ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th July 2020, 12:26 PM   #161
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Is there a god? Is there credible evidence for a god? If there isn't, than it's a con.
That's not what defines a con.

Quote:
The establishment clause clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you are giving it exemption, you are ignoring those words.
OK, Bob.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 12:30 PM   #162
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
As Christopher Hitchens said, "God is not great" and religion poisons everything"
It's too late for Hitchens, but hasn't Dawkin's changed his tune somewhat on this point? if you stare too long into atheism, critical social justice stares back.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 12:33 PM   #163
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 4,513
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It's too late for Hitchens, but hasn't Dawkin's changed his tune somewhat on this point?
Has he?

Quote:
if you stare too long into atheism, critical social justice stares back.
Huh?
__________________
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 12:54 PM   #164
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Has he?
I was thinking of this:
https://thehumanist.com/news/secular...isread-dawkins
To be honest, the article isn't really up to answering the point and I can't access the Times article that it references.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Huh?
The version of it I heard was relating this article about Religion stopping the worst aspects of, at least some, peoples nature to his getting on the wrong end of a bunch of cancelling and having a stroke. Without more info, I'll be filling it under "I don't know".
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 12:58 PM   #165
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It's too late for Hitchens, but hasn't Dawkin's changed his tune somewhat on this point? if you stare too long into atheism, critical social justice stares back.
To the best of my knowledge, Dawkins is as much an atheist as he always has been. BTW, so are 90+ percent of the members of the Academy of Sciences.

I also don't know what you mean by the highlighted sentence. I do know that the countries that are the most happiest and with the smallest incarceration rates are the least religious. That there is pretty much a direct correlation between religiosity and social ills. Not sure you can say one causes the other, but I think it is safe to say that the world doesn't fall apart when people give up their superstitions.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th July 2020 at 01:23 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 01:00 PM   #166
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's not what defines a con.
Sure it does. When you lie to people for profit, you're engaged in a con.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 01:30 PM   #167
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Sure it does. When you lie to people for profit, you're engaged in a con.
If you believe it, it's not a lie. Where's your evidence that most religious people are lying about their beliefs? You keep hammering on a lack of evidence for the existence of god, but you don't have any evidence for a central premise of your own position. That's hypocrisy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 01:32 PM   #168
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
To the best of my knowledge, Dawkins is as much an atheist as he always has been. BTW, so are 90+ percent of the members of the Academy of Sciences.
Hmmm....

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
That's an ad populum fallacy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 01:47 PM   #169
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
(That's an ad populum fallacy)....quoting me.
Is it though? I believe someone suggested that Dawkins atheism might be waning. As if that matters.

I was simply pointing out that his position on religion is hardly an outlier in the scientific community.

Maybe that is an appeal to authority? Or maybe it is simply recognizing that individuals that rely on evidence have come to the conclusion that if there is no evidence for something, the sound reaction is to doubt it.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th July 2020 at 03:45 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 01:52 PM   #170
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you believe it, it's not a lie. Where's your evidence that most religious people are lying about their beliefs? You keep hammering on a lack of evidence for the existence of god, but you don't have any evidence for a central premise of your own position. That's hypocrisy.
There is substantial evidence that many preachers do not believe in their religion. Not that they started out that way, but came to no longer believe and are still preaching. Read about the Clergy Project. Many pastors feel trapped, because they don't know how to make an honest living.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 03:17 PM   #171
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Is it though? I believe someone suggested that Dawkins atheism might be waning.
That wasn't the claim. One can believe that there are potential downsides with doing away with religion without being religious.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 03:21 PM   #172
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is substantial evidence that many preachers do not believe in their religion. Not that they started out that way, but came to no longer believe and are still preaching. Read about the Clergy Project. Many pastors feel trapped, because they don't know how to make an honest living.
They should join the Church of England. Not believing in God wouldn't prevent them becoming archbishop of Canterbury.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 03:37 PM   #173
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
They should join the Church of England. Not believing in God wouldn't prevent them becoming archbishop of Canterbury.
Europe is so unlike America. Many of the nations in Europe have State religions and yet the number of believers over there is much less than in the States. Despite a US Constitution that not only doesn't endorse a religion, but prohibits government from have anything to do with religion, it is the US that has so much backwards thinking.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th July 2020 at 03:45 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2020, 03:41 PM   #174
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
That wasn't the claim. One can believe that there are potential downsides with doing away with religion without being religious.
I still haven't seen what he said. I have learned not to immediately believe quotes attributed to people like Dawkins and Harris. Far too often, they are taken out of context and twisted.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 03:21 AM   #175
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,454
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
They should join the Church of England. Not believing in God wouldn't prevent them becoming archbishop of Canterbury.
Yes... Prime Minister!
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:05 AM   #176
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
 
Ryan O'Dine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Walk in an ever expanding Archimedean spiral and you'll find me eventually
Posts: 1,808
Late to the thread, but...

