  How do you do it?  There is no possible way to do it without
getting ugly.  But,  for rationale scientific evolutionary minded
person... putting ugly on the table should not really be an issue.
after all, scientific rationality trumps what others would think.




> -- glen

On Oct 7, 2:57=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> You???re argument would be much more creditable if you were honest.
> >> You don???t mind if government shapes morality via legislation,
> > My point is that pretty much all legislation is a statement of
> > morality. The government shapes morality whether it passes prohibition
> > or whether it passes recycling laws. =A0The left cannot cry that
> > legislation from the right is a morality push while legislation from
> > the left is a push to reach science harmony.
>
> It seems to me that you way overdo it with this morality thing.
> Yes some laws have a morality component, some more than others.
>
> I am not against assistide suicide for terminal patients, as that
> seems to me mostly a moral question. =A0(A small part might be the
> cost of health care, though.)
>
> Now, consider seat belt laws. =A0You might say that it only affects
> you, that you have the right to die by being ejected from the car
> in an accident. =A0(You might even call it assisted suicide!)
> But it is much harder to steer while you are flying around inside
> the car, and so harder to avoid or reduce the effect of an
> accident. =A0The cost to others can be pretty high, and so, to me,
> it isn't a 100% moral question.
>
> >>if out of control fiscal spending occurs
>
> (snip on fiscal spending)
>
> >>or if personal and civil rights are violated ???
> > This is so nebulous. =A0Who rights are being violated? =A0With anti
> > smoking legislation are the bar owners civil rights to dictate what
> > happens on his own property being violated?
>
> What about bar employees? =A0The bar owner might not care about his
> own lungs, but his choice also affects others. =A0If one allows smoking,
> others will claim to lose customers by not allowing it. =A0(I believe tha=
t
> is pretty much known not to be true now, but the question always
> comes up.) =A0
>
> Washington state has pretty strict smoking laws now, not only not
> inside stores or restaurants, but not within 25 feet of doors.
> There were complaints when it first went into effect, but most
> are pretty used to it by now. =A0
>
> (snip)
>
> >> What you???re complaining about is that it???s not your morality, not =
your
> >> pet project receiving the funding and that it???s your personal behavi=
or
> >> that is being asked to change.
> > I am proposing that "objective" scientific people who try to ram their
> > agendas down peoples throats while crying about the christian right
> > imposing their morality on others =A0- that they are the biggest
> > hypocrites and most self deceived folks in our political environment.
>
> Some may have a moral component, but much larger economic and
> health component, which, to me, makes them reasonable targets.
>
> -- glen



I don=92t smoke, but if I owned a bar or a club and my patrons wanted to
smoke why shouldn=92t I be able to make the discussion to let them or
not?  Those that don=92t like that environment could choose to leave.
That=92s a business issue I=92d have to consider as is the fact that I
might lose good employees.

Just because a populace becomes tolerant of legislation that limits
personal liberties isn=92t a justification to continue the practice.
It=92s akin to the old story of turning the heat up slowly on a pot of
frogs.

me0223@yahoo.com wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>> Washington state has pretty strict smoking laws now, not only not
>> inside stores or restaurants, but not within 25 feet of doors.
>> There were complaints when it first went into effect, but most
>> are pretty used to it by now. �

(snip)
> I don???t smoke, but if I owned a bar or a club and my patrons wanted to
> smoke why shouldn???t I be able to make the discussion to let them or
> not?  Those that don???t like that environment could choose to leave.
> That???s a business issue I???d have to consider as is the fact that I
> might lose good employees.

I would probably agree, but Washington voters didn't.  In this
economy, employees probably wouldn't leave, and could feel that 
their health is threatened by staying.  So, it is moral with
a significant economic and health component.  Maybe employees
should have hazzardous duty pay in addition to their salaries.

> Just because a populace becomes tolerant of legislation that limits
> personal liberties isn???t a justification to continue the practice.
> It???s akin to the old story of turning the heat up slowly on a pot of
> frogs.

Only if the frogs are controlling the heat.  Besides, people can move
to a different state if they don't like it.  Isn't that the whole reason
behind having separate states?

-- glen

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip on population growth and global warming, or other environmental
problem)

>> My second thought is a tax rate based on number of siblings. �While
>> parents might feel rich enough to afford a penalty on their own tax,
>> they would feel different about burdening thier kids with a higher
>> tax rate. �

> You are only addressing reducing the population in the USA.  If you
> cut off all immigration and deported all illegals, the population of
> the USA would probably start declining on its own after a relatively
> short period of time.  The USA/Canada population of 300-400 million is
> not where the population problems in the world would be (I am trying
> to put myself into the mindset of the global warmist who thinks we
> need to reduce population)

Well, so far the average American generates much more CO2, and uses
up most other resources so much faster than most other countries,
that we really have to start here.  Also, you run into a
"do as we say, not as we do" problem if you don't start here first.

> The real population problems (If I had a "we must reduce the
> population" mindset)are in places like Indonesia, Nigeria, India,
> China (lets forget China if you think they have already solved this),
> Mexico , as examples.  So, I would think that the global warmists
> should be fretting about how to reduce those countries populations
> first.  How do you do it?  There is no possible way to do it without
> getting ugly.  But,  for rationale scientific evolutionary minded
> person... putting ugly on the table should not really be an issue.
> after all, scientific rationality trumps what others would think.

As more Indians buy cars, that will be a significantly bigger problem.
But showing by example is always best.

