• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My responses to Michael Shermer

Ian Osborne said:
The bit where it applies to Shermer's "this is America" but not Shane's "all Americans on this forum".
Click to expand...

The Internet is international. The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not.

If there are restrictions of the Internet, it influences us all: China & Google is a recent example.

If Americans change their constitution, it doesn't affect other people than Americans.
 
CFLarsen said:
If there are restrictions of the Internet, it influences us all
Click to expand...

...which is precisely why Shane's concerns about a bill going through the Senate, and his plea for Americans here to write to their senators, is not evidence of America-by-default.

Your differing responses to Shanek's thread and Shermer's commentary owe more to your opinions of Michael Shermer and Shane Killian than the specifics of what they said.
 
Ian Osborne said:
...which is precisely why Shane's concerns about a bill going through the Senate, and his plea for Americans here to write to their senators, is not evidence of America-by-default.

Your differing responses to Shanek's thread and Shermer's commentary owe more to your opinions of Michael Shermer and Shane Killian than the specifics of what they said.
Click to expand...

Whatev.
 
Diamond said:
1. America is not the world, dumbass.
2. Read point 1 again until it sinks in, if ever.
3. "Religion and politics should be treated as separate entities" works great just so long as you don't insult Muslims by drawing their Prophet, even nicely. Ask the Danes about the ability of sectarians to conflate the actions of 12 cartoonists with the entire population of Denmark. Or Norway, Or France. Or Italy.
4. I don't live in a country that separates Church and State, what have you to say about that? See 5
5.
6. I thought so. It's amazing how tolerant you are of my lack of freedom, isn't it? Ever spoken on the subject?
7. No I didn't think so. You really should get out of the trailer park and see a bit more of the world.
8. First you need to crack an atlas and find where the "Rest of the World" is. Here's a hint: They're tiny specks just off the western and eastern seaboards. You might need a scanning electron microscope to find them.
Click to expand...

Cry me a freakin river...
 
Antiquehunter said:
I'm open to the idea that I'm parsing his sentence incorrectly - but it reads strangely to me. I concur that most libertarians tend to support same sex marriage - which is why his sentence sounds weird...
Click to expand...

Another option may be, that by defining himself outside of those groups, and then recognizing those groups as equal would lend more weight to the opinion. *shrug*
 
Sweet...

kittynh said:
I think Libertarians are very open to same sex marriages.

Also, legalized pot.

And I live in NH, so I should know!
Click to expand...


I think If we meet at a future TAM we might have to make a trip to the parking lot!

Where has Diamond gone in all this! I see Diamonds points but still don't understand the rage! Is JREF an international organization? I know it has members worldwide but where does it pay taxes....Does it have to address which country it is speaking too with each offical post?
 
It seems pretty clear to me that Dr. Shermer wrote this for another purpose. I don't mind- I thought the message was good and well-written. However, some members of this forum seem to get really angry when people write messages for American readers.

Frankly, I wouldn't get angry for reading a British writer, on a British website, talk about the way Parliament was run or what rights Brits. I certainly wouldn't call him a "dumbass."

I'm not saying that this website should be read only by Americans- I know that there are many readers from around the world. But show me where Dr. Shermer said anything that should offend the rest of the world.

Frankly, I'm pretty offended by Diamond's implications that all Americans live in trailer parks.
 
Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.
 
Numenaster said:
Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.
Click to expand...
Cost you nothing except your dignity, honesty, and self respect, but those things have worth only to the individual.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it requires hypocrisy, and it's still a gamble that St. Peter won't let you into Heaven on the basis that you were just playing the odds and weren't sincere.

I think I'll gamble that the afterlife, if it exists, really isn't a Chick Tract.
 
Numenaster said:
Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.
Click to expand...
And what are your odds if you factor in all the possible "gods" that people believe in?
 
I heard of this thing once, long ago. I'm trying to remember what it's called. It has something to do with...how do you say? Point of view, I think. Basically, it's a statement made by one person about a given topic, expressing that person's take on it. It's an amazing thing because it encloses the upbringing, experience, beliefs, biases...everything really, into one, concise...Wait! I have it!

It's called an opinion.
 
Oh dang, bad michael bad. Let's all hate him forever. Sheesh, can you imagine the horror of not mentioning the world. Yeah, Americans, myself included, tend to ignore the rest of the world from time to time. Yeah, perhaps Shermer should have written something more for the rest of the world, I guess. Whatever.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Exactly. Shermer certainly wrote like he forgot the rest of the world existed, but his commentary hardly justified calling him a 'dumbass'.
Click to expand...
Yeah an ad hominem attack is hardly something any logic using person should resort to in a logical discussion. You want to make a logical point then use logic and leave this inflammatory language out of it Especially when the person is taking up the slack for James Randi who is recovering from surgery.
 
valis said:
Just one thing, where in the constitution is this seperation of church and state thing? I can't seem to find it.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

The clause of the First Amendment that adopted the founders' principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion is known as the Establishment Clause. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Click to expand...
 
On behalf of the United States I would like to apologize for anything said in this site which tends to indicate that we have forgotten about the rest of the world.

Having said that, I have to say how disappointed I am that people will take such a positive piece of writing such as that done by Dr. Shermer and turn it into a "what about me" issue.

If someone had written an article focused on a dangerous trend in the British Parliament, or a issue troubling Denmark, I would have hoped that people would have been interested in seeing what was going on in those parts of the world and perhaps pondering those issues, instead of immediately reacting with venom that no one mentioned the problems in Japan or South Korea.

Perhaps the part of Dr. Shermer’s article we should all focus on for at least a moment is that part which speaks about being intentionally divisive and the damage it does to the common good of all.

Americans have a tendency to focus on American issues and we Americans should be aware of that. But walking around with a chip on your shoulder about Ameri-centrism is not healthy either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom