Reaper

Well, this is a show on how dumb Americans can get, so I will guess yes they probably cut out any intelligent ones they run into. The polls and statistics that I've read about related to this subject show that the smart ones are in the minority though.

I've already seen this one before. Not surprising actually....

Alright, when I first read Resolution 847 (previous thread), I thought, well, its just one resolution and there really was nothing to it. Now, I'm beginning to get a little concerned, to say the least, especially since this one has factual errors in it. What the hell is up with all of these religious resolutions? Well, it seems I now know one other location (besides the Pentagon, the Middle East, and our nuclear arsenal) where all of our tax dollars get wasted.

Here is a list of ways that one could possibly destroy the Earth : http://qntm.org/?destroy What this does is that it takes all of the ways that could be conceived and then gives it a feasibility rating. Of course, when I speak of destroying the Earth, I mean blowing it up to bits. Enjoy........... Oh, and why would one want to do this? Well, here's a list of reasons.... --> http://qntm.org/?why

Why don't you point out these various "inaccuracies, unfairness, and misunderstandings" for us? I ran the numbers and claims myself and they seem pretty reasonable to me. This video is far from being mere "propaganda", and the author does not appear to be a full fledged pacifist.

It can certainly be done and the idea (of compressed gas cars) isn't new. Of course, just only using CO2 isn't necessarily cost effective, but you might want to read about the cars that run on compressed air: http://www.theaircar.com/ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car.htm (Article a bit outdated) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/116641/Car_Runs_on_Compressed_Air =========================== I don't know if they are already available for sale yet elsewhere in the world, but the car is cheaper than regular ones, the "fuel" is much cheaper, and maintenance costs are extremely low compared to conventional ones.

I think you misunderstood my post.

This thread is turning out much better than I thought. 9 pages in and already SL is trying to project his failures on to others. That was not an evasion though. I had looked at your point and assessed it, and to my surprise I found that it didn't really support your position at all. Rather it showed that you just went cherry picking and making strawmans again.

It's already been stated before that birth control is a far better investment both economically and health-wise then continuously getting an abortion. So your objection doesn't make any sense here. But they are not. They are saying that would be mothers have every right to an abortion should it become necessary. Which has been corrected, and in any case that is just an irrelevant appeal. Also irrelevant, and this is just a misrepresentation of what they were posting. No one had once argued that it was an inconvenience though. You are making a huge strawman here. If you respected their opinions, you wouldn't have made all the logical fallacies and ad hominems you did in the first place. And you haven't adequately justified as to why they should always forced to go along with their pregnancy in the first place.

I found the article that talks about what you described: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/ A quick glance shows that there was one big problem with the predictions: It did not take into account the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise, your statement is wayyyyy off the mark here. And the link, of course, doesn't even support your position. Ironically, it gives even more support to our arguments. Actually, I remember very clearly what went on before, as I was keeping track of it, and I also took note of the lack of citations and refutations of your notions that also took place. But its okay SL, some people may have forgotten that and I'll always be here to remind you (yet again). But you haven't shown that analysis to be invalid though. While it does seem like a rather large increase, that doesn't mean that it can happen. Indeed, many things that occur in nature don't make any intuitive sense. But whether or not you like the implications that the models are portraying is irrelevant.

That's fair enough. I'm pretty certain that we won't be able to answer those questions until we actually get a grasp on how to actually do it objectively (dogs, for example, rely mostly on scent and not sight, so the mirror test may not be an accurate indication). But, we are beginning to do so... Well, seeing that I'm not a psychologist or a researcher in A.I. (or know that much about such subjects), I won't be able to really come up with a way or description on how it is done or could be done. But as far as I understand it, the main problems is not so much that we can't quantify it or put a metric on it, but rather getting the human variables out of it as much as possible. Many tests are specific only to humans, and may not be an accurate representation of what animals (or future A.I. machines) are capable of.

I don't really know if you can put a definition on it, because the term intelligence is subjective and vague to begin with. Pretty much, you can classify anything as "intelligent" if you so wish and it would be perfectly valid; for example, lets say it is the ability to remember lots of things. If that's the case, then computers are far more intelligent than humans are. =========================== And for those of you who think IQ test actually have some merit, I'd suggest that you read about the so-called "idiot savants" for a rather different perspective. Kim Peek is a case example. I tend not to trust any result that uses an IQ test simply because they are inherently biased and subjective, are only valid when one is a kid, and I've read somewhere that it is very easy to make a test that can easily favor one group over another.

That's pretty accurate. The argument is subjective.

-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness Certainly there is still some disputes over it, but most arguments (that consciousness is not testable) that I've seen tend to be an elaborate form of an argument from incredulity.

But many animals can reason, so your intuition is incorrect in this case.