It's bad enough the Republican Party denies established, consensus science, but they don't stop there. Perhaps because so much of science is anathema to their ideology, they find it necessary to attack the very institutions that carry out and fund science. Academia is not to be trusted because liberal bias (unless, of course, it's in conservative lockstep such as Liberty University and their ilk. Then, no problem). Government itself, which funds and executes science--not to be trusted.

This is the same playbook the right wields against journalism (unless, of course, it's in conservative lockstep, such as Fox news and their ilk. Then, no problem). "Mainstream" journalism has a liberal bias, therefore is not to be trusted. I never see the conclusive step in the argument, proving that the products of science and journalism are wrong due to bias. But they don't have to take that last step. They just have to sew distrust.

Academia, journalism, science, government. These are pillars of modern civilization. If your ideology is only true when those things are false, is to be trusted only when those things cannot be... maybe there's something wrong with your ideology?
__________________
I collect people like you in little formaldehyde bottles in my basement. (Not a threat. A hobby.)
Ryan O'Dine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:11 AM   #177
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is substantial evidence that many preachers do not believe in their religion.
Not that this is on-topic but could you support this?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 08:03 AM   #178
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Not that this is on-topic but could you support this?
There is no way to know precisely how many since they cannot openly declare they are frauds.

The Clergy Project was founded by ex-pastors to counsel preachers who no longer believe.

https://clergyproject.org/
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th July 2020 at 08:42 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 08:29 AM   #179
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,014
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The establishment clause clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you are giving it exemption, you are ignoring those words.
Not just ignoring. It's helping them to establish a religion, in the finest tradition of twisting laws to do the opposite of what was intended.

And we give them free advertising.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 08:43 AM   #180
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Not just ignoring. It's helping them to establish a religion, in the finest tradition of twisting laws to do the opposite of what was intended.

And we give them free advertising.
Yep.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:40 AM   #181
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I agree. Republicans have the same kinds of conflicting priorities.

I see the argument here a lot: we should follow what the science says. In that sense, both sides have priorities that conflict with what the science says.
On many issues this is just straight false though.

'The virus is real and dangerous but we need to protest the murder and racism still doing massive damage to people in the US,' acknowledges true science and makes a value judgement.

'AGW is a hoax,' just does no such thing. And the sad part is there are so many other examples that could be used.

The problem is that the GOP and many US conservatives can't make the argument as a value judgement because that would show they don't even vaguely hold the values that they claim to and still come to the conclusions they have come to. You could come to the same conclusions they want, but then the value they have to use is 'people are only valued by their ability to build short term money capital'.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 03:09 PM   #182
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,598
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is substantial evidence that many preachers do not believe in their religion. Not that they started out that way, but came to no longer believe and are still preaching. Read about the Clergy Project. Many pastors feel trapped, because they don't know how to make an honest living.
I don't think that quite justifies categorically labeling religion a "con".
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 03:35 PM   #183
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I don't think that quite justifies categorically labeling religion a "con".
Really? Is there ANY EVIDENCE that a God exists? Or that Christianity is true? Are they asking for money to spread lies and dubious claims?

It's a con. The longest con in history.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 04:59 PM   #184
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Given that anti-religion theme this thread has adopted, I'm relishing the irony that it's mostly preaching to the choir.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:42 PM   #185
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,598
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Really? Is there ANY EVIDENCE that a God exists? Or that Christianity is true? Are they asking for money to spread lies and dubious claims?

It's a con. The longest con in history.
I chalk it up to ignorance.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 04:17 PM   #186
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,897
Something I was just reminded of by a formerly Christian atheist on YouTube... I've watched several of those describing their deconversion processes and what long emotional trials & tribulations were involved as they completely overhauled & reversed their whole way of looking at everything, and ended up at the other end not just atheist but also motivated enough by the experience to spend full-time-job hours talking about it and finding more religious material to respond to about it, because it was not just having their minds changed about some facts, but an all-encompassing, identity-redefining psychological ordeal. It seems to have often been that way for political conversions from the right to the left as well. But when lefties come to accept that they've been wrong about something, that particular error tends to just get filed away in memory and moved along from, with no effect on anything else.

