The DnD Sanctuary

General => DnD Central => Topic started by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-30, 06:19:27

Title: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-30, 06:19:27
I was just "surfing" channels when I found Conan O'Brien's monologue in progress…

His joke was about the recent NASA conjecture of there being flowing water on Mars. He (Conan) said that Rush Limbaugh had commented that a hydrogen atom bringing two oxygen atoms together seemed "somewhat gay"!
I don't know what Rush said. But I do know —pretty well— that neither Conan nor his writers were aware that H2O is the chemical formula for one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, which comprise a molecule of water.
He knows his audience well!

But Liberals are presumed to be smart and knowledgeable about science-y stuff! :) (And late-night TV talk show hosts are presumed to be Liberals… :) ) So.
What gives?

Do we need to re-visit what engenders or supports stupidity? :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-30, 07:56:50
You're slipping. That was almost Howian in its vagueness. I found (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/29/what_i_really_think_about_mars) the transcript of Limbaugh's show.  From Rush's remarks, it's clear stupidity is taught.

Quote
Anyway, NASA's been converted to Muslim outreach. 
:faint: :die:

Quote
But if there is, it is automatic that it's much more advanced than we are.  Whatever life forms are out there are smarter than we are.
Now if he find any scientist to actually make that claim. And he adds to his ignorance by talking about pyramids on Mars. There were some New Age types that there was face carved into the planet's surface and maybe pyramids based on old low-res images. Modern imaging revealed those to mountains, of course. He seems to confuse New Age mumbo-jumbo with Liberalism and adds to his confusion by equating that with science. I personally know a politically conservative man who used to work with petroleum industry that's as New Age as you can get. Kooky beliefs have nothing to with your politics. But people like Rush make a lot of assumptions, fact and experience-free. Oh yeah, the theory that Mars once had an ocean is part of climate change agenda. One hundred percent Grade-A stupidity taught to his listeners.

Or perhaps it's not stupidity. It's being caught in the trap that everything's political. NASA says Mars had catastrophic climate change, therefore it must be a conspiracy to push through climate legislation or something 

Oh yeah, he says this silliness:

Quote from: Rush
My point is just because you discovered water on Mars does not mean there's life there.


Nobody is saying there actually is.

As evidence that Rush could cause stupidity, there's a caller that claims Mars couldn't have had a catastrophic event because it doesn't have an iron core. In fact, it's Earth's magnetism that prevents catastrophic events originating from the sun from reaching Earth. But there's the cause/effect situation going on. Did the caller listen to Rush because he was stupid to begin with or did the show make him stupid?  

Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-30, 08:50:08
You must have ducked! (That is, my question went over your head — even though you say you read Limbaugh's transcripts. I did, too, by the way…) The "H-two O" joke/reading that Conan used was merely a fantasy borne of either a persecution complex or an abysmally bad elementary/secondary education or a typical post-secondary education.
Based upon your reaction, I'd say the last is the more likely.

Limbaugh made no "gay" joke… Conan (or his writers) did; and they were (whichever or all) too stupid to realize that someone might check!
As evidence that Rush could cause stupidity, there's a caller that claims Mars couldn't have had a catastrophic event because it doesn't have an iron core.
There's a reason I dismiss your bone fides, Sang: If there were no inhabitants on Mars, the word "catastrophe" is inappropriate… Indeed, that was the point of Limbaugh's caller — and he merely agreed; as do I. What -beyond a bizarre mathematical concept!?- warrants using the term?
Of course, the terminology given out by NASA makes one think of AGW and all its impending perils!

You've forgotten the directive (and the pronouncement by the agency's director…) at the ascendance of BHO about NASA's "new" direction, its "new" focus: see here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/).
Quote

   Published July 05, 2010FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/)    Facebook34438 Twitter1351 livefyre1 Email Print     (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FPolitics%2F876%2F493%2Fbolden_charles.jpg%3Fve%3D1%26amp%3Btl%3D1&hash=428d24a047983ba7341ca02667efd0a5" rel="cached" data-hash="428d24a047983ba7341ca02667efd0a5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/876/493/bolden_charles.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)  Shown here is NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. (YouTube)
   NASA (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/space/nasa.htm#r_src=ramp) Administrator Charles Bolden (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/charles-bolden.htm#r_src=ramp) said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.
Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/07/201071122234471970.html) that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp) assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.
"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.
You know what, Sang?
You've proved my point! Thanks.

This is worth responding to:
As evidence that Rush could cause stupidity, there's a caller that claims Mars couldn't have had a catastrophic event because it doesn't have an iron core. In fact, it's Earth's magnetism that prevents catastrophic events originating from the sun from reaching Earth.
Earth's magnetism results from its iron core… If words like "catastrophic" and "cataclysmic" are so unfamiliar to you, perhaps you shouldn't use them. (NASA: I'd give you the same advice! :) ) But, Sang, I'd ask you a few simple questions — but I'll only pose one now:
How would you describe the event(s) that separated Pangaea into our familiar continents? :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: ersi on 2015-09-30, 09:27:03
Given your example, the question is more like Is misspelling taught?

As to Rush Limbaugh, he is your guy, Oakdale.
Quote from: Rush Limbaugh

My only point here is -- and this is inarguable, as far as I'm concerned. There's nobody that could change my mind on this.  And it's not because my mind is closed; it's because I'm right, and it is this.  Whenever you have a scientist talking about a "catastrophic event" on Mars brought about -- "likely brought about" -- by climate change, that's all I need to hear to tell me we have somebody who is either actively involved or has himself been co-opted and is unaware of it by a leftist agenda that is related to the effort to push this whole notion of man-made climate change on earth.

Thanks for the transcript, Raccoon.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-30, 10:10:25
Limbaugh made no "gay" joke… Conan (or his writers) did; and they were (whichever or all) too stupid to realize that someone might check!

