We seem to be getting closer:

[SMOGZINN]

I find that wherever I go that's where I am so what would be the point of going to the stars. I am there already.

Because, like most of life, it is about the journey not the destination.

Are we there yet?

Yes, but how did we get here?

 

[jman19]

Yes, but how did we get here?

Idiots at the ballot box.

 

[agent00f]

There are some that argue that man would have been better off without weaponry that could cause a nuclear winter, an uncontrollable bacterial pandemic, etc. By far the most probable result of the scientific method will be an extinction level event (for humans and most living organisms) in the next 1000 years.

Science has done many great things for humanity but they also provided the means for self-immolation. The problem is that man's genetic code has programmed him in such a way that the chances of self-immolation over time are about 100%.

The tribalism is rampant in every human. Every human appears to hate at least one other group of humans, it is in his DNA.

Just because quality of life is far superior now than in the middle ages due to its consequences doesn't mean everyone is equally enlightened. Keep in mind it's hardly the conservatives/trump types looking to minimize risk of war, etc.

It's interesting to me at least to speculate on Fermi's Paradox in a similar context. We haven't seen signs of aliens and there are any number of reasons that may be, from we are the only technological civilization to The Great Filter.

Any space faring civilization would have one evolutionary imperative common with all others, an innate drive to perpetuate the species. The other constant would be thermodynamics. All life must involve the consumption of resources to maintain, grow and reproduce. Eventually a tension sets in where resources, be they material or energy, become limited and we have set the stage for evolution. One must outcompete for limited resources. Those best adapted survive and this holds for herbivores, predators, plants, all things which have environmental constraints.

It is therefore likely that any alien mentality is similar in some ways to ourselves and therefore possible that competition within the species results as well such as in humans. Unfortunately we are so clever in manipulating the environment and learning about the physical world that our tendencies for elimination of others of our species becomes easier over time.

If we stop for a moment and look at what it would take to travel between stars or erect a structure of such immensity that we can actually detect it in the relatively near future, the level science involve must be vastly ahead of our own.

The sad thing is that self destruction is far simpler to achieve than visiting us.

Maybe there is no one who can visit because they eliminate themselves deliberately or by carelessness.

Just a heads up that trying this hard doesn't make you look smarter to people who are. It may just be the case that space travel is completely impractical.

 

[agent00f]

Apparently it is self evident to the superior they are superior having been gifted and all with the ability to see it. But we see what we assume, we see what we believe so if you think you are superior you will see yourself that way.

I look at this differently. Conservatives are more emotionally biased, allow ego to influence their critical thinking and rationalize away data that is causes anxiety. They are superior in this way. They are less anxious and more at home in a tight organized group of like minded thinkers, say in a church or an authoritarian state, they find themselves emotionally happier than liberals would. So all you need to do if you are a conservative is change what superior means.

If you are a liberal, or have a questioning mind, you will quickly see that good and evil are words that can mean anything and if you extend superior to the good, then you can be superior depending on what you call the good.

But all this nonsense about superior isms is just silliness. We concern ourselves with words like that because we do not see that we all are suffering from an unconscious inferiority complex. We hate ourselves and so our superiority index becomes very important to us, those of us who have ego concerns. It's like having a sore toe that you leave in the middle of the aisle and everybody walking by steps on. We are looking to be offended so any comparison to others feels like a slight to out ego. We are carrying that around
leaving it in the aisle and screaming when it is inevitably stepped on.

Just as it's simply a fact that algebra is a more complete and therefore better system than arithmetic, modern humanist systems of collectivization are superior to primitive religions and so on. Same for reality/science based explanations for phenomena, etc. "Isms" are ideologies, ie systems of abstraction for human affairs, which are hardly created equal just as it's possible to create frequently incorrect/unuseful maths such as 2+2=22.

Of course it's possible to define "superior/better" in some unorthodox or convoluted way such that whatever other rhetorical statement is true, but understanding of this possibility is also superior to not understanding it and subsequently arguing over semantic pedantry. It's also possible to understand why some might argue all things are relative, particularly when up against better arguments.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just because quality of life is far superior now than in the middle ages due to its consequences doesn't mean everyone is equally enlightened. Keep in mind it's hardly the conservatives/trump types looking to minimize risk of war, etc.




Just a heads up that trying this hard doesn't make you look smarter to people who are. It may just be the case that space travel is completely impractical.

