Brexit

[DaveP]

One of my family members' PhD thesis was the transcription of a 500 year old astronomy book in Ottoman (which uses different alphabet than modern Turkish). At that time peoples' heads were chopped off in Europe for daring to suggest that world was round . But how come Americans (essentially European descent) ended up in moon?

I think what you are hinting at was possibly the Enlightenment that caused the start of scientific and technological development in Europe, which initially drew very heavily on Greek, Egyptian and Arab sources as you say.  We would all love to see an Enlightenment restart in the Arab world and to eclipse the fundamentalism that has it in its grip at the moment.

DaveP

 

[tands]

No need Dave, it's easy enough to blame the fundamentalism on somebody else. Perhaps those that ignore and excuse it. As Hillary Clinton and her supporters Would.

A Saudi woman claiming she sought asylum in Australia was stopped on a layover in the Philippines and returned to Riyadh on Wednesday.

Dina Ali Lasloom said in self-recorded videos the Philippine authorities had held her at the Manila airport and confiscated her passport. The videos circulated widely on social media over the last two days.

“My name is Dina Ali and I’m a Saudi woman who fled Saudi Arabia to Australia to seek asylum,” she said in one video, adding she feared violence from any relatives who came to bring her back home.

“Please help me. I’m recording this video to help me and know that I’m real and I’m here.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/14/fleeing-woman-returned-saudi-arabia-against-her-will

 

[JohnRoberts]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/14/fleeing-woman-returned-saudi-arabia-against-her-will

Its odd how quiet the liberal/progressives have been about women's rights in other parts of the world. In fact all minority rights.

The current US justice dept just charged a MI doctor for performing genital mutilation on two young girls (illegal since 1966?).

JR

 

[tands]

You got that right, JR. Pussyhats are busy persisting, nevertheless.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I gave you a range of possible reasons why Europeans were more advanced technologically 200-300 years ago, genetics might be one but it could have been something no-one has thought of yet, but it's irrelevant to this conversation.  It is just a fact that they were, otherwise they would have been destroyed in Africa and America and Australia.

You are sensitive because you are of African descent,  but we all are in fact.

That's a bit narrow a description. Clearly, regardless of race being a social construct and us all having African descent, some are viewed as currently "more" African than others. So the caveat while true biologically isn't really relevant socially within the context of our comments.

II see it as an unpleasant kick-start, but no doubt Africans could have got there on their own eventually too.

What you said didn't really sound like that though. It sounded like your average apologist for colonialism describing colonists as borderline altruistic spreaders of wealth and health.....;

"Look at the alternative if Europeans had never intervened in any way whatsoever.  The  people would have been left as a living  stone age museum exhibit, much like the Amazonian tribes now.  The population would have been kept stable by the food supply and unchecked and untreated disease at a much lower level than it is today.  "

That was your assertion, and it hardly sounds like "got there on their own eventually".

 

[mattiasNYC]

We would all love to see an Enlightenment restart in the Arab world and to eclipse the fundamentalism that has it in its grip at the moment.

DaveP

Not the Arab world, but the Muslim world. And it's the same issue everywhere Abrahamic religion has a large influence which includes Judaism and Christianity as well. One of the fundamental problems spreading this enlightenment you want to see is that "moderate" Christians and Jews will support the fundamentals of the other religions, and that foundation is what the fundamentalism is based on. So while American Christians will complain about militant Muslims, they'll never attack the irrationality of the very basis of the militant Muslims faith because it shares fundamentals with their own.

This is actually visible in statistics which show that Americans have less trust in Atheists than Muslims.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Arguing about hypotheticals is another waste of time,

If the emphasis is on the word "arguing", then maybe you're right. But we use hypotheticals all the time when reasoning. It's hardly a waste.

That said free trade (not colonial taking) tends to improve both trading economies (as described in "Wealth of Nations"), and cultural exchanges ancillary to the trade of goods likewise helps both cultures (generally while purists might disagree).

I'm not entirely sure that book contains enough supporting data to actually prove that. It's about two hundred and fifty years old, so I'll take that into account.

I have been following progress (or lack of) in Africa for years and they have unique challenges. Under developed regions will likely leapfrog some of the typical western infrastructure build out... When everyone is using wireless phones you don't need physical phone lines and telephone poles. When solar and wind power is used locally massive power distribution grids are less important.  There are projects with micro-banking performed over smart phones, not requiring that conventional bricks and mortar infrastructure. 

