So am I to accept your implied concession that you are also opposed to big government? After all, what is big government but too many appointed officials with too much power?

You can also argue yourself blue in the face about violence being illegal, but you're wrong. Unjustified violence is illegal. Not only is it a fundamental foundation of our country, but it's also the internationally accepted law that justified violence is moral and legal. It is a right. UNJUSTIFIED violence is, in this country, illegal. The power of the government is in application of the definition of justified or unjustified.
Clearly you are of the belief that the government can take away our natural rights (or rather, we have no natural rights and all rights are granted by the government). You can believe that, but to argue it with me is like a christian arguing with a muslim. You're arguing beliefs at that point.

And I'm not trying to be patriotic in singling out our state as not having a simple definition. I just mean that I live here, this is what I know, and I know it does not have a simple definition like that. If you would like for me to speak for all states on earth or in the universe, then sure. No definition of state is so simple.

Interesting. Apparently there is a possible connection between the hackers who stole the e-mails and the Russian government. Russia is a large exporter of oil and could be looking to thwart the upcoming Copenhagen talks (link).

The whole of the last page was questioning your arbitrary concept of "bigness" in terms of government. You've finally settled on my definition? I'm flattered.

You forgot to read a certain part of my last post there.

You know, the part where I pointed out that violence will get you thrown in a federal prison unless an APPOINTED OFFICIAL feels you were acting in the best interest of the state.

Oh man, yeah, that's totally a natural right.

I am only pointing out that your definition fits within my general idea. You were the one arguing that I was wrong.

No, I continue to read and understand your posts. You don't know what you're talking about.
If some guy I don't know were to walk in my bedroom right now, and if I were to shoot him in the chest with my handy little shotgun, the state would have to PROVE that I was unjustified in killing him. That may, depending on the specifics, be extremely easy or extremely difficult. If he walked into my room with a gun or a knife in his hand, then that's pretty clear, isn't it? Without some amazing evidence that he meant me no harm, I will not go to prison. The "best interests of the state" have no bearing on this. It's MY best interest, as a human being. You seem to be forgetting about the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

If you don't believe in natural rights, then just say so and then there is no discussion. If you truly believe that a human being has no inherent rights, then go on believing that the will of the strong is the only law. But leave me my beliefs and my country which is founded on them.

...My specific idea about what constitutes a dangerous 'big' government fits within your cavernous, vague handwaving blanket definition?

Yawn.

I'll post it again: whether or not you face criminal charges hinges entirely upon the personal opinions and predispositions of an appointed official. Not the constitution, not the criminal code, not a politician, not an elected judge. Even if you win you still pay legal fees. Enjoy your natural right.

No no no, I just believe that it's impossible to prove a negative. In reality the US government grants you explicit permission to do specific things in specific situations. Your belief is that those rights are 'natural' and 'inalienable,' which, if it were true, would make the constitution unimpressive and redundant.

Keep whining about it, but... well... you know, I have a natural right to question your beliefs after all.

Bob, you mentioned on the last page that you're an atheist. So where do you believe that these "natural" and "inherent" rights come from? What are they: in what sense do they exist?

It sounds like you're making a moral judgment ("Humans ought to be treated such-and-so") and claiming that it's a fact, which any philosopher will tell you is nonsense.

A potentially factual statement might look like this: "Societies that enforce such-and-such a moral code tend to be more successful." But then you have to admit that "natural right" is a funny way to refer to something that's essentially a strategy in a game.

The constitution is redundant. Welcome to 1788.

...bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. -Alexander Hamilton

Oh and look, even without being a holy prophet, he somehow knew enough to predict that some day hundreds of years in the future, Jon'C would do that very thing. You speak of "reality" like it isn't what we make of it.

Whether I face criminal charges is indeed up to an appointed official, but luckily, criminal charges aren't the same as convictions. They can charge me with murder, but to convict me (and execute their power to imprison or kill me) they have to prove it was murder. Killing in self defense is not murder. Therefore, given the ideal trial, there is no conviction. Arguing against a natural right on the grounds that one must pay to exercise it is silly. You have to work to eat, don't you?

And yeah, your "specific" idea (too many appointed officials with too much power is dangerous) fits within my godawfully "cavernous" idea (too many people with too much power is dangerous). They are so very different, thank you for clarifying my grievously under thought guideline, which I already explained was not a definition or rule.

I just do. I believe they exist because that's what I believe. I am making a moral judgement and claiming it as fact, because what else is there? Moral relativism is the only alternative. Even saying "societies that enforce whatever moral code tend to be more successful" is based on beliefs about what success is, and even deeper, that something that is good for society is worthwhile. Talk too long and you'll discuss yourself down to nothing. There has to be a bottom to that hole.

Think about all of the things society won't let you do: eating for free (as you mentioned,) simply taking what you want, murdering people you don't like. Why is it that these aren't "natural rights?" Animals do it all the time and it's perfectly natural for them.

Ah yes. We're better than animals, right? That means the natural freedoms afforded to animals would be unnatural for us.

Funny word, "natural."

Tell me, BobTheMasher: why is it natural that a woman is forced to wear a certain amount of clothing, but unnatural to be forced to wear slightly more clothing? Hmm.

You were raised to believe the rights you are granted are the true, God-given inalienable rights; all that ever were, all that ever will be. The very idea that your unique way of life might not be the best for all people turns your stomach -- the very thought is unnatural. And you think I don't know what I'm talking about: moral relativism is a euphemism for ethnocentrism. People who believe in the superiority of their culture are why the world is in such a bad shape. I don't think you'd be so quick to apply a label such as "natural" to your own personal philosophy if you didn't get that D in history class.

I think you're reading a lot more into the word "natural" than any sane person should, and you know it's absurd. I call them natural because they are basic. I don't even know what you're talking about with the clothes thing. Care to explain? Why is it natural for women to have to wear clothes and unnatural to be forced to wear slightly more? What are you talking about? And whatever you're talking about, I can't see how the amount of clothes someone wears is really the most important right to be concerned about discussing.

Those things you mentioned aren't rights because they infringe upon the rights of others. Murdering other people and stealing are morally wrong. Animals do it all the time, sure, but animals aren't people.

And don't try to make assumptions about how I was raised. You have no idea how I was raised. Remember when I said I'm an atheist? I'd have a hard time believing in GOD-given rights as an atheist, huh?

And moral relativism is the OPPOSITE of ethnocentrism. And as is often the case, the right answer lies somewhere in between, I think. But you are talking yourself into a little ethnocentric hypocritical hole here. You're telling ME that people who believe in the superiority of their culture are why the world is in such bad shape while at the same time telling me that MY country's basis and MY own personal beliefs are wrong and stupid.

Well, you're wrong. You have to stand for something, or you're pretty much meaningless. Have fun going through life with zero principles or morals. I'm sure you'll be remembered as a great man.

people do not, and will not always believe the same things or hold the same views of the world. that is a large part of the reason why we still have individual nations as opposed to a large global federation.
this idea of having to be a "progressive" nation that is constantly being touted is a bag of wind. it is seeming more and more that progressive means doing "SOMETHING" even if that something is misguided.
case in point: climate change.... OH WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!

ok... what? what exactly do you propose we do? can you prove it will make even an ounce of difference? how much would the world really have to cut back to create a reversal of damage that world leaders are "claiming" we are doing? my guess is that you dont know. and i use the word "you" loosely. but i guess it does not really matter if we do or even can really change anything. just as long as we do SOMETHING so we can claim to be progressive.

i am not saying we should do nothing, only that before we try to force vast change on the entire world maybe, just maybe a little caution would be in order.

BobTheMasher:

1.) I obviously intended to say "moral absolutism" rather than "moral relativism."

2.) You are deliberately obtuse.

