Only problem with that, is that I live in Canada so I am:
1. Too far away
2. Underage in your country
Otherwise I'd be happy to join you:) — OpinionsMatter

I looked at a map and from what I can tell Canada is only a couple of inches from where I live.

In terms of the underage thing, I'd think you could just put a really good buzz on in Canada and that ought to carry you for a few days while you're down here.

Bring a jug or something to blow in and maybe a saw you can bend to make music because @Baden said he'd bring the banjo strings.

Because you're underage, I'll save the jokes about the various family members I'll have on standby to do to them as backwoods people do.

I come here for much the same reasons as @Baden. One day we should all meet at a pub actually. There's one just down the street from me with literally hundreds of beers. Since it's close to my house, I'll buy the first round.

This is in fact happening. All sorts of tropical pet reptiles that got too big have been let go in peoples back yards where, Florida being sub tropical, they have all done quite well. Ford has a quite fascinating collection of snakes now that they didn't used to have. — Bitter Crank

Florida with its invasive snakes, Georgia with its invasive wild boars, and Minnesota with its invasive Scandinavians.

I think it is suggesting that boars and monkeys met like ships in the night, ..a long time ago, and the offspring were hybrids, that later became human. — wax

But doesn't that ignore the fact that the ability for different species to mate usually occurs only because the two already shared a historical genetic bond, as in the case of donkeys and horses?

I started reading, but it was too long, and I couldn't find the answer to the question I was looking for.

My understanding of hybrids is that they are formed when species X breaks off into two groups as the result of geographical isolation and after considerable time they evolve separately. Following the separation, they are reunited, they breed, and they produce a hybrid. So, the idea would be that you have horses, some get isolated and they turn into donkeys, the two find each other one day and they make mules. This assumes a common ancestor. It holds that species X forms subspecies Y that breeds into XY.

This article seems to suggest that a primitive man fucked a pig that created a pig centaur and that pig centaur is us. Do I have this right? If that's what the author is suggesting, that's different than saying there was primitive man where one went left and one went right and the direction right one became more a primate and the direction left one became more a pig, and the two eventually reunited to form the current day us.

Why not say (since this is wildly speculative anyway) that pigs and man had a common ancestor, with some becoming pigs and others becoming @Baden? That's the current model of evolution as it applies to primates, where we claim a common ancestor, as opposed to our saying we bred with monkeys and today we're just monkey hybrids, right?

I don't get the need to interpose hybridization into this mess, when all we really need to say is that there appears to be a common genetic similarity that likely arose from a common ancestor.

Considering just the emotional reaction of Westbrook alone, isn't it possible that the heckler's speech could incite violence if other disgruntled African-Americans were present which could result in innocent people being injured? Aren't pejoratives of these kind are factors of limitating speech and/or designated for punishment? — Anaxagoras

As noted in the Bradenberg test, the speech must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," which does not seem to be satisfied in a situation where there is an obnoxious heckler. That heckler would need to be advocating or producing violent behavior, not simply being offensive. The case of Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) seems to make that point. That is to say, there is a significant difference in yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or in encouraging a riot in a public place and in simply being offensive. The former situations are inciting or encouraging immediate violent or chaotic behavior, while the latter are not.

"Fighting words" are punishable (as noted in Hess), although they would need to be directed against a particular person, and I would think there would be a fairly high First Amendment test as to the reasonableness of whether the words used were inciting. That is, if I chant "Make America Great" at a rally for immigrant rights, that would be protected, because someone can't simply claim particular sensitively to words and then claim I provoked him to action. I would think fighting words would things like telling you that I was going to have sex with your mother or the like, not in just holding offensive beliefs. .

Your line about “fire in a movie theater” does not come from the First Amendment, was never binding, and the case it was quoted in was overturned in 1969. — czahar

The current rule is that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

The movie theater language appeared in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), stating that "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" was not protected speech. Justice Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

I'd say that Bradenburg didn't fully overule Schenk, but that it expanded upon its reasoning.

Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with my formalism, they'll gradually begin to change their annoying ways, and I'll find myself less exasperated with them. Vigorously reproaching them all of the time is probably not the best approach actually, but "nicey-nicey" just isn't me. — S

Formalism, as a strategy (and I don't think it's a strategy with you as much as it is a personality quirk), is designed to jettison arguments and limit discussion. It's somewhat (note the use of the British understatement here) less than a generous approach because it purposefully avoids identifying the merits of the other person's argument by instead offering criticism as to form.