:faint:  I have to put this to you simply and in short sentences. Conan is comedian. Comedians make jokes. He make a Rush joke.

And no, NASA has not been converted to Muslim outreach. Your Foxnews links resulted in Fox's 404 error page. Maybe Fox took down the articles in a rare moment of shame over its misinformation? Within 2 minutes of Al Jazeera videos you can find out what really happened Bolden is trying to get the Muslim nations to contribute to the efforts :p The Right is too busy being offended by anything and everything to know what's really going on.

Yup. Ersi. That's what Rush had the ignorance to say, despite the fact that nobody would even suggest that any past Martian climate change would have anything to with humans.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: string on 2015-09-30, 17:48:20
A nice subject for a thread, though I struggle to know what you guys are arguing about. :)

H2O - Maybe he thought that means one hydrogen atom and two (gay) oxygen atoms - takes all sorts. So was that stupidity or ignorance, was it taught or never taught one way or the other.

If all stupid people are taught to be stupid does that mean that all uneducated people are not, by definition, stupid.

Given (!) that all religions are stupid, or at least the one you don't subscribe to, is that stupidity taught at church, by a light bulb or original sin?

Enjoyable - to this stupid observer!
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-09-30, 18:27:42
It seems he confused "gay" with "polygamous".
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: jax on 2015-09-30, 19:59:07
Scientists: Earth endangered by new strain of fact resistant humans (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans)

Quote
MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-30, 21:36:42
Your Foxnews links resulted in Fox's 404 error page.
The problem's at your end, Sang… The link to the article, and it's link to al Jazerra's videos, are intact. You must be referring to the "definitional" links — to such terms as "NASA", "Charles Bolden", "President Obama", "Middle East", "United States" and such. It's not unusual for news stories to have such links, originally; or for them to "go dead" after five years… (But I usually strip them out, myself, when I post quotes; ditto with numbered references, unless I include the actual reference. An obvious example of this would be anything from Wikipedia…) That said:
Maybe Fox took down the articles in a rare moment of shame over its misinformation?
Your ability to jump to erroneous conclusions (when they suit your prejudices) remains unimpeded! :) (see Jax's post (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1525.msg46678#msg46678)… :) )
I have to put this to you simply and in short sentences. Conan is comedian. Comedians make jokes. He make a Rush joke.
And yet how many people do you know who'd believe it wasn't a joke? :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-09-30, 22:14:50
To me, two hidrogen atoms together seems as gay as two oxigen ones...
Finally someone exposes the chemistry gay lobby. I always had my suspictions about that periodic table.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-01, 01:35:38
And yet how many people do you know who'd believe it wasn't a joke?  :)

Zero. I tried to locate a video of Conan saying that (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conan+o%27brien+rush+limbaugh+gay+hydrogen+atoms), but came up empty. I directly searched Youtube after Google came up empty. And I'm not bothered to dig any deeper because nobody expects a comedian's monologue to be completely factual because it's expected to be jokes.  You know that thing about comedians making jokes....
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-01, 02:21:16
You know that thing about comedians making jokes....
Yeah. It's like Liberals believing anything that they think they can use, to promote their agenda… :)
Do you still claim that FoxNews took down the page I linked to? Are you mad at Limbaugh for making a "homophobic" joke? (You know what a joke is, don't you? It's like Conan and his writers assuming that anything they say about Limbaugh, and anything they attribute to him, will be accepted without question by their audience.
You jibe Rush for jibing NASA for deliberately misusing the word "catastrophe (https://www.google.com/search?q=catastrophe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=catastrophe+definition)" — but Rush is right!)

What happened was that some people heard that Mars had (has?) liquid water, but that it doesn't have much now — due to an "ecological disaster"! You can easily draw the same conclusions obviously meant to be implied:
Life on Mars is either gone or never got going, because the climate changed… We human inhabitants of Earth are changing the climate of our planet. Hence, if we don't stop doing what we're doing, Earth will become a dead planet, like Mars.
(You do see where and why such reasoning is wrong, don't you?)

Some simple questions occur to me:
When did Mars have oceans? What evidence have we for such? Was there life, then? What evidence of such have we found?
Just one more (I know your attention-span! :) ): How does any of this information and speculation support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change?

As Rush said -long ago- words matter!

p.s.,
So do motives…
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-01, 12:45:11
H2O - Maybe he thought that means one hydrogen atom and two (gay) oxygen atoms - takes all sorts. So was that stupidity or ignorance, was it taught or never taught one way or the other.

It's just as likely to be a simple misspeaking. I can hardly be the only person who's accidentally said one thing while he meant the other. Of course we can hold professional speakers like presenters, politicians and comedians to a slightly higher standard, but the way some people reject later clarifications of what was meant can take ludicrous forms.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: string on 2015-10-01, 19:59:10
... Or maybe he's  dyslexic.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-10-01, 20:32:10
:lol:
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-01, 22:18:42
Some simple questions occur to me:

Oakdale's going already in Mars to deny Earth's climate changing. Good, you just have five more to go... (and that considering Pluto as planet, as it always was.)
It will end soon, finally.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-02, 06:25:40
Oakdale's going already in Mars to deny Earth's climate changing. Good, you just have five more to go...
It somehow hasn't occurred to Bel that "climate change" is something that doesn't require human intervention… And he won't explain why it has to, except for his politics… :)
Guess what, Belfrager: Your Pope and a lot of the silliest scientists will -ahem!- have to deal with reality, eventually.

The history of the earth and its climate is fairly-well known. Those who take it to be their job, to alter such — for a political agenda — have a hard row to hoe! (But they can give a lot of money; and get a lot of money…) What I mean is quite simple: The science of Climate Change is going to be, willy-nil-he, determined beyond the reasonable doubt that even the Skeptics have asked for…

Oops! I was originally talking about "stupidity" and whether or not it's taught… :) (Of course, it is! People need to belong to a group. They'll believe whatever they're told what that group believes. And they'll do like someone I won't mention by name berate anyone who disagrees with their tenants…

Might I suggest, that if you can't follow the game unless you have a program (a list of the players…), you don't know the game? :)

Add your own parens! :) wherever you think this should have ended!
My suggestion: "Re:)" :) (We all know what the simple lack of a space-character can do…)

Bye, for now.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-10-02, 19:03:50
Belfrager. It takes oakdale an effort to get his backside off a chair, shiuft the books bocking the door to get out and mix with the world so no chance of him getting to Mars.  :D
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-02, 23:17:00
Guess what, Belfrager: Your Pope and a lot of the silliest scientists will -ahem!- have to deal with reality, eventually.

You're really asking for me to post again the list I've already posted...
Bye, for now.

Yes, take a rest, you're needing it. :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-03, 08:52:59
You're really asking for me to post again the list I've already posted...
No.
But I am asking if you still maintain that Truth is arrived at by voting?! :) (Or "official" pronouncement by fraternal organizations?)

Does God exist? Gee, I don't know: Let's ask around… In fact, let's ask all those groups on that long list you copy/posted, Bel! And let's take their "consensus" opinion.
What have you got to lose? :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-03, 10:50:57

You're really asking for me to post again the list I've already posted...
No.
But I am asking if you still maintain that Truth is arrived at by voting?!

Truth? aren't we speaking about scientific consensus? Scientific consensus is arrived at by... consensus, as in a thousand names list of world leading institutions at the area of climatic and ecologic fields. Right?

I don't believe you confuse science with truth so why don't you stop insisting to be a reediction of Galileu of the modern times? At science, the truth is always provisory until someone demonstrates it to be wrong.
You're not being such person Oakdale. :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2015-10-03, 11:17:37
Neither are you, Bel. Science asks questions. Science sometimes doubts the idea that "consensus" is right. Science DOESN'T try to get skeptics charged under RICO laws-- as has recently happened here in the states-- because the skeptics actually DARE to not believe the "consensus".

Science actually observes things. When what a person observes and what "consensus" tells him turn out to be two different things---well, there's a problem.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-03, 11:49:12
Science asks questions.
[...]
Science actually observes things.

Aren't you forgetting about "explaining things"? :)

The very basic principle postulate in science is that an action always causes a reaction. The observed reaction is climatic and environmental changes so science goes on trying to find the action that causes it. This is the problem we've been talking about.

Now, at the first stage of such search for explanations (causes) many hypothesis, as many as human imagination can get, can be placed, human activity being one of them.
The second phase is about a work, simultaneously made by hundreds or thousands of people (scientists), all around the globe, following the scientific method approach, to determine which hypothesis is more fit to explain the observed phenomena.

When 99% of such works points at one direction and only one, than, my friends, that's called scientific knowledge.

What happens with climatic change denialists is that they don't even are a part of the above process, they simply refuses to consider reality, to observe the reaction, even much less to consider the cause.

Their role is not being interested at a common cause but only to play the industry game they believe to be what makes the world to advance. If it gets detroyed in the process, not their problem...
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: string on 2015-10-03, 14:05:16
Quote from: OakdaleFTL
It somehow hasn't occurred to Bel that "climate change" is something that doesn't require human intervention…


Nor, according to some apparently, does pregnancy.

But it helps.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-03, 15:54:13
But I am asking if you still maintain that Truth is arrived at by voting?!

Is that really what you think scientific consensus means? Really? You can't be fucking serious. Now when 97 percent of a scientists in their given fields run tests and experiments independently of each other and come to the same conclusions, and you know how scientists bicker with each other, their might well be something to. I read a couple days ago that the GOP lags behind even other conservative parties around the world in accepting that this time the climate change is caused by human activities (and it's still down what a "greenhouse" gas can be expected to do.) There's nothing genuinely conservative about denying what apparently the whole world knows, except for the GOP.

Meanwhile, none of this changes that Conan told a Rush joke and that Rush indeed said idiotic things. Water and a past climate changes on Mars is pushing a climate agenda on Earth? Is he back on drugs? Anybody got a list of substances that paranoia?
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-04, 02:03:10

Quote from: OakdaleFTL
It somehow hasn't occurred to Bel that "climate change" is something that doesn't require human intervention…

Nor, according to some apparently, does pregnancy.
But it helps.
On that question, I remain both agnostic and (…the main reason for my agnosticism) uninterested. (Also, I've always liked the helping part, myself. :devil:
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Is that really what you think scientific consensus means? Really? You can't be fucking serious. Now when 97 percent of a scientists in their given fields run tests and experiments independently of each other and come to the same conclusions, and you know how scientists bicker with each other, their might well be something to.
I can read your word-salad, Sang, and so can respond to what you meant:
Starting with Oreskes and going on through Cook and Lewandowsky's repeated attempts, I've read their papers and analyzed their methodologies… Their claims are not supported by their work.
(You have said sociology and psychology are areas where you have some expertise: When I asked you to look at Lewandowsky's work, you demurred. I don't blame you: It's not just shoddy; its dishonest. But you still don't care about that! Because it seems to support something you're committed to, eh? Some people might call that "motivated reasoning"… :) )

Yes, Sang, I'm fucking serious: The so-called 97% consensus is bogus; the so-called "science" that proclaimed it is unworthy of the name.
But climatology does continue, as a science! Unfortunately, so does the IPCC's politicized agenda…as a political force!
You'll forgive me, if I prefer the former to the latter? :)

Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-10-05, 00:58:33
Wooooh, language chum, language. Tut, tut.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-05, 19:55:04
Wooooh, language chum, language. Tut, tut.
Merely replying in kind, RJ… Hm. I don't recall you tut-tutting our Midnight Raccoon. :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-10-05, 22:49:00
After two pages of "discussions" I wonder who's stupidity are we talking about....
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: rjhowie on 2015-10-06, 01:33:25
Replying in kind Oaky? I have never ever used such language here and as for your pal he is of no importance no matter what he calls himself. For people who claim such a wonderful language and English contribution it shows desperation when that kind of disgusting stuff appears.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-06, 01:33:58
Oh, everybody's, Bel… :) Feel free!