Well, no, there are subtle differences in between these two statements. The way you framed it earlier, you were implying that it self awareness is a requirement for consciousness. The way I worded it does not imply any such thing, I was suggesting consciousness is a requirement for self awareness (especially at human levels). In short, it is the other way around . And besides, why can't it be an indication of such? In fact, why does anyone here seem to believe that consciousness is not testable or detectable or hasn't been "properly" so. Consciousness has very well defined characteristics that we can test for and measure. We test for it and other characteristics associated with it all the time when concerning head injuries. And if you go to Japan they already have machines, computers, and robots capable of showing varying degrees of it (very rudimentary, yes, but it does qualify regardless). So why can't the same methods be applied to animals?

I know dolphins have passed the test also, and some species of primates. But I don't think that they necessarily have to know how a mirror works for this test to be valid, only that they know that they are looking at their own reflection (Mirrors aren't the only things that give reflections). Human babies less than a year old can recognize themselves on the mirror, so I'm pretty sure that the mirror test is valid. As for other animals, I know some breeds of dogs can't recognize that they are looking at their own reflection when they look in the mirror. And one of my cats once tried to run into one. Well, no, I did not imply that. Actually I would argue that it isn't a requirement. However, self awareness would certainly show that the animal in question is indeed conscious.

I know men and women have differences in cognition and behavior, but as for intelligence and creativity they are not gender specific.

Well, no, that wasn't the point of my question actually. (For those who missed it, if it was Hillary and Ron, who would you vote for?)

You seemed to behave as if the dangers were far larger than they actually were, that's why I dropped in. If you don't like that, then stop making incorrect statements, making exaggerations, or using vague terms. There is absolutely no need to do that to support your argument. I haven't actually said anything about forcing someone to do anything though. The points I made are valid simply because they are known facts. How people perceive them is another issue all together, and in that realm then the question of forcing someone to do something would be relevant. And for the record, I would not force someone to do something they don't want to do, even if I know the actual risks involved. Well, if we are going to discuss something that is in principle impossible, then I guess we can come to any conclusion we want... It still remains a subjective argument, because you haven't specified anything else in this scenario. The answers depend entirely on the circumstances involved with arguments of this kind.

Nope. I was just pointing at your incorrect use of terms. Actually, to be honest, your use of the terms made me chuckle a bit . But don't worry, I haven't even yet told you on just how amusing I find Dr.DNA's argument.... I like a good debate on morality/ethics/etc too, but typically, whether online or in real life, they tend to degenerate to name calling, bashing, strawman, etc. I'm not entirely immune to this either, and that's why I tend to avoid them, only dropping in when facts are being discussed. Arguments of this kind tend to have little, if any, objectivity otherwise.

Given that you (and myself for that matter) probably already know the answer to that question at hand, there's no point in asking, and in any case it is irrelevant. Please stick to the science, no matter how painful this is, or annoying SL may be.

And you still don't understand that it wasn't an actual judgment. Facts don't have to comply with your emotions (granted, there are many facts of life that I don't like or don't seem to sink in, but I won't deny them because I feel otherwise). That is an appeal to ridicule and appeal to emotion fallacy. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the risk is minimal. Anything else is just a perceived risk. And that was the point of MY example. And I answered your post correctly; you said that the would be mother risks death or other illness when pregnant, and I told you the actual chances of that happening.

I agree, you have a right to have any erroneous or incorrect view you wish. And you have a right to arbitrarily define any terms you wish as well. But wishing it so does not make it fact, nor does it add any validity to your argument. Now I'm beginning to see why there is more money going into quack medicine than science.

But 1) you haven't adequately demonstrated that the viewpoints are "extreme" (what the hell does extreme mean in this context anyways?), nor have you demonstrated them to be invalid. And 2) the psychology is irrelevant to the issue, because the only thing that really matters is the experimental results and the validity of the climate forecasts, not what they or anybody thinks of it. BTW the link you provided doesn't support your case here, especially since the average temperature didn't change quite as much back then as it is changing now. Solar forcing is just not adequate to account for what is happening right now. The problem now though is that the Earth has had an overall warming trend over the past century or so, and it is directly related to the amount of greenhouse gases we're spewing up in the air. In addition, the Earth is supposed to be cooling down from what I read elsewhere. Well, yes, and so far they those claims are either speculative or just outright paranoia. And they didn't all blame global warming either (Here in New Orleans they also blamed God ). But the severity of hurricanes and when they occur is for the most part random, and not really relevant to the discussion at hand. Only if we start taking measures to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale, otherwise it's most likely going to do just what our various graphs that we presented here show. But, that doesn't mean they might not do that anyway. After all, we've come dangerously close to doing just that over the past few decades. Well, one of the problems with global warming is that it has the potential to severely disrupt the seasons and the general weather patterns, and our crop produce (and hence our food supply) are dependent on that. Another potential danger of global warming is rising sea levels, and many of our cities are right on the coast. And, I read somewhere that wars could become much more likely (and far more deadly due to current and future technology) in the event of environmental problems (e.g. competing for arable land, clean water, habitable places, etc.). So, I have to say that I don't quite agree with you here.