It becomes insufficient when it's impossible to amend. There are 2 methods to amend the constitution. You need two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (that's at least 38 states). The other method to amend the constitution isn't really in use today. It takes only 13 states to block the amendment. There have only been 27 amendments since the constitution became effective & 10 of those are the Bill of Rights & were added immediately after. That means that only 17 new amendments (one of which has been repealed) have been made in all of these years. That seems like a relatively low number considering that the amount of progress & social change that we've undergone as a society.


The problem with being cautious in this case is that there are dangerous implications for the entire world based upon the science & that the few governments that are standing in the way are doing so because their citizens are ****ing retards. You can see exactly how retarded they are by looking at the polls that show the discrepancies between the opinions of scientists & the general public. That's how I measure retardation & I propose that we make an amendment that takes this in to consideration. However, I don't expect anything to change because these are the same retards that deny the theory (fact) of evolution in the same breath. I find it quite likely that our species will kill itself off because of this retardation.

Mentat, what exactly would you like to see changed about the constitution that hasn't changed with the progress of society? It is a very basic document underlining how our government should be structured, and what it is allowed to do. That should have very little bearing on social progress, and as I see it, the major social changes HAVE been reflected in law, and when necessary, the constitution.

I understand what you're saying, of course, the constitution would be very hard to amend these days with the stupid "us-vs-them" party politics that seems to have only gotten worse as time goes on, but if something was truly important enough to the entire country to change the entire country's basis, then it should not be too hard to make a simple amendment.

So, to ask again: What exactly would you like to see changed about the constitution that hasn't changed with the progress of society?

Jon, yes, apparently you did mean moral absolutism. That doesn't really respond to anything I said. Call me obtuse if you want, but you're the one being hypocritical and talking about womens' clothing here.

Hypocritical? How? Hahaha.

I've been pointing out the fact that you believe your way of life is unique, special and 'natural' because you were raised to believe that. Meanwhile, someone who was raised under shari'a is convinced that your way of life is blasphemous and unnatural and you deserve to die for it.

Who's right? You? Why? At the moment I'd probably side with the Muslim just so you'd stop pretending to be stupid.

You're being hypocritical because you're telling me that my beliefs are wrong in the same breath as you're telling me that no one's beliefs are wrong. I know my principles aren't unique, or special, but I believe they're right. And wouldn't you know it, I live in a country that was founded on those same principles. Funny coincidence, right? You're the one trying to tell me that those principles are wrong and need to change. Nowhere have I said "Hey, Canada, change your laws to be in line with my beliefs!" or "Hey muslims, you're all wrong, convert to atheism and accept my way of life now." I just want other people with other beliefs to leave MINE alone, and I'm glad that there is a country on this earth that is built on principles I agree with, a place I can call home.

You can't have principles and still say that everyone else on earth is right. You telling me that everyone has a right to their own beliefs and that mine aren't special is a belief that YOU have...so you are doing the same thing I am in saying that you think you are right. The only difference is that I realize this is an inevitability, and you are in denial.

Jon`C, I see your point. But the idea of universal, inalienable rights is not so strange.

After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based upon that very idea.

The discussion is philosophical, and both of you are making valid points.



Yes, you can. It's called moral relativism.



I blame the media. They're always letting the skeptics have their say without letting the general public know that they're a tiny minority who are mostly speaking outside their field of expertise.

It would technically be more accurate to say that there is no right.

It's like arguing which color is best. It's not that everyone is right, it's that colors have no objective qualities that make one inherently better than another.

I think the issue is that most people are skeptical by nature and when you have proof that those within their so-called field of expertise are "cooking the books" to make their case it is going to further add credibility to [anyone not on the side of the warmers]. The bottom line is that when you are using an issue to ram global governance and redistribution of wealth down everyone's throat you are going to get resistance. Especially when the science is so shaky.

My favorite thing now is to hear all the warmers saying how it doesn't matter that the research data is destroyed and the emails about concealing it because the science is settled.

What the **** are we arguing about now?

Who cares?