Africa is a huge continent with many different countries in different stages of development so it is not fair to generalize about stereotypical residents. I suspect their future will likely develop differently than ours, or we might predict.

JR

I completely agree.

Its odd how quiet the liberal/progressives have been about women's rights in other parts of the world. In fact all minority rights.

The current US justice dept just charged a MI doctor for performing genital mutilation on two young girls (illegal since 1966?).

JR

I'm not sure which "liberals/progressives" you're paying attention to, but "they" have been plenty critical and vocal about these sorts of issues for years and years.

 

[tands]

I was talking about liberals, specifically Clinton supporters. Capitalists. They've given lip service to the rights of women in Muslim countries...well, actually I don't think they've even done that. Not that I remember, and not about Dina Ali.  That's for some well funded non profit to emit, it seems.  Where's Tim Kaine on this?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm not sure which "liberals/progressives" you're paying attention to, but "they" have been plenty critical and vocal about these sorts of issues for years and years.

I am talking about the ones driving the modern media news cycle with talking points and planted stories.. Really offensive crimes against women, LGBT, and almost every minority large enough to count, occur daily world wide with almost zero headlines  domestically, while in the US almost everything covered morphs into an anti-Trump screed. I see the stories because I read the entire newspaper.

My least favorite recent example is how partisans have tried to turn "earth day" into "science day" and spun that into an anti-trump protest march suggesting his administration is anti-science.  Classic personality politics claiming that people who don't agree with your agenda must be either stupid or evil.

I don't accuse these anti-trump instigators of being stupid, but their hypocrisy runs pretty deep.  They may be personally offended but keep it to themselves while the marshal their political attention on less substantial (often made up) offenses.

JR

PS: This seems even worse with the positive feedback echo chamber of social media, where the commentary seems more like a bunch of high school girls gossiping about people behind their backs... (no offense intended toward HS girls).  Social media is degrading modern culture and we don't seem to mind.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I am talking about the ones driving the modern media news cycle with talking points and planted stories.. Really offensive crimes against women, LGBT, and almost every minority large enough to count, occur daily world wide with almost zero headlines  domestically, while in the US almost everything covered morphs into an anti-Trump screed. I see the stories because I read the entire newspaper.

And would those newspapers by for-profit capitalist entities? Your comments rely on your view of what a "liberal" and "progressive" is, yet pretty much every single time you use the terms it turns out that what you're really talking about is people who are pro-Capitalism and possibly vote Democrat. They aren't particularly "progressive" or "liberal" at all. The common denominator of Democrats ("liberals" / "progressives") and Republicans ("conservatives" / "reactionary") is that when they rule the wealth gap increases and they support big business, and they all start or perpetuate wars and infringe upon civil liberties.

If you want to look at true liberals then you're likely not going to find them represented in media unless their views sell to ALL Americans who consume media, yourself included.

So I think you're just wrong about this because of your stubborn essentially bi-polar view on politics. There seems to be only two possible views in your universe, and it's either democrat or republican, either conservative or liberal, either progressive or whatever. That's not reality though.

In addition, I question whether or not any nation's media is perpetually reporting international crimes to the same degree that it does domestic ones? It's fairly typical to be more critical of ourselves because we have a responsibility for our own actions and are responsible for holding ourselves to account for what we do.

My least favorite recent example is how partisans have tried to turn "earth day" into "science day" and spun that into an anti-trump protest march suggesting his administration is anti-science.  Classic personality politics claiming that people who don't agree with your agenda must be either stupid or evil.

People who think the earth is only a few thousands of years old are either ignorant, or they're stupid. Once you show them the evidence that the earth is far older and they stick to their guns I'm not entirely sure ignorant qualifies. I guess we're left with stupid. Although one could of course say that indoctrination has blinded them.

In the case of the president the issue is for example the one about global warming. When the president of the US says that climate change (global warming) is a hoax that the Chinese conjured up, then that damages society because it makes these ignorant/stupid/indoctrinated people think they're right, and it enables the government to sell crappy policies to these people.

You will of course dismiss this but there is a very legitimate worry that this administration is more inclined to play lip-service to this "low-information" voter base and say that by getting rid of regulations - any conservative's wet dream - jobs will be created. But as he actually gets rid of regulations for the coal industry for example, the risk is that all we're getting is a very marginal increase in jobs because it's already a somewhat dying industry, but not only that; we're also getting pollution on top of that. Of course republicans and conservatives don't care because typically they're either ignorant enough to not understand the dangers of pollution as well as the limited potential of this to create jobs, or they're purely egotistic about it and count on either getting work and/or not being affected by the pollution.