@RJ: Let us just say that the young often lack the vocabulary to express themselves, without frequent resort to the crudest bits of language… Myself, I feel akin to Jerome Howard, who -when the judge intervened in an attempt to administer the witness oath to him- was asked "Do you swear — ," responded:
"Certainly not! But I know all the words… :)"

And, in some circumstances, the crudest bits of language are apt. Else, we wouldn't all know the words, eh?

If I remember correctly, H. Ross Perot resigned his Navy commission — because the other sailors talked too roughly! I know that there are such people in the world. But they're laughable.
I'd advise you not to get your panties in a twist, sir! (Or, else, hie thee to a nunnery! :) )
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-06, 10:17:11
Starting with Oreskes

You are aware that Peiser redacted his rebuttal to Oreskes because the man himself realized it was full of errors, counting articles and papers that didn't reject the consensus at all. Why take my word for his when you can take his (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm):

Quote
Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.


And yet the survey that he publicly acknowledged was wrong in it's claims against the scientific consensus of AGW continues to make its rounds in the American Right circles. Why is that? Is deliberate misinformation or stupidity at work here? I suspect it begins with the former. Oreskes wasn't the only survey confirming the consensus by any stretch. No, the truth isn't arrived at by a vote. But that's not how it happened.  (Peiser continues to be a climate change skeptic. But he's also not a climatologist. He's a social anthropologist. Get it? He lacks the expertise in the field of the people he tries rebut.)

At this point, dismissing human activity from climate change is ludicrous. Other hypotheses have been tried (increased solar activity, oops solar activity has actually decreased for example) and they couldn't withstand peer review. The other favorite is "There's been climate change in the past. It always does." Yes. BUT every climate change has had a different cause. This time it happens to increased levels of a greenhouse gas, whose primary emitter is human beings.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-06, 22:18:24
Sang, you still don't get what I'm saying… Let me make it impossible to misunderstand: The methodology of sampling abstracts (or any other sampling of key words and such) is misguided pseudo-science. And any other measure of consensus is still just that: A step back from the science, to the social (and political!) aspects of scientific culture — and, specifically, the social construction of reality.
I know (don't I? :) ) that you believe such to also be science…but I don't.
Peiser continues to be a climate change skeptic. But he's also not a climatologist. He's a social anthropologist. Get it? He lacks the expertise in the field of the people he tries rebut.
You also should know that Oreskes is a historian and also not a climatologist… :) The game of arguing whose surveys are better is futile, but sometimes fun! (For instance, Lewandowsky's two most famous ones about mediated reasoning. BTW, he's a psychologist — also not a climatologist! They should have been rejected purely on the basis of poor methodology…) So, yes I "get it"; it seems to me that you don't.

At this point, dismissing human activity from climate change is ludicrous.
Such has always been silly: Of course, human activity has effects on the climate! It's the bait-and-switch to CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) as potentially catastrophic drivers of the climate "system" that remains un-supported by settled science…
Which (hint, hint) means that there is controversy.

One other point: I'm glad you agree with me — that this thread is a better place to discuss this topic, the way you want to! :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-07, 01:46:47
The only thing that's unsettled is how much humans are impacting the climate and exactly what those impacts are. As noted above Peiser himself noted there is a consensus that human emitted CO2 is causing climate change. Now another word on Oreskes. You understand that her work was a survey, not scientific study, right? And the difference between the two? I have to ask this because I see conservative blogs that don't seem to understand this. That being said scientific papers able to refute AGW are all but non-existent. In what way is this a bait and switch? Humans greatly increase the amount of gas known to cause climate change in sufficient quantities, and the climate changes. It's that cut and dry.

Now the challenge is to reduce those emissions while not reducing the human standard of living. Visionaries such Elon Musk are working on. Again, not because of Leftist agenda, but because there's money to made. Your style of Republican is old school and limited in its thinking that everything's about politics and those politics have to be Left or Right. Note that it's very probable that humans evolved from apes? You must be a Leftist. Knowledge that AGW seems to be true? Ditto. It doesn't even occur to you how silly conflating science and politics is.  Meanwhile the rest the world has passed you by.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Sparta on 2015-10-07, 02:09:31
Quote
humans evolved from apes


the one with that kind of paradigm  for sure is right winger conservative .
apes and human is different species , even in the same ordo .

there is no evidence ,   Apes   evolved into another species such as Human .

there is only evidences , some species faced extinction  .
thus some people made a conclusion , they cannot adapt, nor cannot survived from  natural selection .


btw , dont believe every scientific progress , earth age is still 6000 years .

Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Sparta on 2015-10-07, 02:20:58
Quote
Do we need to re-visit what engenders or supports stupidity? 


when someone try to make a joke , i thought we should laugh or something ... if it is funny

otherwise , perhaps  that was  a failed satire , nor corny ...

onthe other hand ..
Quote
Is stupidity taught?


i think stupidity is tradition .
just like bacteria ..

it is inherited times by times , from generation to generation .


Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 02:43:13
The only thing that's unsettled is how much humans are impacting the climate and exactly what those impacts are.
The only thing? :)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: We know he's guilty! Of course, he may not be guilty of this particular crime; indeed, it may only be Original Sin… But you should convict him!"
Now another word on Oreskes. You understand that her work was a survey, not scientific study, right? And the difference between the two? I have to ask this because I see conservative blogs that don't seem to understand this.
Please stop reading conservative (or liberal) blogs, to get your take on recent science, Sang! That's just plain silly…
(How, btw, does Oreskes "frame" her findings?! :) Feel free to offer quotes from her work.)
That being said scientific papers able to refute AGW are all but non-existent.
Since the modeled climate has failed to materialize, and the models are pretty much all that supports catastrophic AGW, you'd think that refutation enough… (If you were concerned with the science.) But not in the fields you claim expertise! :) (There's your "bait-and-switch, btw: Are the human-caused effects on the climate small, medium or large? Local, regional or global? Are the causes well-understood? The AGW crowd has answers for all these questions, ad hoc… But not convincing ones, unless you're a True Believer!)
In what way is this a bait and switch? Humans greatly increase the amount of gas known to cause climate change in sufficient quantities, and the climate changes. It's that cut and dry.
When you say "known" you actually mean hypothesized… The reason I say this is because these gasses have not abated; they have increased considerably, by human agency. Yet the climate has not warmed apace, and other predicted effects have not shown themselves. You have the IPCC and many scientists committed to the GCMs, which have obviously failed… And anyone who wants to find out why is labeled a "denier"!
(You and I both know that this "denier" is a synonym for "heretic" — and such a term stems from an obvious history. Would you embrace it? Somehow, I think not…)
But you talk about refuting papers!? Observation has refuted the position you like: Man's impact on "the climate" via the exploitation of fossil fuels must be curtailed! Because SCIENCE! And when the actual science fails to support your position you revert to quasi-religious or overtly political propaganda.
Now the challenge is to reduce those emissions […]
That's exactly what the IPCC's charter used, to focus its "understanding" of climate change! A Mission Statement… :)
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say? :) - obvious drawbacks? :)
It doesn't even occur to you how silly conflating science and politics is.
…:) It escapes you, that pointing out when others do so is a service — to those interested in the science?
———————————————————————————————————————
Yeah! I'm pretty sure I know the difference between a survey and a scientific study of the climate. Which makes me wonder why you were so impressed by the surveys!? :)

@Sparta: The evidence of "common descent" is pretty convincing… And the geological and cosmological underpinning of the arguments for an Earth that is in the neighborhood of 4 billion years old are, likewise, pretty convincing.
But I can't see why anyone who isn't a specialist would need to agree!
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-07, 08:53:52
Since the modeled climate has failed to materialize, and the models are pretty much all that supports catastrophic AGW

And yet few (if any) predicate immediate disaster in the first place. Also you claim the climate change models failed to materialize. In fact, many models did overstate global temperature increase by failing to factor in natural variability such as El Nino and reduced solar output. Despite this, the models were accurate in the average global temperature would continue to rise - even though by those natural trends we should actually be in a cooling phase. I'm unable to convince you, so I challenge you to stop with the politics and go to politically neutral sites and learn for yourself
That's exactly what the IPCC's charter used, to focus its "understanding" of climate change! A Mission Statement…  :)
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say?  :)  - obvious drawbacks?  :)

"Drawbacks" such as thousands of jobs in Musk's Gigafactory that he's building in Nevada? Oh how horrible! :p We're down here creating jobs, while you GOPers blow hot air, so to speak. Catch up or face the fate of the rest of the dinosaurs, old man.

Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 09:43:36
Sang, this old man frequently refers to politically neutral sites… (Do you think Judith Curry and Roger Pilke, Jr. are right-wing ideologues? :) ) Cook, Lewandowsky and (unfortunately…) Gavin Schmidt seem to have gladly swallowed the Blue Pill.
Read Belfrager's list again, and ask yourself: Did the actual scientists who are members of these organizations vote to determine the position they took? (That should be enough to demolish the "consensus" contention…) Is the Union of Concerned Scientists a group of scientists? Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science a group of scientists? You're not that naive!
Musk is welcome to make as much money as he can! Anyone else who creates new technology or finds better uses for older technology, the same. I certainly wouldn't stop them… Us GOPers? You mean the people who oppose open-ended government subsidies for marginal technologies, I take it.
But I'm wrong, I know: You mean anyone who hasn't gulped the Blue Pill. (I'd wondered where those political map colors came from… :) ) Do you drive a $100,000 electric car? :)
Would you like to insist everyone do so? I suspect you would: Reality is a foreign concept to you; political will and public funding are what make things happen, in your world!
(Nevada got the battery factory because California's politicians weren't willing to give Musk the tax breaks he wanted/needed… You were and are aware of this. Such machinations are usually targets of your animosity for capitalism and states' "race to the bottom"… At least, you've repeatedly said so.)

So (to obviate your confusion, and mine) answer a simple question:

Does the world need a supra-national governmental authority to curtail its use of fossil fuels?

And, if so, why?

(While you're thinking how to answer, you might read this (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.long)! And enjoy it: PNAS articles usually cost $$… :) I'd thought we were reading Longhurst's book together…)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-07, 16:32:21
Would you like to insist everyone do so? I suspect you would: Reality is a foreign concept to you; political will and public funding are what make things happen, in your world!

Are you ever gonna respond to what I actually post or just continue to invent ludicrous positions for me that don't even come close to resembling anything I said? Every? No? Fine, I quit. 
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-07, 20:30:25
Fine, I quit.
What, again? :)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say?  :)  - obvious drawbacks?
"Drawbacks" such as thousands of jobs in Musk's Gigafactory that he's building in Nevada? Oh how horrible! :p We're down here creating jobs, while you GOPers blow hot air, so to speak. Catch up or face the fate of the rest of the dinosaurs, old man.