-- glen

On Oct 7, 7:20=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip on population growth and global warming, or other environmental
> problem)
>
> >> My second thought is a tax rate based on number of siblings. While
> >> parents might feel rich enough to afford a penalty on their own tax,
> >> they would feel different about burdening thier kids with a higher
> >> tax rate.
> > You are only addressing reducing the population in the USA. =A0If you
> > cut off all immigration and deported all illegals, the population of
> > the USA would probably start declining on its own after a relatively
> > short period of time. =A0The USA/Canada population of 300-400 million i=
s
> > not where the population problems in the world would be (I am trying
> > to put myself into the mindset of the global warmist who thinks we
> > need to reduce population)
>
> Well, so far the average American generates much more CO2, and uses
> up most other resources so much faster than most other countries,
> that we really have to start here. =A0Also, you run into a
> "do as we say, not as we do" problem if you don't start here first.
>
> > The real population problems (If I had a "we must reduce the
> > population" mindset)are in places like Indonesia, Nigeria, India,
> > China (lets forget China if you think they have already solved this),
> > Mexico , as examples. =A0So, I would think that the global warmists
> > should be fretting about how to reduce those countries populations
> > first. =A0How do you do it? =A0There is no possible way to do it withou=
t
> > getting ugly. =A0But, =A0for rationale scientific evolutionary minded
> > person... putting ugly on the table should not really be an issue.
> > after all, scientific rationality trumps what others would think.
>
> As more Indians buy cars, that will be a significantly bigger problem.
> But showing by example is always best.
>

I have no interest in making a  sacrifice in the hopes that people in
Nigeria , Mexico, Indonesia, etc will follow by finding a way to
either exterminate or sterilize or change their religion/beliefs/
behavior to reduce their populations.  If the problem in the USA is
not population, per se but CO2, then , perhaps the left should show a
good faith example to the rest of the USA and plead for the USA to
reduce CO2 emissions by building hundreds of Nuclear Power plants and
putting the Nuclear waste dump in Nevada to use( BTW I personally
prefer fossil fuels to Nuclear energy - but if the left argued for
Nuclear power I might be able to be convinced other wise).

  The USA has shown the world a lot by example, but mostly they have
shown that when people are free to pursue their own interests with a
relatively light government that fantastic things can happen.




> -- glen

On 10/7/2011 11:58 AM, brent wrote:
   ...

> Here is the first manipulation of "number"  You are leaving out your
> underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
> of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
> in water levels.

What assumption? As I see it, he neither assumed anything not made a claim.

> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
> laid them out there and  leave the reader to draw their own
> conclusions.

And so he did. You drew a conclusion.

> So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm.  I reject that this is
> going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.

He didn't say it would. That was your (unwarranted) conclusion.

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 7, 5:36=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> ...
> My second thought is a tax rate based on number of siblings. =A0While
> parents might feel rich enough to afford a penalty on their own tax,
> they would feel different about burdening thier kids with a higher
> tax rate. =A0

that's exquisitely devious.

maybe we could do that with *criminal* law.  how much deterrent effect
might there be if it's your kid that faces sanction if you stray
outside of the law?

r b-j

On Oct 7, 8:35=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 11:58 AM, brent wrote:
> =A0 =A0...
>
> > Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out your
> > underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
> > of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
> > in water levels.
>
> What assumption? As I see it, he neither assumed anything not made a clai=
m.
>
> > I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
> > laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> > conclusions.
>
> And so he did. You drew a conclusion.
>
> > So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that this is
> > going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> He didn't say it would. That was your (unwarranted) conclusion.
>
> =A0 =A0...
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

So the numbers were presented with no intent to draw any
conclusions ?  OK,   I accept that the numbers provided are numerical
factoid which have no relevance to the case of man made global warming
and that no conclusions are to be drawn from these numbers.

On 10/8/2011 7:33 PM, brent wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:35 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/7/2011 11:58 AM, brent wrote:
>>     ...
>>
>>> Here is the first manipulation of "number"  You are leaving out your
>>> underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
>>> of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
>>> in water levels.
>>
>> What assumption? As I see it, he neither assumed anything not made a claim.
>>
>>> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
>>> laid them out there and  leave the reader to draw their own
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> And so he did. You drew a conclusion.
>>
>>> So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm.  I reject that this is
>>> going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>>
>> He didn't say it would. That was your (unwarranted) conclusion.
>>
>>     ...
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> So the numbers were presented with no intent to draw any
> conclusions ?  OK,   I accept that the numbers provided are numerical
> factoid which have no relevance to the case of man made global warming
> and that no conclusions are to be drawn from these numbers.

The numbers are relevant and support a back-of-the-envelope estimate of 
the worst case. The likely scenario is perhaps a fifth of that. 
Whatever, he didn't take it that far. Don't accuse Robert of the kind of 
lying with numbers that you've learned to expect from others.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 8, 9:36=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/8/2011 7:33 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 8:35 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> On 10/7/2011 11:58 AM, brent wrote:
> >> =A0 =A0 ...
>
> >>> Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out you=
r
> >>> underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amoun=
t
> >>> of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
> >>> in water levels.
>
> >> What assumption? As I see it, he neither assumed anything not made a c=
laim.
>
> >>> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind o=
f
> >>> laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> >>> conclusions.
>
> >> And so he did. You drew a conclusion.
>
> >>> So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that this is
> >>> going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> >> He didn't say it would. That was your (unwarranted) conclusion.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 ...
>
> >> Jerry
> >> --
> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get=
..
>
> > So the numbers were presented with no intent to draw any
> > conclusions ? =A0OK, =A0 I accept that the numbers provided are numeric=
al
> > factoid which have no relevance to the case of man made global warming
> > and that no conclusions are to be drawn from these numbers.
>
> The numbers are relevant and support a back-of-the-envelope estimate of
> the worst case. The likely scenario is perhaps a fifth of that.
> Whatever, he didn't take it that far. Don't accuse Robert of the kind of
> lying with numbers that you've learned to expect from others.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

So you are saying that global warming models are back of the envelope
type of calculations ?  are you claiming that any proficient person
would easily  be able to use those numbers to conclude that the ocean
will rise by 50 feet is some time.