The errors are always significant. How can the debate progress if they don't get a grip on their errors? The errors are what prevents them from making progress. I'm actually helping them in a sense by pointing out their errors, because they then have an opportunity to fix them and strengthen their argument. — S

While your tough love approach is heartwarming, I've heard tale of a different approach, where the strengths of the other person's arguments are pointed out and responded to, as opposed to a focus on the errors. There are so many ways to skin a horse aren't there?

As an aside, I offer you these (actual) words of inspiration from Psalms 137:9 "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

And when we look back in 20 or 30 years to this generation and to this time, will people claim we were the Trump generation that stood for whatever it is that Trump stood for? Or, do you suspect that many who were blessed enough to live through these magical years might stand up and say they had nothing to do with Trump? That is simply to say that while there might be some general zeitgeist pundits wish to attribute to a given era, many, if not most, don't actually subscribe to it. Most spend their times tending to themselves, their jobs, and their families. Most baby boomers are a whole lot like most Millennials, which are just regular folks going about their days.

Most of the WWII generation did not save the world from Nazism, most baby boomers did not protest racism, and most Gen Xers did not fight to save the planet. So, to the OP who poses the question of whether the baby boomers sucked, sure they did. They sat around and got high, screwed around like bunny rabbits, tuned in and dropped out, and made us forget what made us great. They also passed civil rights legislation that gave African American full rights as Americans. There is plenty of good and bad to be said of each generation. I, for example, am a stellar example of excellence in an age of mediocrity.

Injustice and foolishness reign eternal and your itemization of them, some of which I agree with and others not, I hope does not mean to suggest there were some good old days where all was right, just, and true. If so, when was this golden age?

I'll offer you an observation. You seem to require a formalism that others are not nearly as married to and it's a constant source of exasperation for you. It exhibits itself in your demands for proper grammar and spelling down to a wish that everyone be educated in every logical fallacy so that discussion can proceed in a certain orderly and predictable way. I'd submit that a good part of philosophical debate consists of making the many errors you point out and in debating the significance of those errors to the overall discussion, as opposed to making them the focus of the debate.

I'd also say that definitions are not brittle, so it's understandable that some will assume differing descriptions of horses and cats than others. Demanding an absolute meaning to the terms is not the starting point, but likely the ending point after the debate is over and such distinctions are made. To the extent you claim some call horses cats, I think that is obvious hyperbole, but usually the equivocation of terms is more subtle and obscured and has to be brought to light.

How do we know that we're using terms consistently in this thread, and that while you're talking about inconsistent term usage, I'm hearing tales of cats.

I guess my question is what is the question we're to be answering in this thread?
— Hanover

Yes. you have no idea what I am talking about, as I have already pointed out to you and yet you feel entitled to litter the thread with criticisms and cod psychoanalysis on the basis of your incomprehension, and repeating them when they have been explicitly denied. — unenlightened

What is so hard to understand? — unenlightened

What is the question within the OP that you wish answered?

But everyone else did. — unenlightened

Unless you provided the factual basis elsewhere, I don't know how they could have. Their responses certainly didn't reference it, nor did they offer condolences, which would have been appropriate given what you've now said.

But, to the extent I missed the factual basis you've since provided, please provide a cite to where it was clarified to me but missed. Otherwise, the best you can say is that I failed to decipher your poetry, which is true.

What is the point that it seems to be missing ?
What do you mean by 'enlightenment' ?
What is the 'divine' ? What is the difference between the 'actual' divine as opposed to...what...the joy that can be found by ordinary mortals ? Even as they cope with life in general.
What is wrong with having a 'sense of closeness and unity' - even if such manifested itself...and why wouldn't you feel included...or is it that you reject it. For your own personal reasons... — Amity

Fair questions.

The OP was poetic, and obviously subject to interpretation. As we are to learn, it references deep loss suffered by the author. Had it specifically referenced such loss, the only appropriate response would be to express condolences, but it wasn't. Based upon that, I'm not even sure what we ought be talking about here, but this is what I brought to the table, as it were.

I simply see the divine in God. That's where I see it. Sure, I see it in all the objects of creation, but I don't see God as creation. The closeness and unity you reference is a beautiful thing I admit, but it's just another aspect of God, and not God. As I've noted, I don't know where to take this because I don't see it as philosophy or even philosophy or religion, but as a personal expression of faith. You have every right to tell me it makes no sense and it's just my way of interpreting meaning and the world.

I guess my question is what is the question we're to be answering in this thread?

That is mockery. Such disrespect is uncalled for and objectionable. I am talking about the death of my mother, my sister, my first wife, as my personal experience of bereavement, and you liken it some sentimental trash of your own imagining. You have no idea, absolutely none. — unenlightened

Yeah, well I had no way of knowing you were talking about such profound loss, so I couldn't have been mocking you unless I actually knew that. So you have no idea, absolutely none, of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about sentimental trash. I'm talking about the divine, but you're not listening.

As to my initial assessment that you are depressed, I find it hard to relent because nothing you've said suggests otherwise. I can only said that your thoughts are depressing and reference coping, but whatever. It's not clear that the OP had much point anyway. It certainly didn't ask any question that I can decipher. The best I can decipher is that we're to validate your feelings and tell you the beauty of your prose, but if we don't, we're being disrespectful.

You're still not listening. — unenlightened

You can only tell me that my words don't accurately reflect what you're feeling, but not that I'm not listening because you don't know what I'm actually doing. It's sort of like if someone says things that sound depressing, but then they tell me they're not depressed, then I have to believe they're not depressed and not impose my interpretations on them.

Anyway, this whole thread is getting touchy feely like everyone is going to start hugging each other and having this feeling of closeness and unity. I mean, everyone but me because I don't listen. Either that or I refuse to listen because it seems so missing the point. My enlightenment is just different I suppose. I see the divine in the actual divine I guess as opposed to a kitty cat jumping on a child's lap, or whatever.

You're not listening to me telling you you're not listening. Listen to me telling you I'm not depressed, not coping, but joyful, and stop telling me what what I say must mean I feel. — unenlightened

Fine. You're jubilant.

Very well. I just see this discussion as trying to convince one's self to be joyful despite it all. I find joy because of it all.

Actually I am.

Here's what I heard:

I'm looking at the greyness of slate and cloud and gull, I'm looking at the aggression at every moment of nature, and the poverty and ugliness of the manmade rooftop desert, and making the best of it — unenlightened

You describe coping, not joy.

Thanks for bringing some thoughtful joy... — Amity

That was joy? I shudder to think what pain is. The best that was was a method for enduring pain.

Real joy derives from feeling a sense of purpose beyond the sounds of the tea kettle and the fluttering of the birds outside.

You sound depressed and you unfortunately use your advanced ability to reason to justify it, even to the more unfortunate level of rejecting the optimistic as unreasonable.

I put it here in philosophy of religion, because it is faith beyond reason and beyond the frivolity of mere fact. 'Take, eat, this is my flesh.' Will you measure these truths with a human device? What value has that? Eat, or eat not; there is nothing to argue about. — unenlightened

What are you asking?

That's a flippant and facile way to dismiss a prediction. Of course you must be familiar with the story of the boy who cried "wolf". No doubt superficial thinkers will dismiss any dire prediction with the same blithe disregard as the people in that story dismissed the boy's cry for help. — Janus

I predict the world will be around in 40 years, and I chastise you twice the amount you chastised me for flippantly rejecting a prediction.

I don't know the exact date the rotten tree leaning over my house will fall. But that doesn't mean I should ignore it. I don't understand this weird smugness about other people not guessing correctly. — bert1

Because you're not talking about a rotten limb hanging over your fence that is obviously going to fall fairly soon and that is going to predictably damage a few slats from your fence.

You're speculating about the end of the world, which has been something that has been going on since the beginning of the world. Call me smug, but you seem to also be calling me blissfully ignorant. What value is there is my fretting with you about something you declare inevitable, regardless of what we do about it?

My prediction is that you will spend your life worrying about something that will have minimal impact in your life. You're going to be fine, but if you're not, it won't be because the climate failed you. It will be because of war, poor government policy, heart disease, or a drunk driver. Think of all the time you might spend worrying about the floods that are coming only to be hit by a freight train and not being able to see the end of the world you were predicting.

It's personality. — Bitter Crank

And religiosity, which is probably a personality trait as well.

human population should level off and begin to decline around 2030 with complete collapse of modern civilization happening some time around mid century — xraymike79

So 2050, 31 years from now is the end of times? I'll mark it on my calendar along with all the other end of times predictions that have come and gone.