So I'd argue that the lack of a scientific education of the public and lack of a more scientific approach in discussing these issues are bad for America, and therefore the protest and demonstrations are important.

But it's really interesting to see conservatives conflate for-profit media, "progressives" and "pro-science", especially when the progressive (including government) spending on science actually leads to new technology which generates profit and wealth for the nation.

 

[tands]

Generates profit and wealth for the Capitalists in the nation. Politicians and PR firms. Bosses and investors. Maybe 1 percent of the nation, actually.

 

[JohnRoberts]

And would those newspapers by for-profit capitalist entities? Your comments rely on your view of what a "liberal" and "progressive" is, yet pretty much every single time you use the terms it turns out that what you're really talking about is people who are pro-Capitalism and possibly vote Democrat. They aren't particularly "progressive" or "liberal" at all. The common denominator of Democrats ("liberals" / "progressives") and Republicans ("conservatives" / "reactionary") is that when they rule the wealth gap increases and they support big business, and they all start or perpetuate wars and infringe upon civil liberties.

If you want to look at true liberals then you're likely not going to find them represented in media unless their views sell to ALL Americans who consume media, yourself included.

So I think you're just wrong about this because of your stubborn essentially bi-polar view on politics. There seems to be only two possible views in your universe, and it's either democrat or republican, either conservative or liberal, either progressive or whatever. That's not reality though.

In addition, I question whether or not any nation's media is perpetually reporting international crimes to the same degree that it does domestic ones? It's fairly typical to be more critical of ourselves because we have a responsibility for our own actions and are responsible for holding ourselves to account for what we do.

People who think the earth is only a few thousands of years old are either ignorant, or they're stupid. Once you show them the evidence that the earth is far older and they stick to their guns I'm not entirely sure ignorant qualifies. I guess we're left with stupid. Although one could of course say that indoctrination has blinded them.

In the case of the president the issue is for example the one about global warming. When the president of the US says that climate change (global warming) is a hoax that the Chinese conjured up, then that damages society because it makes these ignorant/stupid/indoctrinated people think they're right, and it enables the government to sell crappy policies to these people.

You will of course dismiss this but there is a very legitimate worry that this administration is more inclined to play lip-service to this "low-information" voter base and say that by getting rid of regulations - any conservative's wet dream - jobs will be created. But as he actually gets rid of regulations for the coal industry for example, the risk is that all we're getting is a very marginal increase in jobs because it's already a somewhat dying industry, but not only that; we're also getting pollution on top of that. Of course republicans and conservatives don't care because typically they're either ignorant enough to not understand the dangers of pollution as well as the limited potential of this to create jobs, or they're purely egotistic about it and count on either getting work and/or not being affected by the pollution.

So I'd argue that the lack of a scientific education of the public and lack of a more scientific approach in discussing these issues are bad for America, and therefore the protest and demonstrations are important.

But it's really interesting to see conservatives conflate for-profit media, "progressives" and "pro-science", especially when the progressive (including government) spending on science actually leads to new technology which generates profit and wealth for the nation.

I still refuse to argue with you about me.  :

I don't like arguing as much as you apparently do, so have a better day.

JR

 

[Matador]

Classic personality politics claiming that people who don't agree with your agenda must be either stupid or evil.

I don't accuse these anti-trump instigators of being stupid, but their hypocrisy runs pretty deep.  They may be personally offended but keep it to themselves while the marshal their political attention on less substantial (often made up) offenses.

I'll just come out and say it:  if someone believes climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, they are both stupid AND evil.  They of course have the right to believe it, but the line gets crossed when policy is set by that belief.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I still refuse to argue with you about me.  :

You're very clever. Certainly more clever than you pretend to be.

You state your opinions based on whatever your reasoning is, and when someone questions either it's back to the old "it's not about me". Except it IS your opinions John. Don't pretend like you have a monopoly on the truth and are only performing the task of announcing PSAs.

I don't like arguing as much as you apparently do, so have a better day.

JR

Your veiled passive-aggressiveness aside, your cleverness here make you neither right nor entertaining.

But enjoy playing the victim as you seem to do all the time recently, and have a great day yourself buddy.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'll just come out and say it:  if someone believes climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese, they are both stupid AND evil.  They of course have the right to believe it, but the line gets crossed when policy is set by that belief.