For example, it was once quite popular to trot out a series of thoroughly antiscientific claims about what a disaster the F-35 was, but when was the last time you saw it get brought up now? The plane didn't change, so the only thing that could have changed is the accuracy of those people's reactions to it. But there also haven't been a series of either dramatic & shocking acceptance struggles or even just low-key & factual statements of having their minds changed. They just... weren't passing on the false claims anymore. It's even gone so quiet that there's no way to be certain whether this is acceptance of reality or they're still sticking to the original thinking but just keeping it hidden now. But I think it's generally the former because there are other examples I'm not naming for now, and the pattern holds that they don't go so silent over other issues where their minds haven't been changed, and in some cases the silence began rather suddenly right after they were presented with certain arguments and had no response to those particular arguments. So it looks like they've had their minds changed, or at least became less certain & confident about whatever subject it was, and then didn't feel like talking about it anymore because of that change.

Last edited by Delvo; 19th July 2020 at 04:20 PM.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 04:48 PM   #187
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Something I was just reminded of by a formerly Christian atheist on YouTube... I've watched several of those describing their deconversion processes and what long emotional trials & tribulations were involved as they completely overhauled & reversed their whole way of looking at everything, and ended up at the other end not just atheist but also motivated enough by the experience to spend full-time-job hours talking about it and finding more religious material to respond to about it, because it was not just having their minds changed about some facts, but an all-encompassing, identity-redefining psychological ordeal. It seems to have often been that way for political conversions from the right to the left as well. But when lefties come to accept that they've been wrong about something, that particular error tends to just get filed away in memory and moved along from, with no effect on anything else.

For example, it was once quite popular to trot out a series of thoroughly antiscientific claims about what a disaster the F-35 was, but when was the last time you saw it get brought up now? The plane didn't change, so the only thing that could have changed is the accuracy of those people's reactions to it. But there also haven't been a series of either dramatic & shocking acceptance struggles or even just low-key & factual statements of having their minds changed. They just... weren't passing on the false claims anymore. It's even gone so quiet that there's no way to be certain whether this is acceptance of reality or they're still sticking to the original thinking but just keeping it hidden now. But I think it's generally the former because there are other examples I'm not naming for now, and the pattern holds that they don't go so silent over other issues where their minds haven't been changed, and in some cases the silence began rather suddenly right after they were presented with certain arguments and had no response to those particular arguments. So it looks like they've had their minds changed, or at least became less certain & confident about whatever subject it was, and then didn't feel like talking about it anymore because of that change.
What unscientific claims? I've read articles opposing building it, but those were just opinions on the value of spending so much money for a single weapon system. Even you have to admit it is a very costly aircraft. Frankly, I have found the arguments against it very persuasive. But I'm not a military expert. I admittedly worry about the weapons manufacturers pulling a fast one.

Can you be specific about this?

As for me, I try and let science inform all my positions. But there is an unfortunate reality today. Sometimes the information that leads you to a position is wrong and/or incomplete. I want to always be open to change my mind.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 09:00 PM   #188
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,897
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What unscientific claims? I've read articles opposing building it, but those were just opinions on the value of spending so much money for a single weapon system.
That stealth doesn't work or is about to stop working

That having advanced sensors & communication abilities equals being "hackable"

That the advanced new helmet "doesn't work"

That the complicated subject of "maneuverability" is a single straightforward value that can be determined from one or two cherry-picked geometric measurements (and that F-35's geometry is even worse than other fighters & attack planes even in the resulting misleading comparison anyway)

That real missions happen at or near "top speed" so top speed is an indicator of how fast a plane will be moving on real missions

That published numbers for things like top speed, acceleration, instantaneous turn rate, or sustained turn rate, which were given for previous fighter generations as theoretical uttermost maximums with no weapons and as close to no fuel as possible, are valid comparisons with those that are now given for F-35 while carrying weapons and half of a full load of fuel (which its predecessors would need external tanks to match, which would add not only weight but also drag)

That speed and/or maneuverability is even what determines fighters' or attack planes' real-world success anyway

That there are fundamental differences between the physical traits that a fighter should have and the ones that a ground-attack plane should have that make having one plane do both a bad idea

That there are fundamental differences between the physical traits that a plane for the Air Force should have and the ones that a plane for Navy should have and the ones that a plane for the Marines should have, that make having one plane for all three or any two of them a bad idea

(There were also some more, like that higher numbers for range somehow mean shorter range and higher numbers for weapon loads somehow mean less ability to carry weapons, but those get away from principles of the science of aircraft design and into the simple matter of reading numbers.)
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 01:27 PM   #189
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
It wasn’t a “mistruth”. Science by it’s very nature moves forward and changes.so it never gives you “the truth” and it’s usually the pseudoscientists that complain about this.
Was it the science that changed, or was it the supply chain catching up?