How much time do we have until a 50 foot rise occurs?

When can we expect the first 10 foot rise?

How much does the world (the world - not the USA) have to reduce CO2
by to prevent this 50 foot rise?

what is the projected rate of CO2 emmisions from the whole world over
the next ten years?

How much will a 20 % reduction by the USA reduce that projected
amount?

Numbers please?

On 10/8/2011 10:13 PM, brent wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:36 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/8/2011 7:33 PM, brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 8:35 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>    wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/2011 11:58 AM, brent wrote:
>>>>      ...
>>
>>>>> Here is the first manipulation of "number"  You are leaving out your
>>>>> underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amount
>>>>> of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter rise
>>>>> in water levels.
>>
>>>> What assumption? As I see it, he neither assumed anything not made a claim.
>>
>>>>> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind of
>>>>> laid them out there and  leave the reader to draw their own
>>>>> conclusions.
>>
>>>> And so he did. You drew a conclusion.
>>
>>>>> So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm.  I reject that this is
>>>>> going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>>
>>>> He didn't say it would. That was your (unwarranted) conclusion.
>>
>>>>      ...
>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>> --
>>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>>
>>> So the numbers were presented with no intent to draw any
>>> conclusions ?  OK,   I accept that the numbers provided are numerical
>>> factoid which have no relevance to the case of man made global warming
>>> and that no conclusions are to be drawn from these numbers.
>>
>> The numbers are relevant and support a back-of-the-envelope estimate of
>> the worst case. The likely scenario is perhaps a fifth of that.
>> Whatever, he didn't take it that far. Don't accuse Robert of the kind of
>> lying with numbers that you've learned to expect from others.
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> So you are saying that global warming models are back of the envelope
> type of calculations ?  are you claiming that any proficient person
> would easily  be able to use those numbers to conclude that the ocean
> will rise by 50 feet is some time.

It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone who keeps twisting 
my words. A lot can happen before we reach 50 feet. One critical event 
might be a shift of the Gulf stream that leads to another ice age. I 
don't have any idea and I don't know of anyone who claims to be sure. 
Conservative estimates for sea-level rise that I've heard are about a 
foot per century. The current measured rate is about 8 inches. You can 
expect most of Bangladesh to be under water by 2100.

> How much time do we have until a 50 foot rise occurs?

Wait and see. Houston TX will be long gone by then, and much of 
Philadelphia.

> When can we expect the first 10 foot rise?

There's no way to guess how the threat of than will modify people's 
behavior. If all trends -- population growth, fossil fuel use, observed 
temperature rise --- continue, some guess about 150 to 200 years. Let 
your grandchildren worry about it. Who was it who said, "Apr�s moi le 
d�luge"?

> How much does the world (the world - not the USA) have to reduce CO2
> by to prevent this 50 foot rise?

It'll never happen.

> what is the projected rate of CO2 emmisions from the whole world over
> the next ten years?

Look it up.

> How much will a 20 % reduction by the USA reduce that projected
> amount?

Not enough.

> Numbers please?

I don't make them up. Find sources you trust. I just got an email to the 
effect that Snopes.com is a Communist plot.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Oct 9, 12:39=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/8/2011 10:13 PM, brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 9:36 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0wrote:
> >> On 10/8/2011 7:33 PM, brent wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 7, 8:35 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> On 10/7/2011 11:58 AM, brent wrote:
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> >>>>> Here is the first manipulation of "number" =A0You are leaving out y=
our
> >>>>> underlying assumption, which is that this (fantastically small) amo=
unt
> >>>>> of CO2 is going to melt the polar ice caps and cause a 77 meter ris=
e
> >>>>> in water levels.
>
> >>>> What assumption? As I see it, he neither assumed anything not made a=
 claim.
>
> >>>>> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your numbers, but you just kind=
 of
> >>>>> laid them out there and =A0leave the reader to draw their own
> >>>>> conclusions.
>
> >>>> And so he did. You drew a conclusion.
>
> >>>>> So I accept your number of 315ppm to 385ppm. =A0I reject that this =
is
> >>>>> going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels.
>
> >>>> He didn't say it would. That was your (unwarranted) conclusion.
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> >>>> Jerry
> >>>> --
> >>>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can g=
et.
>
> >>> So the numbers were presented with no intent to draw any
> >>> conclusions ? =A0OK, =A0 I accept that the numbers provided are numer=
ical
> >>> factoid which have no relevance to the case of man made global warmin=
g
> >>> and that no conclusions are to be drawn from these numbers.
>
> >> The numbers are relevant and support a back-of-the-envelope estimate o=
f
> >> the worst case. The likely scenario is perhaps a fifth of that.
> >> Whatever, he didn't take it that far. Don't accuse Robert of the kind =
of
> >> lying with numbers that you've learned to expect from others.
>
> >> Jerry
> >> --
> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get=
..
>
> > So you are saying that global warming models are back of the envelope
> > type of calculations ? =A0are you claiming that any proficient person
> > would easily =A0be able to use those numbers to conclude that the ocean
> > will rise by 50 feet is some time.
>
> It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone who keeps twisting
> my words. A lot can happen before we reach 50 feet. One critical event

I do not view it as twisting your words.  I am just looking for
specific predictions (that is what science is supposed to do - predict
outcomes).  If excellent predictions cannot be made then it is poor
science.  We put a man on the moon with very specific predictions of
exactly how much fuel, what time to launch, what speed to go ...etc.
That is real science.  When spurious (even if the predictions are
dire) predictions are made, it no longer  science.  If the leftists/
environmentalists expect us to change our lifestyles, it is not asking
too much for real science to back up the arguments, with concrete,
predictable numbers.