@Noah Te Stroete

It is always a shame when people can't be more like me.

For clarification, is having a vagina a bad thing?

the biggest reason is basically money. — ssu

It's hardy that simple. The example of the Washington DC school system being a good example of heavy spending and poor results: https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/high-public-school-spending-dc-hasnt-produced-desired-outcomes

I don't know the demographics or social economic variations among the various regions of Finland, but I might guess that those more poorly performing schools have students that are from less advantaged families. I wonder if they sent the southern Finnish students to the northern schools and vice versa if you'd really see a decline in the performance of southern Finnish students and an improvement for the northern ones. That is to say, much starts at home. I fully believe that my kids, for example, would have done well even had I not been in a good school district. A real reason my school district is good is because the parents who stress education in the home have sought it out and we've all come together to the same place..

Your African example also makes the point as well. There's abject poverty, war, government instability, disease and all sorts of other things the students are contending with. It's just not reasonable to think that a huge monetary contribution to the educational system is going to put those students on par with Finnish students. It's also not reasonable to think that throwing more money at the inner city schools of Washington DC is ever going to put those students on par with the students within my fairly affluent suburban school system.

So, folks, this is the game I am inviting you to play. Stop finding reasons why the future cannot be known, because you all don't behave like that any other time, you save money you get qualifications, you make plans and buy season tickets. — unenlightened

We all know with certainty we're going to die, so what is it that we do now as we march toward our death? Why should the remote possibility of starvation caused by flooding be more concerning than the real possibility of cancer or being struck by a car?

But should I accept your premises that (1) the end is nigh and (2) it's too late or just impossible to repair, then what I ought to do is stockpile food, fuel, and an arsenal. I should prepare as the preppers do. Since you reject those who treat your concerns as folly, what else would be reasonable? It seems the only solution left the way you've presented it.

They called Noah a fool until the rain started falling, so let's take note and start building now.

The cause of action you'd sue under is referred to as constructive eviction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_eviction

Hanover or Michael I would trust. — S

I didn't read your thread so can't weigh in, but if your thread contained similar insights as this^, I side against your oppressors.

So my question (thanks if you have made it so far) is if this is just an academic red herring or an example of how academic knowledge has fallen? Or am I just a believer in Eurocentrist science that doesn't get the point of decolonization of science? — ssu

Either the rocket makes it to the moon or it doesn't. If a study of nature that rejects the political views of Western society sends rockets straight to the moon, with our rockets meandering and never quite finding their way, or at least doing so less efficiently, I'll subscribe to the anti-West system. Science is the study of the empirical and its verification is based upon empirical observations.

Science is the single most powerful way we have of discovering knowledge about our world. As the oppressed duly note, knowledge is power and without it comes weakness. The solution is not to delegitimize science in order to level the playing field so that those ignorant of science have the same power as those who do not, but it's to educate oneself and gain the knowledge one lacks. The great equalizer is education, not denying one's ignorance and celebrating one's stupidity.

I suspect you agree with all this?

1. Climate change is unstoppable.
2. Social collapse will be worldwide, and in the next 10 years or so.
3. This will involve Flooding caused by sea-level rises displacing huge populations, decline in crop yields leading to starvation even in developed countries, collapse of infra-structure, power, clean water particularly.
4. There's fuck all to be done to stop it.
5. So what might we do or think or discuss in the meantime? — unenlightened

Yawn...

Yes, much has been written on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult

Here's a fairly comprehensive list of predicted apocalyptic events, many made by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

For a walk down memory lane, here are some scientific doomsday predictions made at the time of the first Earh Day in 1970:

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

The more interesting phenomenon is how the adherents react when the prophecy fails and how they attempt to maintain their beliefs in light of them being proven wrong. Yours is particularly troubling for adherents because the date is only 10 years (or so) away. Can we declare the paper wrong in 15 years?

Yes, I get it, all these past examples of failed predictions don't prove that this newest version is also wrong. I also realize that if we make such predictions long enough we might eventually be right. But, my very strong hunch here is that we'll be having this same conversation in 10 years (or so), assuming we don't die from something else.

Please talk about climate change with reference to the paper and the evidence within or elsewhere for its claims along with counterevidence, for those who disagree, from other scientific sources. Everything beyond that will be subject to deletion unless there's a very good reason for its inclusion. — Baden

This would be a fair suggestion if scientists had a proven past of avoiding bias and had the ability to divorce themselves from this odd pessimistic psychological phenomenon that leads them to find evidence of eventual final death and destruction. That it is to say, this is not just ad hom mud slinging, nor is it an anti-scientific stance, but it's clear evidence that scientists go horribly wrong when they attempt such future extrapolations. Pretending that scientists are just objective apolitical folks sorting through facts and crunching out numbers is just that - pretending.

Let us also be clear that the paper itself admits to a high degree of speculation and conjecture:

"It is a truism that we do not know what the future will be. But we can see
trends. We do not know if the power of human ingenuity will help
sufficiently to change the environmental trajectory we are on.
Unfortunately, the recent years of innovation, investment and patenting
indicate how human ingenuity has increasingly been channelled into
consumerism and financial engineering. We might pray for time. But the
evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and
uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction,
migration, disease and war.
We do not know for certain how disruptive the impacts of climate change
will be or where will be most affected, especially as economic and social
systems will respond in complex ways." pp 13-14.

This comment is fraught with political ideology, concluding as if fact that patent law, capitalistic consumerism, and financial engineering (whatever that is) are interfering with human ingenuity. That certainly sounds like a thesis unto itself, and one hardly universally accepted as true. He then speaks of how me might pray, which I understand is for effect (as if that's all we can now do), but are these the words fitting for a serious scientific discussion or is this more a call to arms?

The author then goes on to say:

"These descriptions may seem overly dramatic. Some readers might
consider them an unacademic form of writing. Which would be an
interesting comment on why we even write at all. I chose the words above
as an attempt to cut through the sense that this topic is purely theoretical.
As we are considering here a situation where the publishers of this journal
would no longer exist, the electricity to read its outputs won’t exist, and a
profession to educate won’t exist, I think it time we break some of the
conventions of this format." p. 14

He doesn't even pretend to be scientific, citing to nothing really, and admitting it's just time to stop being so damn scientific. He then goes on after this to discuss the various psychological forms of denial and other unhelpful ways he thinks people are dealing with this real problem. That is simply not science, but just a lament that people don't accept his claims and are finding ways to thwart our saving of the planet..

I don't even believe this prediction:

"If all the data and analysis turn out to be misleading, and this
society continues nicely for the coming decades, then this article will not
have helped my career." p. 24

Should society continue nicely in the coming decades (and now we moved to decades and not just the next 10 years), his career will be fine. From the citations above, it seems clear that damnation cults will always have a role to play in our world.

I voted no. My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing.

What say you? Yay or nay? — S

I vote yay. It's like you opened up my soul and read the very words that described my being. Thank you for that. Thank you.

If they arrested those who hired illegal immigrants, there wouldn't be any.

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong.

You've gone off on a few different tangents there, but it should be clear my moral perspective on economic issues is utilitarian-based. — Baden

I didn't go off on a tangent. It was directly responsive to your post. My point was that your Utilitarian approach could equally apply to the right, with the argument being that allowing uncontrolled wealth could result in overall societal benefit. This means that your amazement is unjustified. The billionaires haven't tricked the poor into supporting the unjust wealth of the rich. The poor just realize they'd be poorer under a different system.

What always amazes me is that billionaires and the super-rich in general have managed to create not only a system that funnels more and more money to them, but a prevailing ideology whereby a significant proportion of those who have relatively no wealth in comparison feel obliged to protect them and their billions on the basis that somehow nothing could possibly work properly without them. Now that's social engineering. — Baden

So those with significant wealth ought advocate for laws to protect their wealth and those without significant wealth ought advocate for wealth distribution?

That seems to be a morality based upon self-interest. I think you'd advocate for greater wealth distribution even if it meant personal loss to your own wealth, arguing that societal well being is overall increased even if it means you personally might suffer in the short term. So, assuming the right is as righteous as the left, we might also assume their ideology allows for their own personal suffering for better overall societal success.

That is, the billionaire who advocates for greater income distribution is as logical as the working class guy who wants less income distribution as both believe their respective ideologies (whether libertarian, socialist, or whatever) lead to a more overall prosperous society.

It's as fair to call a rich socialist a product of social engineering as it is to call a poor libertarian one.

When there is a will, there is a way. — ssu

Then go earn your billions.

If their influence is impenetrable, then we can't pass laws increasing their tax burden either.