Damned snow. Globe needs to warm faster.

I know! Except the snow part. It's bloody cold!

Yes it's cold for me!

Ok, if that's what you think. I myself am a fan of rational empiricism--that is, not making claims about things as "fact" unless they're verifiable. But I guess not every atheist who rejects the God aspect of religion is going to reject all the other religious ways of thinking.



The alternative is clearly distinguishing between value judgments and facts. Which, actually, is what moral relativism is: realizing that with no absolute moral authority to appeal to, "morality" is a set of value judgments and not a set of facts.

Now, if you want to reformulate all of your claims as value judgments, I'm ok with that--we agree. But then you have to realize that people can disagree with you, because "BobTheMasher said so" is not an extremely compelling moral argument.



Ok. I used "success" as a shorthand because I thought we could avoid this argument. But I'll rephrase in various ways:

"societies that enforce Moral Code X tend to last longer without dying out or changing substantially"

"societies that enforce Moral Code Y tend to experience greater population growth"

"societies that enforce Moral Code Z tend to have higher levels of self-reported happiness"

And so on. There's no reason that all of these would coincide, but any of them have the potential to be factual statements, not just value judgments. Now, if you can reformulate your stance on "natural rights" in the form "I like Right Q because it tends to promote societies that P, and I like living in a society that P," then we can talk. Because you're separating a factual statement from a value judgment, and I can figure out where I disagree with you. But hopefully you can see what a far cry such a discussion is from "The right to bear arms is a natural, inalienable right."



Yes, "explanations come to an end somewhere". Any worldview has to rest on some fundamental axioms. I think, however, that (especially for atheists) it shouldn't be too hard to come to a set of axioms that we share. "Happiness is good" and "we all want to be happy" seems like a pretty good place to start.

When Wittgenstein wrote "Explanations come to an end somewhere," he wasn't merely arguing that the hole has to have a bottom. He was saying that you can keep digging down forever, but there are probably more useful things to be doing with your time. If we refine our claims (and our questions) in the right way, we can stop worrying about the damn hole and actually have a productive conversation.

That's just because you're losing all your insulation up top.

There is nothing shaky about the science. The data has been coming in for years and years, and has been provided by thousands upon thousands of scientists. If you believe all of that has been 'cooked up' as some kind of global liberal conspiracy, and that it has been proven by these two e-mails, than you're even more than the people who believe 9-11 was done by the US government.

And the data has been cooked for years and years. Until we have a transparent peer review process you are not going to convince the general public otherwise and when you have the preeminent organization responsible for compiling and analyzing the research embroiled in a scandal to misrepresent, destroy, and, ironically, manufacture the data that is going to do nothing to help the warmers cause.

The bottom line is that there are any number of things that could be done that would help the environment, grow the economy, and reduce our dependence on oil while reducing man made carbon emissions with out including the global schemes. If this was really a problem people weren't seeking to gain political power from, that is.

There is one.

Oh. Unless you consider yourself the peer of doctors of climatology. In which case, no, there isn't a transparent peer review process.

Can you provide evidence of this? The burden of proof is now in your hands. There are probably going to be scandals (fake & real) throughout the future of mankind but that's what's so great about peer review. We've had several scandals over Evolution in history but science has always prevailed in discovering them (although sometimes it took a bit longer than I would've preferred) & today Evolution is considered fact by anyone that isn't an idiot.

While I would agree with you on the subject of data being transparent, in this particular case, the "secrecy" bit is rather ridiculous now that we know that the person in question made the same statements in a paper that he had written that was available to the public via the web. As far as I'm concerned, the peer review process is already relatively transparent. If you mean transparent to the point where your next-door neighbor has access to every ounce of scientific data on the planet then I would say to you that while that would be nice, it's not really much of a concern because he'd be too stupid to know what to do with it in the first place & we'd only end up with more hoaxes like "ClimateGate".

I must say that there's something humorous about a society that believes in & pretends to know the mind of a god without a shred of evidence & then turns around & pretends that something isn't true when there are mountains of it. How embarrassing.