 I do not see the real science.


> might be a shift of the Gulf stream that leads to another ice age. I
> don't have any idea and I don't know of anyone who claims to be sure.
> Conservative estimates for sea-level rise that I've heard are about a
> foot per century. The current measured rate is about 8 inches. You can
> expect most of Bangladesh to be under water by 2100.
>
> > How much time do we have until a 50 foot rise occurs?
>
> Wait and see. Houston TX will be long gone by then, and much of
> Philadelphia.
>
> > When can we expect the first 10 foot rise?
>
> There's no way to guess how the threat of than will modify people's
> behavior. If all trends -- population growth, fossil fuel use, observed
> temperature rise --- continue, some guess about 150 to 200 years. Let
> your grandchildren worry about it. Who was it who said, "Apr=EF=BF=BDs mo=
i le
> d=EF=BF=BDluge"?
>
> > How much does the world (the world - not the USA) have to reduce CO2
> > by to prevent this 50 foot rise?
>
> It'll never happen.
>

If it will never happen then why do we need a  carbon tax or why do we
need to be shutting down coal plants in Ohio?

> > what is the projected rate of CO2 emmisions from the whole world over
> > the next ten years?
>
> Look it up.
>
> > How much will a 20 % reduction by the USA reduce that projected
> > amount?
>
> Not enough.
>

Again, if we cannot effect the outcome then why should be be doing
things like cap and trade ?




> > Numbers please?
>
> I don't make them up. Find sources you trust. I just got an email to the


> effect that Snopes.com is a Communist plot.
>

I suspect we each have sources that we trust and the two sources do
not agree.

> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)
> I do not view it as twisting your words.  I am just looking for
> specific predictions (that is what science is supposed to do - predict
> outcomes).  If excellent predictions cannot be made then it is poor
> science.  

The science is fine, but the numbers aren't easy.  There are some
astronomy problems where being within 10 orders of magnitude is
considered good.  (How many universes are there, for one.)

> We put a man on the moon with very specific predictions of
> exactly how much fuel, what time to launch, what speed to go ...etc.
> That is real science.  When spurious (even if the predictions are
> dire) predictions are made, it no longer  science.  If the leftists/
> environmentalists expect us to change our lifestyles, it is not asking
> too much for real science to back up the arguments, with concrete,
> predictable numbers.

Well, they had to leave some margin for the uncertainties, but the
closer you get it, the less weight and less cost.

> I do not see the real science.

Would you know it when you saw it?  

>> might be a shift of the Gulf stream that leads to another ice age. I
>> don't have any idea and I don't know of anyone who claims to be sure.
>> Conservative estimates for sea-level rise that I've heard are about a
>> foot per century. The current measured rate is about 8 inches. You can
>> expect most of Bangladesh to be under water by 2100.

There are many ocean current changes that would greatly change the
weather in some places.  One I used to hear about is the one
that keeps northern Europe warm.  If that shifts, which could happen
very fast, much of Europe freezes.

>> > How much time do we have until a 50 foot rise occurs?

(snp)
>> It'll never happen.

> If it will never happen then why do we need a  carbon tax or why do we
> need to be shutting down coal plants in Ohio?

(snip)
>> Not enough.

> Again, if we cannot effect the outcome then why should be be doing
> things like cap and trade ?

Maybe we owe a little to our descendants.  Just a little oil and
some metal ore.

>> > Numbers please?

>> I don't make them up. Find sources you trust. I just got an email to the
>> effect that Snopes.com is a Communist plot.

> I suspect we each have sources that we trust and the two sources do
> not agree.

The ones that could change ocean currents could shift suddenly,
and once they do might not be reversible.  

Consider earthquake prediction.  It isn't that people aren't working
on understanding the faults, or that the science isn't there, but
data collecting isn't easy.  (Though easier than some astronomy
problems.)

-- glen

On Oct 9, 3:42=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I do not view it as twisting your words. =A0I am just looking for
> > specific predictions (that is what science is supposed to do - predict
> > outcomes). =A0If excellent predictions cannot be made then it is poor
> > science. =A0
>
> The science is fine, but the numbers aren't easy. =A0There are some
> astronomy problems where being within 10 orders of magnitude is
> considered good. =A0(How many universes are there, for one.)
>
> > We put a man on the moon with very specific predictions of
> > exactly how much fuel, what time to launch, what speed to go ...etc.
> > That is real science. =A0When spurious (even if the predictions are
> > dire) predictions are made, it no longer =A0science. =A0If the leftists=
/
> > environmentalists expect us to change our lifestyles, it is not asking
> > too much for real science to back up the arguments, with concrete,
> > predictable numbers.
>
> Well, they had to leave some margin for the uncertainties, but the
> closer you get it, the less weight and less cost.
>
> > I do not see the real science.
>
> Would you know it when you saw it? =A0
>
> >> might be a shift of the Gulf stream that leads to another ice age. I
> >> don't have any idea and I don't know of anyone who claims to be sure.
> >> Conservative estimates for sea-level rise that I've heard are about a
> >> foot per century. The current measured rate is about 8 inches. You can
> >> expect most of Bangladesh to be under water by 2100.
>
> There are many ocean current changes that would greatly change the
> weather in some places. =A0One I used to hear about is the one
> that keeps northern Europe warm. =A0If that shifts, which could happen
> very fast, much of Europe freezes.
>
> >> > How much time do we have until a 50 foot rise occurs?
>
> (snp)
>
> >> It'll never happen.
> > If it will never happen then why do we need a =A0carbon tax or why do w=
e
> > need to be shutting down coal plants in Ohio?
>
> (snip)
>
> >> Not enough.
> > Again, if we cannot effect the outcome then why should be be doing
> > things like cap and trade ?
>
> Maybe we owe a little to our descendants. =A0Just a little oil and
> some metal ore.
>
> >> > Numbers please?
> >> I don't make them up. Find sources you trust. I just got an email to t=
he
> >> effect that Snopes.com is a Communist plot.
> > I suspect we each have sources that we trust and the two sources do
> > not agree.
>
> The ones that could change ocean currents could shift suddenly,
> and once they do might not be reversible. =A0
>
> Consider earthquake prediction. =A0It isn't that people aren't working
> on understanding the faults, or that the science isn't there, but
> data collecting isn't easy. =A0(Though easier than some astronomy
> problems.)
>
> -- glen

