Michael Hardner

Yes, no need for WTFs... this is clear to me. In the American context, I don't trust that there are principles at play on any level. It's purely reactionary.

1. Yes, I know. I realized that when I posted but I walked around your point. What is "evidence" ? Small numbers of facts that support your thesis ? If so, then yes there's evidence. Whether or not knowledgeable people are convinced or not is TBD. Similarly with Climate Change, we have 'evidence' but not proof. Climate denialists presumably think correlated temps and CO2 levels are coincidence. 2. My opinion only. If I show a group of people a set of stars and ask them to form a guess as to what they might represent pictorially I suspect you would get different answers from different people. So the chance of separate tribes, several of them, coming up with the same picture is at least small if not remote. Also, pointing out again that it's not my theory so I'm not going to be great at defending it. 3. You don't think it's even interesting that tribes carry an oral tradition so long that the tribes themselves splintered and even developed different cultures while retaining the myth ? Ok. 4. You seem to be argumentative with regards to my statements here. I have nothing against science, and yes I think it's our only framework for assessing objective truth in terms of hard sciences. Do you think I'm an adversary ? I don't think we disagree on very much at all. 5. I didn't do that either.

1. Well, if you're talking about 'proof' you're right. We can't interview ice-age elders and ask them where they got their stories. At a certain point, though, coincidence seems less likely. The 'evidence' such as it is, presented in the article, said that all northern tribes had similar mythology explaining the constellations while no southern tribes shared these myths. But far be it for me to defend THEIR thesis - seek it out if you like. It's, at least, interesting. 2. Sure, silly and playful Science is sort-of always wrong, or at least incomplete. 3. Yes, and those myths might/could/would have elements of truth mixed in. The best that archeology/anthropology can do is make an educated guess, I suppose.

A lot of those stories are based on ancient myths, which probably have some root in reality. The epic of Gilgamesh gives us Moses and his birth myth, for example. But it seems too specific to have been made up out of whole cloth. Clearly there was some story that was repeated. Similarly, flood myths are pervasive. I read a story in scientific American, I think it was, that postulated the myths associated with the Stars, such as the Hunter, should be myths from a common Northern tribe from tens of thousands of years ago. The idea being that when the tribe split into distant families in northern Europe, Northern Canada, Northern Russia... The seeds of the myth were intact. We know so little about prehistory. With DNA testing, our own scientific myths are being shattered everyday. Don't mistake me as someone who believes the Bible is real though. I read an analysis of Cain and Abel that said, it was a representative of ancient conflicts between urbanites and hunter-gatherers, from the dawn of civilization

Well that's nuanced at least. Yes, I can't fault you for your view as expressed here. PS don't tell my wife I said this above, it's our 10th anniversary. . 😂

I have had two children already, conceived by banging a real woman who I treat with respect as an equal. Yes, believe me, it works

Classic edge-bro/in-cel speak here: deterministic biology objectively determines that I should be assigned a trad-wife immediately. Funny thing about those guys, though... is that you don't meet any IRL. And certainly no woman I have ever met would waste time on a gender zealot. It's a very very weird phenomenon...

1. Everybody is biased. I have no authority over you but don't call your opinions facts. You didn't acknowledge my 3 premises for saying that this is an opinion, just cited my admitted 'bias' in life. You don't think you're biased, I guess. Also - as I said, we're not the audience and yet you used the fact that we're talking about it as proof that the message is a deterrent. You should try addressing my arguments instead of whatever you are doing. 2. That's right. There's lot of things I can't explain, such as why chocolate tastes good or USA politics is bad. 3. Based on you being the supreme judge of opinions vs facts, right ? And your opinions are factual whereas others' are not. 4. I admit to having an emtional response, being a human being and all. I do try to reserve my opinions when I suspect they're not fact-based. You should do that, it would make discussing with you more interesting than the semantic table-tennis that it is every time. Have a day....