And you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, or misunderstanding what you've posted? :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-27, 04:16:13
Another aspect of this is stuff like the Flesch-Kincaid readability test… See this "calling out" of such nonsense (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21847).

I'll try again (for Sang… I assume everyone else knows that science is different from theology, in methods! :) ) "Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say?  (https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/myopera/smile.gif)  - obvious drawbacks?" I said…
The major one is that, if your conclusion is predetermined, nothing you discover via evidence or insight will matter — unless it supports that conclusion.
But what if that conclusion is wrong?
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-10-27, 10:39:11
I thought falsifiability was the answer.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-10-27, 19:28:27
No, stupidity isn't taught, but teaching helps.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffrancis.naukas.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F07%2FDibujo20150707-cartoon-rich-tennant-string-theory-for-dummies-zimmerman-wiley.png&hash=bc8f65b1226dec3c828a7024db5777b1" rel="cached" data-hash="bc8f65b1226dec3c828a7024db5777b1" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://francis.naukas.com/files/2015/07/Dibujo20150707-cartoon-rich-tennant-string-theory-for-dummies-zimmerman-wiley.png)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-01, 10:05:25
But! If you like such linguistic analysis… Here's an example from the other end:
Quote
The climate summary findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are becoming increasingly unreadable, a linguistics analysis suggests.                                                            IPCC summaries are intended for non-scientific audiences. Yet their readability has dropped over the past two decades, and reached a low point with the fifth and latest summary published in 2014, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change1 (http://www.nature.com/news/un-climate-reports-are-increasingly-unreadable-1.18543#b1).
(The link for the footnote is live, as is that for the paper — which is open access. Have fun! :) )
My take: The reason the language has become more "obtuse" is to facilitate wiggle-room for policy makers… You know: When they have to explain to the "great unwashed"…

Of course, your mileage may vary. :)
————————————————————————
Y'all know, I'm not keen on this sort of "research" — right!? But this article (the paper referenced…) is worth reading, for anyone interested in AGW/CAGW debates.
(It's quite short… Not Oreskes-short, but close! :) )
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-01, 10:24:44
Quote
The study used the Flesch Reading Ease test, which assumes that texts with longer sentences and more complex words are harder to read.

Me Tarzan, you Jane. 
:faint:
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-11-01, 10:46:59
Him Cheetah.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-01, 11:39:52
The Peanut Gallery responds… (Nothing better to do? :) You might have read the… Nah! Don't be silly!)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-01, 13:13:57
You might have read the… Nah! Don't be silly!

Forget Sumeria, writing was invented in North America. Many moons ago by Big Chief Sitting Writer.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-02, 04:49:22
You comment on papers you haven't read, regarding subjects upon which you show yourself to be ignorant; and excuse your flippancy by noting (…an insupportable contention) that someone merely in your neighborhood (give or take a few thousand miles! :) ) invented writing?
Please tell me how the Chinese and Indians were "instructed"!

Of course (one needs to add, for the traditionally schooled Portuguese — and other Continentals, too? :) ) I meant reading the paper (and its criticism) in question. But, as I surmised, that's too much trouble to go to… That's not what "superior" intellects do! :)
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Yet more social science: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-11-02, 11:11:09

The Peanut Gallery responds… (Nothing better to do? :) You might have read the… Nah! Don't be silly!)

How do you spell asswipe?
O-a-k-......
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-02, 23:12:51
You comment on papers you haven't read, regarding subjects upon which you show yourself to be ignorant;

Don't be ridiculous. It doesn't help your position.
Please tell me how the Chinese and Indians were "instructed"!

They weren't. As you aren't.

I understand your effort on your thread's topic - stupidity, but please, you don't need to exaggerate.
Feel free to be a bit less on topic... :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-11-03, 20:36:31
I don't know what Rush said. But I do know —pretty well— that neither Conan nor his writers were aware that H2O is the chemical formula for one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, which comprise a molecule of water.

As president of The Harvard Lampoon while attending Harvard University, let me guess that Conan knows about the composition of water. He might not know off the top of his head what the composition of formic acid is. Or what the formula of sn-Glycero-3-phosphocholine 1:1 cadmium chloride adduct is. I don't. But water? Really!

Let me be quick to add that I'm no fan of late night shows.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-04, 06:09:06
I don't know what Rush said. But I do know —pretty well— that neither Conan nor his writers were aware that H2O is the chemical formula for one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, which comprise a molecule of water.
I appreciate that you prefer history (albeit, not objective history… :) ) and literature grads to scientists… :) (Please don't be so silly as to think I'm criticizing Conan… Although, if you want to be that stupid: Be my guest!)
Conan has an audience, and a bullpen of writers — and they, most of them, toe the Liberal (Progressive?) line: They disagree with some people; hence, anything can be attributed to those people — in order to (1.) get a laugh and (2.) to perpetuate the "dumb" conservative meme. That's where they'll go: They know their audience.
Academia has gone far in that direction, too.

Did Faulkner know much about organic chemistry? (Was his use of children as characters in his novels important in determining his expertise on environmental issues?)

What I'd point out (…apparently, I need to make the point so explicit that even the tone-deaf can hear the music!) is that there's a Liberal mind-set which allows (not to say requires!) any conservative view to be skewered, by whatever means available.
If it's "made-up" (i.e., false; a lie…) that doesn't matter. As long as people have been "taught" to respond appropriately, that's enough: And that's what we have.
People laugh when Conan mentions Rush Limbaugh — who has a "problem" with so-called homophobia — well, that's enough for the "joke" to resonate. But the mind-set needs to be assumed. Rush is homophobic; so, Conan's audience knows that the lamest of jokes that lambastes Limbaugh -even though Limbaugh said nothing like that- for connecting CAGW with homophobia is — funny!
And it is…
Yet the mind-set remains hidden, to those who hold it.
CAGW is also a tenet of Libralism; hence, Limbaugh must also be anti-gay if he disputes CAGW. QED (Liberal edition).