My problem is not with studying the issue, per se.  My problem is
assigning life altering solutions that seem more political than
scientific.

Life altering political solutions should not be allowed on hunches.
We can act on hunches for little things, but we should be very clear
that when something is a hunch and when it is solid fact.

Do not forget, the "deniers" do not deny the science that put a man on
the moon. Real models, real predictions real results.

Imagine if a group of scientist said we can no longer put foundations
into buildings that went down more than 30 feet because we will
possibly trigger large earthquakes.  Earthquakes big enough to take
down entire cities.  Who knows, maybe the recent Japanese earthquake
was a reaction to a building project in Japan.  The science behind
this may not be real mature, but the consequences are too bad to
ignore this possibility.  Let's stop building large structures?

On 10/9/2011 2:55 PM, brent wrote:
> On Oct 9, 12:39 pm, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
>> On 10/8/2011 10:13 PM, brent wrote:
   ...

>>> How much time do we have until a 50 foot rise occurs?
>>
>> Wait and see. Houston TX will be long gone by then, and much of
>> Philadelphia.
>>
>>> When can we expect the first 10 foot rise?
>>
>> There's no way to guess how the threat of than will modify people's
>> behavior. If all trends -- population growth, fossil fuel use, observed
>> temperature rise --- continue, some guess about 150 to 200 years. Let
>> your grandchildren worry about it. Who was it who said, "Apr�s moi le
>> d�luge"?
>>
>>> How much does the world (the world - not the USA) have to reduce CO2
>>> by to prevent this 50 foot rise?
>>
>> It'll never happen.
>>
>
> If it will never happen then why do we need a  carbon tax or why do we
> need to be shutting down coal plants in Ohio?

The reduction will never happen. The political will won't exist until 
it's too late.

   ...

> Again, if we cannot effect the outcome then why should be be doing
> things like cap and trade ?

People are like that. Even when reaching shore is a forlorn hope, some 
keep bailing and rowing. Others say, "Why bother? it's not my boat."

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>> The science is fine, but the numbers aren't easy. �There are some
>> astronomy problems where being within 10 orders of magnitude is
>> considered good. �(How many universes are there, for one.)

(big snip, then I wrote)
>> The ones that could change ocean currents could shift suddenly,
>> and once they do might not be reversible. �

>> Consider earthquake prediction. �It isn't that people aren't working
>> on understanding the faults, or that the science isn't there, but
>> data collecting isn't easy. �(Though easier than some astronomy
>> problems.)

> My problem is not with studying the issue, per se.  My problem is
> assigning life altering solutions that seem more political than
> scientific.

Well, some politics, but also engineering.  (A more usual subject
for this newsgroup.)  How can we reduce CO2 emissions at a
resonable cost?   It is much easier in large power plants than
individual cars, so we should probably start there.  Some strategies
allow free market to optimize the cost/benefit, which should be
the American way.  

The manmade vs. natural argument shouldn't matter.  Note that there
are people working on avoiding asteriods that could hit earth.
We know those aren't manmade, but if one could be deflected,
(the earlier you start, the easier it is) that would be good.

But many naysayers don't have any interest in even looking at
the science.  As long as nothing bad happens before they die, 
there isn't any reason to worry.  (Maybe they don't have kids.)

> Life altering political solutions should not be allowed on hunches.
> We can act on hunches for little things, but we should be very clear
> that when something is a hunch and when it is solid fact.

That is why I gave the bridge out on the freeway example.
By the time we are sure exactly what will happen, it is very
likely too late.  (Once the car is airborne, or even 100 feet before.)

There are people studying the effect of warming on plants, and
also the increased CO2.  Also, the effect of increased ocean
CO2 on sea animals.  Both are easier than predicting the time
scale of warming, and could increase or decrease the urgency.

> Do not forget, the "deniers" do not deny the science that put a man on
> the moon. Real models, real predictions real results.

I suppose you never watched "Capricorn One."   It seems that there
are deniers for just about every science.  There might even still
be some flat earth believers around.

> Imagine if a group of scientist said we can no longer put foundations
> into buildings that went down more than 30 feet because we will
> possibly trigger large earthquakes.  Earthquakes big enough to take
> down entire cities.  Who knows, maybe the recent Japanese earthquake
> was a reaction to a building project in Japan.  The science behind
> this may not be real mature, but the consequences are too bad to
> ignore this possibility.  Let's stop building large structures?

Not so easy to calculate, but one could probably figure out how 
much change it could make.  It might be that one could cause one
to occur a few minutes earlier.  More likely, building artificial
lakes, which weigh much more than buildings, could have some effect.

