carepov

What are you talking about? My response was to:

No, history does not disprove the assertion that increased trade reduces the probability of war. Your examples disprove any claims like: war is impossible between strong trading partners. I made no such assertions.

Are you saying that non-religious people are consistent rational evidence-based critical thinkers?

Nice diagram but there is plenty of other irrational nonsense out there. Political bollocks, for example: the bollocks of "sound fiscal management of conservative/republicans". Sociological bollocks: the bollocks of crime and punishment There are conspiracy bullocks: 9/11 truthers, "masons control everything" Racist/sexist bollocks Racist and conspiracy bullocks: "the Jews control everything" Environmental bollocks: put ethanol in gas, nuclear energy is bad, PVC or even all chlorine is bad There are heath and nutritional bollocks: organic food is safer/more nutritious, all chemicals cause cancer, microwaves are bad for you, don't do or eat "x" when you're pregnant!, penis enlargement, anti-fat mendication/devices, anti-wrinkle creams Psychological and child developmental bollocks: "holding a crying baby will spoil it"

So I guess nothing has changed since 1948...

There is no guarantee that increased trade will prevent war, just as there is no guarentee that nuclear capabilities and MAD stop prevent war -even a nuclear war. Increased trade means increased travel, personal contacts, cultural exchanges, and increased interdependance for prosperity. This can only help reduce the chances of war.

Yeah, maybe as soon as we see the "paperless offce". It's right around the corner!

Bonam said "always".

Hudson this is a thorough demolishment of the earlier claim about "peaceful zionst intellectuals". However, Rue and Dog have make some good points about your selectivity. Do you agree that the Israelis are are no worse violators of human rights than other regional powers?

Counties will be more inter-dependant. I see this as a good thing as it should reduce the chances of a major war.

No, most trade is beneficial due to the advantages of specialization and economies of scale that typically far outweigh shipping costs. The only thing left for local economies will be bricks, haircuts and strawberries.

For every person distracted by their religion there is another one that, with the help of their religion, becomes more focussed on the things that matter (family, environment, etc..) Really? People/institution destroy the environment because of their religion - this is a ridiculous claim. In Canada religion is very private . IMO it become glaringly public when some anti-religious people campaign to stamp out all religion based on their belief that the world would be a better place without religion.

Again, I see and understand the diference, but in some cases (not all) the difference is meaningless. For example: "I beleive in ETs" "I think that there is a 99.999% chance that ETs exist because the Drake equation says so" Yes different, but both are unscientific leaps of faith.

It may be missing an unknown factor. The Drake equation is mathematically meaningless. It is a contemplative tool. It is also a tool used to ensure abundant funding for programs like the SETI. If a person believes in ETs it is a leap of faith - whether or not the Drake equation was used.

I see the difference in theory but I am having trouble seeing a difference in practice. It often comes down to what assumptions that you believe in. For example, assuming the individual functions in one thing, but what about the assumption that the Drake Equation has any validity whatsoever, what evidence is that based on? IMO, some people that "think something is 99.9 % certain" based on certain explicitly stated assumptions are "worse" than other people that "think probably God exists, what the heck I'll just beleive in God and my universe will seem more ordered".

Well not necessarily. Why is the low estimate less valid than the high estimate: R* = 7/year,[21]fp = 0.4,[22]ne*fl = 10−11, fi = 10−9,[23]fc = 0.1, and L = 304 years[24] result in N = 7 × 0.4 × 10-11 × 10-9 × 0.1 × 304 = 8 x 10-20 (suggesting that we are probably alone in this galaxy, and likely the observable universe) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Really, what evidence can we gather to estimate: ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fe = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[ I have a new equation: (assumption) x (estimate) x (educated guess) x (belief)n = a belief disguised as an evidence-based statement of probability where n => 1

Sure, but you did not answer my question. Was Khadr worth it? Is he such a big threat that he warants all the division in our society? All the resources wasted? All the media propaganda advantage given to the enemy? Like eyeball asked above: wtf??? Where do you get this from?

Yes I see your points and agree, thanks.

So the evidence of intelligent life outside of our planet is the vastness of the universe? What if someone said that the evidence of a God is the vastness of the universe? Some theology does take thinks much further but some believers claim that God is incomprehensible and unimaginable to humans. Analogous to some unknown life form that is almost certainly out there somewhere - for which we have no evidence for. hmmm....

You seem to care that some people believe that religious believers are intellectually inferior to non-religious believers, right?

Thanks, for the well-reasoned answer. I agree with your categories and your analogies. I do question the claim that by using the Drake Equation and then "concluding the probability of other intelligent life existing in the universe is very high" is different from a "beliif" or a "leap of faith". Some assumptions that go into the equation are beliefs in themselves (and so is the validity of the equation.). Depending on your beliefs, you can conclude that intelligent life on other planets is either certain, a practically-impossibility or anywhere in between.

Ok, but in spite of "good intentions", many of the things that the US has done have INCREASED the odds of future terrorist attacks.

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

Long time no talk... Well he certainly didn't think he needed it. Neither did your leaders during 'Nam. At least someone learned something: Lesson 9: "We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community." And by the way - Bush Sr. wrote the book on multinational cooperation in Desert Storm.

Rue, as you surely already know and even know that I know you know, we are in agreement on most points. The USA is not a "rogue state" but it could do better. And by doing better we mean doing better at stopping terrorist attacks and winning the war on terror - a long-term war that is fought with military hardware and tactics but more so with intelligence and ideas. How much time should he do? Yes, media propaganda advantage is part of the ideological war. IMO, the GW Bush administration royally squandered its ideological advantage as it repeated all 11 of "McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam". Do you think that military/terrorist threat that is supposedly neutralized by keeping Khadr locked up was/would be worth all the damage caused by the "media propaganda advantage" that resulted from his detention?