Humor is, of course (…you doubt it?) situational, something that exists in the mind-set of generations, ours and our predecessors, our progenitors…
Who have made our pre-conceptions, I ask?

But I'd prefer to talk about science. What has happened to our most reasonable and rational means of understanding the world we live in, when people are taught to ridicule those with whom we disagree?
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-04, 18:12:03
Oakdale. but what about the stupid shit Rush himself says that as often as not turns to flat out untrue? You talk about toeing the liberal line, but what about the reactionary one - I'm loath to even call people like Rush conservative since they're not actually conserving anything.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-04, 19:06:37
CAGW is also a tenet of Libralism; hence, Limbaugh must also be anti-gay if he disputes CAGW. QED (Liberal edition)

Or the fact that he has made blatantly homophobic statements. Doesn't occur to you that conservatives also have similar mindset. If a person is pro-equal marriage, he must also be in favor high taxes and massive regulation. You've actually done that to me many times and thus accused me of having positions I never once espoused. This is a stunning lack of self-awareness on your part. 
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-11-04, 21:13:59
This is a stunning lack of self-awareness on your part.

That's quintessential OakdaleFTL.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-06, 02:09:01
That's quintessential OakdaleFTL.

I'd say it's quintessential Republican. They claim to deplore PC, but than cry when you make a Rush joke based on his past racist, sexist, homophobic statements. This thread just provides that one example of a type of political correctness of the Right. In their minds, it's fine to say what you want about the LGBT, etc. But when you offer a retort, they scream "PC!" at the top of their lungs and even go so far as to say they're being silenced despite the fact they remain free to say what they want.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-06, 02:12:47
I'd say it's quintessential Republican.
Of course you would! :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-08, 21:37:11
Is stupidity taught?

Not at all, it spreads by contagion.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-09, 06:01:51
Quote
Julia Reda, a member of the European parliament, is sounding the alarm on new copyright legislation under development. She says the European Commission is considering copyright protection for hyperlinking. Reda says, "This idea flies in the face of both existing interpretation and spirit of the law as well as common sense. Each weblink would become a legal landmine and would allow press publishers to hold every single actor on the Internet liable." Under this scheme, simply linking to copyrighted material would be legally considered "providing access," and thus require explicit permission of the rightsholder. Reda warns that it could lead to legal expenses for anyone who shares links (read: everybody), and ultimately the fragmentation of the internet.
(from Slashdot…)
Link (https://juliareda.eu/2015/11/ancillary-copyright-2-0-the-european-commission-is-preparing-a-frontal-attack-on-the-hyperlink/) to Reda's site.

If it isn't taught, it's certainly pursued persistently by bureaucracies…
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-11-11, 09:19:51
Do the commissioners and the "copyright zombies" mentioned in the article not understand how many users would not even be aware of sites if they weren't linked to in some. In most cases, you want the free publicity even if the link isn't paid for. It's in everybody's interest to not pursue this legislation. The second post of the link the article offered by Oakdale offers technical solutions for publishers that don't wish their content shared. Don't allow other sites to plagiarize your content , but not allowing or making it difficult to do so betrays an ignorance of internet publicity and of the web in general. I would recommend to the commissioners find non-myopic backers.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Barulheira on 2015-11-11, 16:12:55
I'm naked on the street. But you shall not share pictures of me. Be warned.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2015-11-11, 22:21:02
Wold we like to see our posts on other forums as if posted by someone else?
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2015-11-12, 04:17:52
Yet another PSA (public service announcement… i.e., government-approved propaganda): America is probably the richest country in the world! But one in five six people (http://www.feedingamerica.org/assets/video/feeding-america-psa-with-ben-affleck.html) are (sometimes) "food challenged". The tag line seems to be, We're rich — so nobody should go hungry!
Should those of us who are well-off round up the mentally defective and "chemically" deranged, and force-feed them?
BUT! What about the children?! Perhaps the early Progressives were onto something: Don't let the mentally defective and "chemically" deranged procreate… :)

Folks: Nobody in the U.S. needs go hungry… We all know this; you, over-seas know it too. Yet our government seems to want to convince us otherwise. Why?
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Frenzie on 2015-11-12, 09:57:18
Should those of us who are well-off round up the mentally defective and "chemically" deranged, and force-feed them?

I can't be bothered to watch a video, let alone one with Ben Affleck, but you're making it sound as if one in six are anorexic or something. :P
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2015-11-12, 10:26:56

I'm naked on the street. But you shall not share pictures of me. Be warned.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fhelp017.gif&hash=403c16fb7d06733b13987ab0a4942d59" rel="cached" data-hash="403c16fb7d06733b13987ab0a4942d59" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/help017.gif)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-01-09, 22:18:20
Folks: Nobody in the U.S. needs go hungry… We all know this; you, over-seas know it too.

Oakdale gets high again...
I suppose with Mexican hallucinogenic mushrooms. Wonders from the Baja California...
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-01-10, 03:21:20
Actually, Bel, I remember the '60s! Mescaline was a reasonable substitute… (Better living through chemistry! :) ) And -of course- the marvelous LSD. But anyone with a lick of sense soon gives up on "expanded consciousness" — which, as Leary said, is only a prompt to "Turn on, tune in, and drop out!"
(Last I heard, his head was still being preserved — like anyone would need that! :) )
————————————————————————
I'm a little foggy on the order of that trio of imperatives: It might have been "Tune in, turn on, and drop out"… Leary was a mystic, and you know how they are!