-- glen

On Oct 9, 6:47=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> (snip, I wrote)
>
> >> The science is fine, but the numbers aren't easy. There are some
> >> astronomy problems where being within 10 orders of magnitude is
> >> considered good. (How many universes are there, for one.)
>
> (big snip, then I wrote)
>
> >> The ones that could change ocean currents could shift suddenly,
> >> and once they do might not be reversible.
> >> Consider earthquake prediction. It isn't that people aren't working
> >> on understanding the faults, or that the science isn't there, but
> >> data collecting isn't easy. (Though easier than some astronomy
> >> problems.)
> > My problem is not with studying the issue, per se. =A0My problem is
> > assigning life altering solutions that seem more political than
> > scientific.
>
> Well, some politics, but also engineering. =A0(A more usual subject
> for this newsgroup.) =A0How can we reduce CO2 emissions at a
> resonable cost? =A0 It is much easier in large power plants than
> individual cars, so we should probably start there. =A0Some strategies
> allow free market to optimize the cost/benefit, which should be
> the American way. =A0
>
> The manmade vs. natural argument shouldn't matter. =A0Note that there
> are people working on avoiding asteriods that could hit earth.
> We know those aren't manmade, but if one could be deflected,
> (the earlier you start, the easier it is) that would be good.
>
> But many naysayers don't have any interest in even looking at
> the science. =A0As long as nothing bad happens before they die,
> there isn't any reason to worry. =A0(Maybe they don't have kids.)
>
> > Life altering political solutions should not be allowed on hunches.
> > We can act on hunches for little things, but we should be very clear
> > that when something is a hunch and when it is solid fact.
>
> That is why I gave the bridge out on the freeway example.
> By the time we are sure exactly what will happen, it is very
> likely too late. =A0(Once the car is airborne, or even 100 feet before.)
>
> There are people studying the effect of warming on plants, and
> also the increased CO2. =A0Also, the effect of increased ocean
> CO2 on sea animals. =A0Both are easier than predicting the time
> scale of warming, and could increase or decrease the urgency.
>
> > Do not forget, the "deniers" do not deny the science that put a man on
> > the moon. Real models, real predictions real results.
>
> I suppose you never watched "Capricorn One." =A0 It seems that there
> are deniers for just about every science. =A0There might even still
> be some flat earth believers around.
>

Your answer reveals that it is intellectually easier for you to take
people who disagree with you and throw them all into one ridiculous
box.  It is called stereotyping.  I thought that scientifically minded
people did not make broad generalizations and do stereo typing.

I stand by the statement that the vast majority of people who are
skeptical about global warming do not deny the science that put a man
on the moon. In other words, they universally accept real science that
is based upon models that can be carried out with experiments and
demonstrated.




> > Imagine if a group of scientist said we can no longer put foundations
> > into buildings that went down more than 30 feet because we will
> > possibly trigger large earthquakes. =A0Earthquakes big enough to take
> > down entire cities. =A0Who knows, maybe the recent Japanese earthquake
> > was a reaction to a building project in Japan. =A0The science behind
> > this may not be real mature, but the consequences are too bad to
> > ignore this possibility. =A0Let's stop building large structures?
>
> Not so easy to calculate, but one could probably figure out how
> much change it could make. =A0It might be that one could cause one
> to occur a few minutes earlier. =A0More likely, building artificial
> lakes, which weigh much more than buildings, could have some effect.
>

If we hire enough unemployed scientists and can tie some kind of
massive taxation agenda to it, who knows - we may have  a new crisis.

> -- glen

On 10/9/2011 6:47 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

   ...

> There are people studying the effect of warming on plants, and
> also the increased CO2.  Also, the effect of increased ocean
> CO2 on sea animals.  Both are easier than predicting the time
> scale of warming, and could increase or decrease the urgency.

Tropical diseases and insect pests are expanding their ranges noticeably 
northward. (some go hand in hand, tropical mosquitoes vectoring tropical 
diseases.)  Fire ants, for example, and perhaps Africanized bees.

> Not so easy to calculate, but one could probably figure out how
> much change it could make.  It might be that one could cause one
> to occur a few minutes earlier.  More likely, building artificial
> lakes, which weigh much more than buildings, could have some effect.

It is known to have happened. IIRC, the frequency of tremors around Lake 
Mead has increases since the lake filled.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:47:09 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>I suppose you never watched "Capricorn One."   It seems that there
>are deniers for just about every science.  There might even still
>be some flat earth believers around.

There apparently are <http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/> and they
seem serious about it, not promoting a satire. Funny world ...

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

On Oct 8, 9:36=A0pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 10/8/2011 7:33 PM, brent wrote:
>
....
>
> > So the numbers were presented with no intent to draw any
> > conclusions ? =A0OK, =A0 I accept that the numbers provided are numeric=
al
> > factoid which have no relevance to the case of man made global warming
> > and that no conclusions are to be drawn from these numbers.
>
> The numbers are relevant and support a back-of-the-envelope estimate of
> the worst case.

you see, Brent, there is a limit to the height the oceans can take (as
in the movie Waterworld), now matter how much warming of the planet
occurs.

but there is still little hope offered in those numbers.

all of the driving forces; population growth and mean standard of
living (mean per capita consumption rate of resources and mean per
capita emission rate of effluent) are increasing with no indication of
letting up.  the population of the planet increases exponentially (as
you expect populations to do until they hit a wall, based on resource
scarcity) so the product of the two increases at least exponentially.