When I said above that we see what we believe, the assumptions we have made and operate under, even unconsciously, that also means we often hear what we expect to hear. Perhaps, therefore, because I see Hay as a kind, sensitive, and extremely moral individual with a very impartial attitude to things, I hear something else than you did in the following that he said: "We haven't seen signs of aliens and there are any number of reasons that may be, from we are the only technological civilization to The Great Filter." To me that means that the possibility that space flight is impracticable would be just one of millions of other possibilities he didn't mention but acknowledge indirectly. Perhaps in your haste to write him off as trying to look smart you weren't listening to what he actually said.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just as it's simply a fact that algebra is a more complete and therefore better system than arithmetic, modern humanist systems of collectivization are superior to primitive religions and so on. Same for reality/science based explanations for phenomena, etc. "Isms" are ideologies, ie systems of abstraction for human affairs, which are hardly created equal just as it's possible to create frequently incorrect/unuseful maths such as 2+2=22.

Of course it's possible to define "superior/better" in some unorthodox or convoluted way such that whatever other rhetorical statement is true, but understanding of this possibility is also superior to not understanding it and subsequently arguing over semantic pedantry. It's also possible to understand why some might argue all things are relative, particularly when up against better arguments.

All this seems perfectly natural and correct if you assume these as facts beforehand. Where your reasoning fails to convince me lies in the standards you use for superior, useful, and better. I believe about 9% of illnesses can be cured by placebo so magical thinking is really helpful for some people. Algebra can do things that can't be done by simple math but simple math is totally sufficient for simple math and would only confuse the issue for people who don't know it but can tell you instantly what you have to add to two to get four. Things are of value in context. You assume that your context is universal whereas for me the way you think is quite limiting. For me understanding the context from which I see things is everything, Without it I can't see what motives I might have for seeing things as I do. Understanding depends on knowing what you feel. I see you have resistance to that.

You believe that the people you call stupid and I call motivated not to feel what they feel and whom you want to brand and tarnish as stupid for that, are just like you or more, you're just like them. You hide from yourself with the same kind of denial. I don't blame you. You can't help it because you have no control over the fact that you are motivated not to see any of it. You make it hard to see too, because you have such contempt for it, for yourself, essentially. And because you're in to being superior, you won't be able to react to this as anything other than an attack.

 

[agent00f]

When I said above that we see what we believe, the assumptions we have made and operate under, even unconsciously, that also means we often hear what we expect to hear. Perhaps, therefore, because I see Hay as a kind, sensitive, and extremely moral individual with a very impartial attitude to things, I hear something else than you did in the following that he said: "We haven't seen signs of aliens and there are any number of reasons that may be, from we are the only technological civilization to The Great Filter." To me that means that the possibility that space flight is impracticable would be just one of millions of other possibilities he didn't mention but acknowledge indirectly. Perhaps in your haste to write him off as trying to look smart you weren't listening to what he actually said.

I read what he wrote and replied appropriately based on the merits of the rambling post parroting pop sci-fi lit, of which there are few. Just because you nor he is particularly familiar with the technical details of the subject doesn't mean nobody is.

All this seems perfectly natural and correct if you assume these as facts beforehand. Where your reasoning fails to convince me lies in the standards you use for superior, useful, and better. I believe about 9% of illnesses can be cured by placebo so magical thinking is really helpful for some people. Algebra can do things that can't be done by simple math but simple math is totally sufficient for simple math and would only confuse the issue for people who don't know it but can tell you instantly what you have to add to two to get four. Things are of value in context. You assume that your context is universal whereas for me the way you think is quite limiting. For me understanding the context from which I see things is everything, Without it I can't see what motives I might have for seeing things as I do. Understanding depends on knowing what you feel. I see you have resistance to that.

You believe that the people you call stupid and I call motivated not to feel what they feel and whom you want to brand and tarnish as stupid for that, are just like you or more, you're just like them. You hide from yourself with the same kind of denial. I don't blame you. You can't help it because you have no control over the fact that you are motivated not to see any of it. You make it hard to see too, because you have such contempt for it, for yourself, essentially. And because you're in to being superior, you won't be able to react to this as anything other than an attack.