I have written at length about government efforts surrounding "climate change".  I won't repeat the whole discussion but high points are that those in favor of more government control try to characterize those with opposing opinions as ignorant and disputing established science, or evil. 

This is not an argument about whether the earth's temperature is changing. It always has so no one expects it to stop changing now, or ever.  The arguments are multiple A) do humans contribute to warming (probably a little), and B) will government proposals to tax/limit carbon consumption reverse atmospheric trends  (very unlikely for many decades). This looks and feels like an excuse for a short term government power grab using a long term climate shift as the excuse.

Trump's hyperbolic campaign statements are not the official position of his administration now, while they are clearly not on the "chicken little sky is falling" bandwagon. 

Don't take my word for anything, hopefully forum members here have enough science literacy to investigate and decide for themselves, instead of blindly accepting political arguments***. 

JR

*** the majority of scientists agree that the earth's temperature is changing, NOT that the government proposed restrictions are worthwhile. That actual debate is discredited and suppressed. People want to believe that they are doing something, hopefully the right thing,  without a rigorous understanding of the entire science. If it wasn't for the huge economic cost this would all be harmless political manipulation (like so much of government these days), but those resources could be put to much better use for solving other near term problems.

 

[tands]

Another banker scam.

Indeed, carbon exists as a commodity only
through the decisions of politicians and bu-
reaucrats, who determine both the demand, by
setting emissions limits, and the supply, by es-
tablishing criteria for offsets. It was the United
States that sculpted the cap-and-trade system
during the Kyoto negotiations, before pulling
out of the accord and leaving the rest of the
world to implement the scheme. Since then,
most of the world’s major political, fi nancial,
and environmental interests have aligned
themselves with the idea, because of its poten-
tial to generate profi ts out of adversity and to
avoid the diffi cult economic decisions posed
by climate change. Now the Obama Adminis-
tration and the Democratic Congress—along
with most American companies, which see
cap-and-trade as the friendliest regulation
they could hope for—want to rejoin the world
and multiply the market. That market is, in
essence, an elaborate shell game, a disappear-
ing act that nicely serves the immediate inter-
ests of the world’s governments but fails to
meet the challenges of our looming environ-
mental crisis.

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf

 

[Matador]

This is not an argument about whether the earth's temperature is changing. It always has so no one expects it to stop changing now, or ever.  The arguments are multiple A) do humans contribute to warming (probably a little), and B) will government proposals to tax/limit carbon consumption reverse atmospheric trends  (very unlikely for many decades). This looks and feels like an excuse for a short term government power grab using a long term climate shift as the excuse.

Trump's hyperbolic campaign statements are not the official position of his administration now, while they are clearly not on the "chicken little sky is falling" bandwagon. 

The answer is A) yes, and B) yes.

Fire departments responding to a house fire will often spray water on the houses adjacent.  Why bother, if the burning house is a total loss?  Perhaps to keep the problem from spreading?  Your argument is like saying that any drug which merely slows down the advancement of aggressive cancers is pointless, since the person is going to die, and it's not a cure.  Slowing down a problem is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.  And in this case, the house is the only one we can live in, and we set the fire ourselves.

Trumps official position is that any regulation that might halt expanding profits is Bad TM:  even one job lost under the guise of protecting the environment is one job too many, and that mortgaging the environment gives a short term benefit, the costs of which will be paid by Someone Else TM.

...because there are no local or State boundaries to the problems of our environment, the Federal Government must play an active, positive role. We can and will set standards. We can and will exercise leadership.

That was said by Richard F-ing Nixon!

You don't have to take my word for it, we can all just read the list of executive orders and see the plan in action.

 

[Matador]

And apologies, this has nothing to do with Brexit.

 

[ruffrecords]

And apologies, this has nothing to do with Brexit.

Why is it now called climate change? First it was Global Warming. Then someone decided they had better differentiate between the natural warming that has been happening for the last 50,000 years and any contribution made by mankind and call it  Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It is well established science that the Earth's climate has changed over its lifetime. There is no reason to think this has suddenly stopped happening so of course there is Climate Change. Which direction is is going right now is anyone's guess - remember, we have only just emerged from the last ice age about 12,000 years ago which is no time at all geologically speaking.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

And apologies, this has nothing to do with Brexit.

Maybe talk about frexit in light of French election, but it looks like a moderate will win the run off. ASSuming polls are right but the polls did get this one at least.

JR