the CO2 level in the atmosphere has some baseline that is natural, but
with a fixed atmospheric volume and exponentially increasing
population and emission, the deviation from that baseline can be
expected into increase exponentially.  but the ceiling on that
function is far higher than a possible "tipping threshold" that might
get crossed with this constant+exponential function.  we know the
physics that predicts that higher CO2 concentration means that the
*difference* in opacity of the atmosphere between infared radiation vs
that of higher frequencies (like visible light).  so the atmosphere's
transparency to the Sun's radiation falling on the Earth is not
reduced as much as the atmosphere's transparency to the infared
radiation of the warm planet back out to space.  about the same number
of kilowatts going in, but much fewer getting back out.  apply
conservation of energy theorem and see what you get regarding overall
temperature.

so being an Electrical Engineer, Brent, i'm sure you know about
positive feedback.  steadily climbing greenhouse effect due to
undeniable (unless you're a Denier) increase in CO2 emissions.
glaciers and other ice cover melts (this is verified repeatedly with
photos of current glaciers vs. those of a century, even 25 years
ago).  ice reflects high-frequency light back out to space better than
bare ground.  that energy remains, causing the planet to warm up
more.  still no stopping the increase in population and CO2 emissions
and the atmospheric level continues to climb.  even more ice melts,
more bare ground absorbs the radiation.  the blackbody radiation of
the ground (at a much lower temperature than the Sun) is infared and
gets blocked by the opaque atmosphere more than it used to.

temperature increases more, melting more ice, causing more ground to
be exposed and heated, causing more temperature increase, melting more
ice, etc...  when it gets there, we call that a "tipping point".  we
might not be there yet, but there are still decades of CO2 and other
greenhouse gasses that are "in the bank".  maybe the die is cast and,
even if we completely corrected our behavior now, we still cannot stop
it.  but maybe not.  i see no virtue in fatalistically assuming we
can't stop the inevitable destruction of much of the planet so that we
can conveniently continue to party all of these resources away.

still *no* parameter that is reducing any of the driving functions.
nothing is getting smaller.  neither the population, nor human per
capita consumption of resources.  what savior are you looking forward
to, to turn this around, Brent?  what causal input are you expecting
to turn any of these CO2 trends around?

and the sources for ocean rising will not run out and put a stop to
increasing ocean depth until all of the frozen water that is at an
elevation above sea level is melted.  so Waterworld cannot cover the
Empire State Building (but it could get up to the 20th floor) or do
much to the Himalayas.  but there is so much potential packed up
behind the dam, that i don't see why any knowledgeable and prudent
person would not have pause.  maybe the "alpha" of that exponential
function is a factor of 5 per century.  oceans rise 20 cm in the 20th,
100 cm in the 21st.  what if it's bumped up another factor of 5 in the
22nd century (5 meter rise)?  and another in the 23rd century (25
meter rise)?  there is sufficient "water behind the dam" to do that
and there are *no* indicators or driving functions trending the other
way or even reducing the trend of more and more, faster and faster,
acceleration never abated.

the above is speculative.  no one knows what will really happen in the
22nd and 23 centuries, but i am pretty confident of the 1 meter rise
predicted for the 21st century.  that's a solid number.  but even if
the above is speculative and alarmist, what *physical* parameter or
driving function reversing this trend are you placing your hopes on
Brent, for our great-grandchildren and their descendants?
*somethings* gotta turn around or their future is toast.

r b-j

robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)
>> The numbers are relevant and support a back-of-the-envelope 
>> estimate of the worst case.

> you see, Brent, there is a limit to the height the oceans can take (as
> in the movie Waterworld), now matter how much warming of the planet
> occurs.

> but there is still little hope offered in those numbers.

> all of the driving forces; population growth and mean standard of
> living (mean per capita consumption rate of resources and mean per
> capita emission rate of effluent) are increasing with no indication of
> letting up.  the population of the planet increases exponentially (as
> you expect populations to do until they hit a wall, based on resource
> scarcity) so the product of the two increases at least exponentially.

As I understand it, one bit problem with the calculation is the
equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean.  If it wasn't for the
ocean, we would have been toast a long time ago.  

CO2 continually goes into the ocean through rain, and continually
comes out again.  Also, CO2 near the ocean surface slowly mixes
with CO2 in deeper water.  The result of all that is about 2000
years for the system to reach equilibrium.  

Another complication is polar ice.  Snow and ice with air are
white, and reflect much of the light.  As it melts, it becomes
less white, and absorbs more light, which melts it faster.
As I understand it, (not very well) polar ice is melting faster
than the computer models suggest.  

If the earth surface were uniform, and if CO2 instantly mixed
with the atmosphere, and then the ocean, it wouldn't be hard to
figure out.  But it isn't, and doesn't.   Tiny differences
in some numbers can make huge differences in the result.

Some of this could even be done with DSP.  (The models are all
digital computer models, with coefficients determined through
experimental measurements.)  As the measurements get better,
so do the predictions.  

> the CO2 level in the atmosphere has some baseline that is natural, but
> with a fixed atmospheric volume and exponentially increasing
> population and emission, the deviation from that baseline can be
> expected into increase exponentially.  but the ceiling on that
> function is far higher than a possible "tipping threshold" that might
> get crossed with this constant+exponential function.  we know the
> physics that predicts that higher CO2 concentration means that the
> *difference* in opacity of the atmosphere between infared radiation vs
> that of higher frequencies (like visible light).  so the atmosphere's
> transparency to the Sun's radiation falling on the Earth is not
> reduced as much as the atmosphere's transparency to the infared
> radiation of the warm planet back out to space.  about the same number
> of kilowatts going in, but much fewer getting back out.  apply
> conservation of energy theorem and see what you get regarding overall
> temperature.

