Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
One of my biggest complaints these days is that you can't say anything no matter how basically factual without someone jumping in and arguing about it. If you say the sky is blue nowadays or the ocean is wet, someone in America will want to argue about it. There is no common ground to talk about anything any longer without being absolutely sure of with whom you are speaking ahead of doing so. Apparently, Bill Maher sees the same problem...
Like most Americans, I’ll always remember what I was doing at the moment I heard that Osama bin Laden had been killed. But unlike most Americans – or at least the ones on TV – I’m not going to tell you about it. Because, really, nobody gives a crap. Just once, I want somebody to tell Wolf Blitzer that, when some historic event happened, they were smearing peanut butter on their balls – as people do – and that will be the end of it. Well, maybe.
Worse than the people who volunteer too much information, though, are the ones who constantly demand more of it. The people who, no matter the quality or quantity of evidence presented to them, say it isn’t enough. We have “Truthers,” “Birthers” and “Schoolers,” each part of a larger category that I like to call “F**kers.” If they were wizards, their only spell would be casting doubt.
Whether it’s President Obama telling us that bin Laden is dead or a panel of scientists insisting that climate change is real, the response always seems to be “show me a picture” or “more study is needed.” Which is problematic, because Americans suck at studying.
Nevertheless, scientists continue to issue report after report on climate change, each one increasingly dire. This week, the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program sounded the alarm that – once again – ocean levels are rising way faster than anyone thought. And not just because we keep dumping bodies into it.
From MSNBC:
“As reflective ice and snow shrink, they expose ever bigger areas of darker water or soil. Those dark regions soak up ever more heat from the sun, in turn stoking a melt of the remaining ice and snow.”
That’s pretty straightforward. In fact, there’s even a term for it called the “snowball effect.” Which is ironic, because in this case it means that we’re running out of snowballs. It would be great if, for once, a prominent Republican looked at these facts and, instead of saying “I think this needs more study,” said, “I think I just crapped my pants – let’s fix this.”
But they don’t – and won’t. Because that’s what happens when you fancy yourself a “skeptic.” The Greek philosopher, Pyrrho (the O.G. of skepticism), argued that, “happiness comes from suspending judgment because certainty of knowledge is impossible.” He lived around 300 BC. If you still hold onto that philosophy today – when certainty of knowledge is possible – you’re not a skeptic. You’re an a#$h#$@.
Now where’d I put that peanut butter?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/05 19:07:21
"I hate movies where the men wear shorter skirts than the women." -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
"Elements of the past and the future combining to create something not quite as good as either." -- The Mighty Boosh
Check out Cinematic Titanic, the new movie riffing project from Joel Hodgson and the original cast of MST3K.
See my latest eBay auctions at this link.
"We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. You have our gratitude!" - Kentucky Fried Movie
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
Theres never a middle ground anymore, people are so polarised!
And as you/the article says people lovvveee to cast doubt/argue....
I think as the above poster says it can be due to idleness, it can also be due to ignorance..but most of the time especially online its due to ego-inflation/bringing someone else down and "I am cleverererer than you" syndrome.
Bakerofish wrote:
its hard work proving something and it takes seconds to cast doubt
There is truth in this, but its also worth remembering that a lot of people work really hard at things and still come up wanting when it comes to proof, and yet continue to believe they have proven something simply because they worked hard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/05 20:31:31
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Well I don't know what to believe about climate changes, but the first half is dead on.
If they were wizards, their only spell would be casting doubt.
Yeah that pretty much sums up a lot of people. They ask for proof and when you give it to them they say it is photo shopped or has been falsified. Why even bother giving them proof, when they are going to believe that the proof is fake?
Middle ground was the first area wiped off the map in the pundit wars... all the better for their arguments, for now it was only their side vs the other.
Something something politics something something uncomfortable analogue to sports teams in America.
-----
Asking for photo evidence is just hilarious, because if the 'deathers' had photo evidence, they'd want video evidence, if they had video evidence, they'd want live witness testimony, if they had live witness testimony, they'd want OBL to come back as an undead specter and spell it out for them that he was, indeed, very dead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/05 20:47:27
Bakerofish wrote:
its hard work proving something and it takes seconds to cast doubt
There is truth in this, but its also worth remembering that a lot of people work really hard at things and still come up wanting when it comes to proof, and yet continue to believe they have proven something simply because they worked hard.
yep. hence why i said skepticism is necessary. but skepticism with basis. skepticism with the work done or based on facts.
Hey, I just met you,
and this is crazy,
but I'm a demon,
possess you, maybe?
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
Bakerofish wrote:
its hard work proving something and it takes seconds to cast doubt
There is truth in this, but its also worth remembering that a lot of people work really hard at things and still come up wanting when it comes to proof, and yet continue to believe they have proven something simply because they worked hard.
I thought about this for a long time and really considered it, than decided you must be wrong.
Ugh, Bill Maher. If you want better skeptics who are still a bit prickish but not total donkey-caves just watch Penn and Teller's show.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that you have to correct them every time.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
i was replying to shumas comment about "Criminal" being subjective
When used in its adjective form as it is used to describe crook (in your definition) then yes. It is. Nouns aren't really immune from being subjective, it's just rarer in english writing then it is in speech.
Criminal is subjective. You gotta go down the chain braugh.
Ok,let's try this again..
What is it about Maher that would lead you to imply he's a greedy crook?
...I'm honestly curious .
Absolutely nothing. I dislike his comedy, his stage persona, the things he makes money on, and somewhat generally his fan base. The man makes money (a lot of it) by mocking others in a serious and uncomedic fashion. I dislike penn and teller for the same reason though they are rarely as vocal or douchey as Maher is in the public eye. I use greedy and crook both to comment on the method and content of his career. He makes money by taking low blows and absorbing ignorant left wing praise. In other news I also dislike Bill O'Rielly.
I don't know the man and I am not privy to his finances so I can't legitimately claim that he is either a law breaking criminal or some sort of money devouring soulless wino. I like to dream though.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/05/05 23:10:16
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