Quote:
What changed was the discovery that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people were spreading the virus. There were also issues with people who were experiencing symptoms going out an spreading the virus. In these cases mask use DOES help, so the recommendation changed to account for it. Again, this is what science does and how science works. It advances and moves forward.
They know nothing more about masks today that they didn't know Jan 1 2020. There was no new science. It was all about production and supply. According to sworn testimony from Fauci, it was the supply and availability of masks that changed the message, not the science.

Fauci said he didn’t regret the change in recommendations. Early in the pandemic there was a “paucity of equipment” for health workers “who put themselves daily in harm’s way” and “we did not want to divert” those scarce supplies, he said.

They offered conflicting instructions based on the same science. Because it wasn't about the science and they have admitted as much. It was about protecting the supply chain. The early instructions were, intentional misstatements, and as such, lies.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 01:31 PM   #190
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The cloth masks are certainly not a panacea, but I think they also serve to remind people that we need to take this pandemic seriously.
I think they offer so little protection and yet people think they offer some that they stop adhering to distancing rules. Also, they are a barrier to communications so people move closer rendering the masks more useless.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 06:42 PM   #191
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,014
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
They offered conflicting instructions based on the same science. Because it wasn't about the science and they have admitted as much. It was about protecting the supply chain. The early instructions were, intentional misstatements, and as such, lies.
No. The only one making intentional misstatements (and as such, lies) is you.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 07:30 PM   #192
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
So when asked "Did they ever say that masks were bad?" I must limit myself to the current guidance? To answer a question about what was said when, I must use older sources.

It's hard to "follow the science" when those responsible for that science are actively lying. Not wrong, but spreading mistruths.
You seem to be having trouble confusing the science and scientists from the political and commercial spokespersons saying whatever suits their needs.

Fauci claims he had reasons for misspeaking about the masks. But he corrected himself and even Trump now admits the masks are needed.

So just what "mistruths" are you speaking of?
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 07:44 PM   #193
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I think they offer so little protection and yet people think they offer some that they stop adhering to distancing rules. Also, they are a barrier to communications so people move closer rendering the masks more useless.
You're flat out wrong. The evidence is out there.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 08:00 PM   #194
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Should Planned Parenthood be taxed like any other business?

Because right now it isn't.
It's not a ******* church.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 08:03 PM   #195
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.... The left is putting the importance of BLM protests above the risk of spread. When a bunch of people are all in close proximity, it doesn't matter if you are indoors or outdoors. Even face coverings are not quite good enough to totally stop the spread in close proximity. ....
Outdoors with face masks and you claim the risk of spread is what?

Rare but one case is too many?

Two cases?

Ten?

What evidence do you have that any cases were spread by the protests?
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 08:11 PM   #196
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Should Planned Parenthood be taxed like any other business?

Because right now it isn't.
Planned Parenthood is not a business. It's a charity. It submits audited financial statements. It serves a purpose including education and providing birth control.

Churches do not. They peddle mythology.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 10:12 PM   #197
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Really? Is there ANY EVIDENCE that a God exists? Or that Christianity is true? Are they asking for money to spread lies and dubious claims?

It's a con. The longest con in history.
Unquestionably.

It's a con that believers cannot see.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 10:13 PM   #198
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I chalk it up to ignorance.
So you are agreeing?
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 10:16 PM   #199
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Was it the science that changed, or was it the supply chain catching up?

They know nothing more about masks today that they didn't know Jan 1 2020. There was no new science. It was all about production and supply. According to sworn testimony from Fauci, it was the supply and availability of masks that changed the message, not the science.

Fauci said he didn’t regret the change in recommendations. Early in the pandemic there was a “paucity of equipment” for health workers “who put themselves daily in harm’s way” and “we did not want to divert” those scarce supplies, he said.

They offered conflicting instructions based on the same science. Because it wasn't about the science and they have admitted as much. It was about protecting the supply chain. The early instructions were, intentional misstatements, and as such, lies.
That's crap.

If you were paying attention to the science you would know that.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 10:18 PM   #200
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,738
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I think they offer so little protection and yet people think they offer some that they stop adhering to distancing rules. Also, they are a barrier to communications so people move closer rendering the masks more useless.
Masks stop infected people who don't know they are infected from spreading the virus.

80%

Masks protect uninfected people the other 20%.
__________________
Thousands of COMMUTATIONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (2009-2017)

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.