Wookie06, like so many people, just believes what he wants to believe. There's just no reasoning with someone so stubborn. That, or he's the biggest troll in the history of massassi.

No, I'm with you there, for the most part. Rational empiricism, as you state it, is my basis as well. However, I have one caveat: when something CANNOT be verified, when trying to is an exercise in futility, I accept beliefs as a viable alternative. For example, as we discussed, trying to find some sort of scientific basis for the meaning of life and the value humans have vs. the value of an individual life vs. the value of all other life, etc. is an exercise in futility. I choose to have a set of morals based on what I FEEL is right, and based on what the society I live in agrees with (sort of as a cause/effect thing, I'm sure).


This is what I do. However, by making a judgement, you are saying something is fact. You are creating absolutes. I can't go around all day prefacing everything I say with "I, personally, believe" and ending it with "for me, and I don't want to force that on anyone else." It would get tiring. I figure it's assumed that whatever I say is what I believe.


We do agree. But remember, I was not the one on the offensive. Jon'C was trying to tell me that my personal beliefs, and the basis of my country's government, are wrong. I was simply defending them.



That is a good place to start, but even happiness is so subjective that it's tough to use as a basis for anything. After all, what makes you happy may be different from what makes me happy.

Ok, we agree, but I still think that your language is misleading. "X is a natural right" is nowhere near as transparent a way of phrasing something as "Ensuring the legal right to X promotes a society that is Y, which I like." Making a value judgment really is not the same thing as claiming a fact. I think that Jon`C was trying to tell you that your value judgments are not facts, which I agree with.

In game theory terms, there are payoffs, rules, and strategies. A fact is a statement about the rules and is not arbitrary; I can determine my payoffs arbitrarily, but saying "these are my preferred outcomes" is not saying something about the nature of the game. But once we're explicit about what our (and our competitors') payoffs are, we can get around to formulating useful strategies.

I've been reading a lot about this story and I've been looking for the smoking gun. Where in the hacked e-mails was there evidence of falsified or manufactured data?

Tell me, wookie06...

What are you thinking, really? That somehow every single climate scientist in the world is in on some massive global conspiracy? That they're all on the payroll of The Liberals? That politicians tell them what results to provide? That the purpose of the whole tree hugging hippy plot is for The Liberals to be in power?

What are your thoughts on Kopenhagen? Are you hoping for a good outcome? Do you even give a rat's ***? Or are you hoping the negotiations will fail miserably?

I'm seriously curious.

Wookie06 believes what he wants to believe. He's a neoconservative moron. Any time he gets into a corner like this, he goes, "Haha, I can't believe you guys are so easily trolled!" then never responds. :downs:

Jon, it's so rare that I get to really comment on one of your posts without simply saying "yeah what he said." I just had to point this out.

Those things most certainly ARE natural rights. They're just frowned upon by nearly every social state in the world. Natural? yes. state sanctioned? no.

I just typed this out and realized I was agreeing with you and saying what you already said... but I'm posting it anyway. Damn.

I know this is WAY off topic, but I just can't help it:

Reading through the first page of this thread (as far as I got before I was struck dumb with the following thoughts), I had a flashback to when I was a young teenager and Massassi was still young. I saw the intelligent conversation that was taking place between members of this forum who have been here for years and whose posts I grew up reading. I looked back and remembered what conversations used to look like (and sometimes still do) on these forums and I was amazed. What used to go something like "n0 ur ghey!!1 mara wouuld kik luke's a55!1" has turned into an in-depth analysis of the techniques mara might employ in said ***-kicking as well as the motives behind it.

In short, you've grown up Massassi. Congratulations.

EDIT: *SIGH* ...and then there's this page.

You have made me laugh, so hard hahahaha

All quiet on the wookie front

And now the EPA has considered CO2 as a poisonous gas (Oh#### Im sorry for breathing on you I didnt mean to kill you)