Many kilowatts going in, many going out, and the small difference
warms up the planet.  Another case where it is the small difference
between two large numbers that is important.  

> so being an Electrical Engineer, Brent, i'm sure you know about
> positive feedback.  steadily climbing greenhouse effect due to
> undeniable (unless you're a Denier) increase in CO2 emissions.
> glaciers and other ice cover melts (this is verified repeatedly with
> photos of current glaciers vs. those of a century, even 25 years
> ago).  ice reflects high-frequency light back out to space better than
> bare ground.  that energy remains, causing the planet to warm up
> more.  still no stopping the increase in population and CO2 emissions
> and the atmospheric level continues to climb.  even more ice melts,
> more bare ground absorbs the radiation.  the blackbody radiation of
> the ground (at a much lower temperature than the Sun) is infared and
> gets blocked by the opaque atmosphere more than it used to.

If we stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere, it will be some time
before the equilibrium between air and ocean is reached.  If we
slow down, a different equilibrium in a different time.

> temperature increases more, melting more ice, causing more ground to
> be exposed and heated, causing more temperature increase, melting more
> ice, etc...  when it gets there, we call that a "tipping point".  we
> might not be there yet, but there are still decades of CO2 and other
> greenhouse gasses that are "in the bank".  maybe the die is cast and,
> even if we completely corrected our behavior now, we still cannot stop
> it.  but maybe not.  i see no virtue in fatalistically assuming we
> can't stop the inevitable destruction of much of the planet so that we
> can conveniently continue to party all of these resources away.

We have been increasing our standard of living for some generations
now, with each one living better than the previous.  We like to
believe that our kids will do even better, or at least as well.

We have been doing this by using up the earth's resources 
faster and faster, without looking ahead to see what might happen.
If we work at reducing our impact, our kids can have a little
better life than the might if we don't.  Most of us would like
to see our kids have a nice life.

> still *no* parameter that is reducing any of the driving functions.
> nothing is getting smaller.  neither the population, nor human per
> capita consumption of resources.  what savior are you looking forward
> to, to turn this around, Brent?  what causal input are you expecting
> to turn any of these CO2 trends around?

Another complication is that there are some negative feedback
terms with different time constants.  One is that increased
temperature increases ocean evaporation and some falls back
as polar ice and snow.  It is the mix of different time constants
that make things harder.  

> and the sources for ocean rising will not run out and put a stop to
> increasing ocean depth until all of the frozen water that is at an
> elevation above sea level is melted.  so Waterworld cannot cover the
> Empire State Building (but it could get up to the 20th floor) or do
> much to the Himalayas.  but there is so much potential packed up
> behind the dam, that i don't see why any knowledgeable and prudent
> person would not have pause.  maybe the "alpha" of that exponential
> function is a factor of 5 per century.  oceans rise 20 cm in the 20th,
> 100 cm in the 21st.  what if it's bumped up another factor of 5 in the
> 22nd century (5 meter rise)?  and another in the 23rd century (25
> meter rise)?  there is sufficient "water behind the dam" to do that
> and there are *no* indicators or driving functions trending the other
> way or even reducing the trend of more and more, faster and faster,
> acceleration never abated.

> the above is speculative.  no one knows what will really happen in the
> 22nd and 23 centuries, but i am pretty confident of the 1 meter rise
> predicted for the 21st century.  that's a solid number.  but even if
> the above is speculative and alarmist, what *physical* parameter or
> driving function reversing this trend are you placing your hopes on
> Brent, for our great-grandchildren and their descendants?
> *somethings* gotta turn around or their future is toast.

-- glen

On 10/9/2011 10:48 PM, Rich Webb wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:47:09 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>  wrote:
>
>> I suppose you never watched "Capricorn One."   It seems that there
>> are deniers for just about every science.  There might even still
>> be some flat earth believers around.
>
> There apparently are<http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/>  and they
> seem serious about it, not promoting a satire. Funny world ...

As I read it, they don't say that the earth is flat, but rather that it 
is stationary at the center of the universe. Doesn't that imply 
something like spherical symmetry?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On 10/10/2011 8:44 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

   ...

> CO2 continually goes into the ocean through rain, and continually
> comes out again.  Also, CO2 near the ocean surface slowly mixes
> with CO2 in deeper water.  The result of all that is about 2000
> years for the system to reach equilibrium.

There is a lot of methane tied up at depth in the ocean in the form of a 
hydride. (Recall that they ran into some messing around with the wreck 
of the Deepwater Horizon.) Once shallow ocean basins start warming, much 
of that will be released into the atmosphere. CH4 is a much more 
effective greenhouse gas than CO2. How's that for a tipping point?

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>> CO2 continually goes into the ocean through rain, and continually
>> comes out again.  Also, CO2 near the ocean surface slowly mixes
>> with CO2 in deeper water.  The result of all that is about 2000
>> years for the system to reach equilibrium.

> There is a lot of methane tied up at depth in the ocean in the form of a 
> hydride. (Recall that they ran into some messing around with the wreck 
> of the Deepwater Horizon.) Once shallow ocean basins start warming, much 
> of that will be released into the atmosphere. CH4 is a much more 
> effective greenhouse gas than CO2. How's that for a tipping point?

Yes, and there may be others that we haven't figure out yet.

Though eventually (I don't know how fast) atmospheric CH4 oxidizes
to CO2.  Most other carbon containing compounds will also
eventually oxidize, but there is nothing for CO2 to oxidize to.

-- glen

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> 
> Though eventually (I don't know how fast) atmospheric CH4 oxidizes
> to CO2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spr5YFfrnA0

Other "Civil protection" series are good, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO18jvjbU8k

VLV