What, I'd ask, is the reason the Portuguese have "dropped out"? :) My guess: ennui…
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-01-10, 11:28:46
But anyone with a lick of sense soon gives up on "expanded consciousness"

There's no wiser words.

Funny that I've just downloaded recently the complete discography of The Doors (of perception... :) )
(LA Woman being the first rock'n'roll record I had.)

There's not too many people these days still knowing about the counterculture of the 1960s, the Beatnik generation and so on.
As the French says, les beaux esprits se rencontrent.

Even in a thread about... stupidity. :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-01-11, 05:04:47
As the French says, les beaux esprits se rencontrent.
Ah, but did they say it before Voltaire did? :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-01-11, 18:06:47
Ah, but did they say it before Voltaire did?

Well, the man was French, so ....
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-01-11, 23:43:21
Ah, but did they say it before Voltaire did?  :)

before is a nice question by an American... ask the English, ask the French, ask the Spanish... three diferent answers for the same question, before you. :)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-01-12, 07:15:09
Okay: I think I've figured out why Howie is so pissed…! And why so many "Europeans" are…

They don't understand "after you"…
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-01-13, 23:47:18
No one has pacience for the American traumas. A problem for the English to deal with.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-01-14, 18:21:37
M<e being teed of Oakdale?! Considering the way your country is run one is hardly surprised there are so many folk there also teed off with things.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2016-01-14, 20:50:36
No one has pacience for the American traumas. A problem for the English to deal with.
As was Portugal a trauma for the EU. Happily, the EU came to the rescue on a white stallion with saddlebags full of Euros.

The Chinese do that for us, but in dollars. And now the Chinese economy is troubled.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-01-14, 23:22:47
As was Portugal a trauma for the EU. Happily, the EU came to the rescue on a white stallion with saddlebags full of Euros.

I suppose you only have access to some comic book version of history, probably by Marvel.
Let me guess, The Fantastic Four fights the Eurozone? Captain America rescues Portugal from German Nazi meteorites?
:zzz:
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-01-16, 16:44:06
When you see the political and economic state of the ex-colonies it is hardly a very sound foundation to criticise a small nation in Europe. The place does have a long history including across the world. In summation I only have one very disappointing needle with Portugal which at the same time does not contradict my comment here.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Echosyn on 2022-05-18, 14:02:49
My grandpa was a water diviner from the old school and he never failed to find water. I took the notion a bit further and found that there is a communication between atoms of a specific element or compound of elements that is not bound by distance between the elements or compound. This is very easily tested and the results are reproducible. EVERYTHING is electrical. Let that sink in via books: The Body Electric., The Secret Life Of Plants,The Electric Universe. Dr Jack Kruse: Quantum Health: Light, Water and Magnetism.   Study Nikolai Tesla in depth.  Why do physicists use terms from the Jewish Kaballa? You can not solve a problem using the thinking that caused the problem. In this context I use the term "electrical" loosely considering that we do not have specific terms for al parts of the energy spectrum.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-05-18, 14:05:01
What kind of terms from the Kabbalah do physicists use?
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: ersi on 2022-05-18, 16:35:31
What kind of terms from the Kabbalah do physicists use?
I suppose that he thinks that the book titles he lists are by physicists.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-05-19, 08:48:24
I'm assuming "physics" is used with reference to the apothecary "sciences" -- (methinks the lad has imbibed to deeply and perhaps indiscriminately of the various elements of the ancient and modern pharmacological gardens...:)
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Barulheira on 2022-05-26, 12:07:37
Single post of a guest poster. He'll never come back to answer.
Good. He's already overloaded his share of rubbish he's allowed to post - in a single post.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: ersi on 2022-05-27, 12:54:23
Two mass shootings this month in USA in quick succession (Buffalo, NY, and Uvalde, TX) and the gun-rightists suggest things like having just one door to schools (how does this jibe with fire security?), having an armed officer doing airport-style checks at the door, automatic interlocking doors in buildings, bullet-proof windows, arming teachers etc.

Much of this is already the case in the U S of A. Has it contributed to prevent shootings? Is it really the land of the free when children cannot go to school without passing security checks for guns? This level of stupidity has to be taught, indoctrinated.

I have visited United States. It felt very much like a miserable Third World dump. I do not see any reason for the level of respect, obedience and fear for USA that, say, the EU displays. Maybe just that policing the world is a thankless task and nobody else wants to be in that role.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-05-27, 16:15:36
the gun-rightists suggest things like having just one door to schools (how does this jibe with fire security?)
While I'm not sure how many doors we had exactly at my high school, I think only three or so were generally used as regular doors. There were more fire doors, as in the kind of door you can only open from the inside with some kind of door-wide handle.

Having only a single normal door sounds very annoying at best of course, but as such it seems perfectly compatible with fire safety, at least in theory.
Title: Re: Is stupidity taught?
Post by: ersi on 2022-05-27, 16:42:58
Having only a single normal door sounds very annoying at best of course, but as such it seems perfectly compatible with fire safety, at least in theory.
Having only one *general entrance* is fine, while there absolutely must be emergency exits in every direction. In my schools (pre-university) there were max two entrances: The other one for teachers and staff.

In Uvalde, TX, there was some unlocked backdoor, so there was negligence with doors at the school for sure. However, as the news say, the shooter crashed his car near the school, he was stopped by the police just before entering the school, but mysteriously allowed to continue anyway. So, this time the usual "add more good guys with guns" argument doesn't fly, because there in fact were good guys with guns on the spot, but they failed at their job.

By the way, NRA annual meeting starts today (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220512/president-trump-to-speak-at-2022-nra-annual-meeting) in Houston, TX. Guess if everybody can keep their right to bear arms when Trump and others do speeches.