1. If they were facts then I would buy them, but it's an opinion only that the strategy is a) to dissuade immigrants from crossing the border b) not intended for internal consumption and c) effective as such. We are talking about it, which is actually evidence for my side since we're not illegal immigrants or wannabes, you see. 2. If you are asking this then I can't explain it. It's obvious to me, and others who have followed politics for 50+ years what has changed. 3. Phony outrage is hard to pin down. I suspect that it's a pervasive trait of western culture right now - performative emotionality, fake rage etc. 4. No. It's about posters admitting to let their emotions govern their political choices.

1. I don't buy it. The target audience doesn't watch FOX. I don't support it either. Even if it were true the cost to public decorum outweights any supposed benefit IMO. 2. The Anger is part of the effect of the messaging. It's about making sure any policy discussions in public are dealt with primarily with emotions and not thinking. 3. I already acknowledged the similarity there.

1. Venandi provided an example, which is what I was responding too. 2. There's a big space between celebrating a place where alligators threaten to eat men in cages, and a 4-star hotel. And right in the middle is Motel 6. 3. Of course they do. From memory, Trump instructed police to not protect the heads of prisoners when they're putting them in the "paddy wagon". I recall that it elicited laughter. This is the culture I'm talking about. Of course it flips if you're talking about one of the walking saints who broke into the capitol to poop on the desks of congressmen. Don't play naive on this one - this is the whole brand. 4. Ok now you say that they DO brag... playing semantics is another cynical move by these criminals. In any case, it's your country... enjoy it.

Kudos for pointing out that prison conditions are a pervasive problem that neither USA party puts at the forefront of their policy statements. I think that the 'indistinguishable' part isn't correct: The Republicans drape these initiatives in language and images that relish brutality and mistreatment of prisoners. I'm not sure the purpose of that but it seems to rally their supporters as well as poking the eyes of people who are openly empathetic of others...

We shall see. Rosie is lucky, though. Previously she was a B-Level celebrity and chat show figure. Now she's in history.

Such as it is. "muddle through" ... just as our ability to assess "our" state of the nation evolves and settles in to a world where every citizen is a commenter. How poor "we" will be will have a different relationship to our happiness, in the end. After all, poor in 2025 isn't the same as poor in 1975. In some ways, it's very much wealthier, in other ways poorer.

Really? I think the original IP CC models were probably pretty good. You shouldn't let yourself get drawn into arguments that start with bad data, bad assumptions. Surely you're more busy than that.. If not, come on over. I've got some yard work for you.

If you want to try to debunk my thinking, go ahead. Otherwise, nothing much to discuss.

I told you that I have an explanation for you to debunk. That's the next step in this discussion.

Except none of this scenario is real. Temperature is increasing, the models are accurate and we know the cause. Click the link in my signature then come back and debunk it

You think that polluting my air, corrupting my soil is about me being fussy. I am here to cause you pain until your reeducation is complete. Smile now. 🙂

I guess you don't know what I meant by one-on-one. But all of your points are only supported by a conspiracy theory that science is colluding for some reason. It's not Fact-Based, or rational. That's all I'm going to say.

You seem to have come of age in an era where rationality reigned. There is a common theme in your posts that rational actors are making choices, sometimes bold ones. Well we can never really know, sometimes until much later, how decisions develop behind closed doors... I think you should let go of the assumption that people know what they're doing. It may make sense to move education into more of a local jurisdiction... But that doesn't appear to be the governing principal here.

Government, etiquette, and literature were born with the creation of cities in ancient Sumeria. It was ever so. It was also the start of the rural urban divide, see the story of Cain and Abel 😞

Well first of all, good luck trying to prove anything with statistics. Second of all, you can't prove or disprove climate change definitively. Statistics can be available tool. Like I said, they have used it to build a case for anthropogenic climate change. So it's just a tool. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

You just don't like Liberals it seems to me.

Can we just discuss one-on-one what this quibble is about statistics being a scientist? I can't see how this would have any impact on a discussion of climate change. There's this thing called correlation, used in linear regression to make predictions. And they use it fairly well to predict temperatures. So it's not like statistics negates climate change.