It's simply a fact that most any sophisticated tech useful for modern civilization requires algebra or equivalent. Again, understanding this is differentiated from not understanding it, for which we've developed the words better/superior to categorize the relationship. Attempting to redefine words to claim some rhetorical victory is a worthless exercise, and again understanding that words mean something is superior to not understanding it. 2+2=4 is likewise superior to 2+2=22, no matter the apologetics.

Similarly, it's comically ironic that you would redefine an explanation of this as some kind of counterattack, when it reveals that you're highly motivated to not understand what's meant, just like your description or more accurately labeled projection. Consider the scenario in school when some instructor explains a factual concept, why a poor student might be motivated to make the same proclamations you do: the instructor is in denial of his feelings and unmotivated to grasp his self-contempt. It's clearly a hilarious nonsense defense mechanism to deflect from the unimpeachable substance at hand.

---
Also worth mentioning I write this explanation because you're capable of understanding it, unlike many here who you're aware of; certainly a distinction appropriately categorized as superiority.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: I read what he wrote and replied appropriately based on the merits of the rambling post parroting pop sci-fi lit, of which there are few. Just because you nor he is particularly familiar with the technical details of the subject doesn't mean nobody is.

M: You either didn't read what he said or it didn't sink in because what you said is a logical impossibility which even a mind as inferior as mine was easily able to detect. You can't say somebody failed to consider your favorite explanation for a matter that is the subject of a great deal of scientific speculation and curiosity, and to which, given the nature of the question as to why some civilization far in advance of our own may or may not have done something, implying that none of us is advanced enough to certainly have the answer, and then go on to say that he didn't consider that favorite answer of yours when in fact he took into account the possibility of many answers obviously too numerous to enumerate and it's all there for anybody to read and to see. And furthermore, no technical skill at all on that particular subject is required to know this. What he wrote simply contradicts what you said and it's there for anybody to see.

a: It's simply a fact that most any sophisticated tech useful for modern civilization requires algebra or equivalent. Again, understanding this is differentiated from not understanding it, for which we've developed the words better/superior to categorize the relationship. Attempting to redefine words to claim some rhetorical victory is a worthless exercise, and again understanding that words mean something is superior to not understanding it. 2+2=4 is likewise superior to 2+2=22, no matter the apologetics.

M: Here we go again. You try claim that the fact that 1 = 1 is correct and 1 = 2 is incorrect makes the argument that 1 = 1 is superior. It isn't superior, It's a fundamental given in math. Nobody but you dreamed up the idea that 2 + 2 = 22 is an apology for whatever it is you're imagining. It is not an apology for anything that superior and inferior require a context in which to be true and that means that to understand anything you have to consider the context from which you are viewing. Ones context is in part based on what unconscious assumptions you are making about reality that may in fact be wrong. Does that mean the 1 + 1 = 22. No it doesn't mean that.

a: Similarly, it's comically ironic that you would redefine an explanation of this as some kind of counterattack, when it reveals that you're highly motivated to not understand what's meant, just like your description or more accurately labeled projection. Consider the scenario in school when some instructor explains a factual concept, why a poor student might be motivated to make the same proclamations you do: the instructor is in denial of his feelings and unmotivated to grasp his self-contempt. It's clearly a hilarious nonsense defense mechanism to deflect from the unimpeachable substance at hand.

M: After redefining what I said as an apology for why 2 + 2 = 22. So if you're not projecting why is it that you claim I'm doing what you just did?

Know too that the so called wise men are fools. I only know of one professor who knows anything. People who don't know anything are rare.

a: Also worth mentioning I write this explanation because you're capable of understanding it, unlike many here who you're aware of; certainly a distinction appropriately categorized as superiority.

M: My superiority lies in the fact that I know what it means to feel inferior. It's a lens that sees in the dark.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: I read what he wrote and replied appropriately based on the merits of the rambling post parroting pop sci-fi lit, of which there are few. Just because you nor he is particularly familiar with the technical details of the subject doesn't mean nobody is.

M: You either didn't read what he said or it didn't sink in because what you said is a logical impossibility which even a mind as inferior as mine was easily able to detect. You can't say somebody failed to consider your favorite explanation for a matter that is the subject of a great deal of scientific speculation and curiosity, and to which, given the nature of the question as to why some civilization far in advance of our own may or may not have done something, implying that none of us is advanced enough to certainly have the answer, and then go on to say that he didn't consider that favorite answer of yours when in fact he took into account the possibility of many answers obviously too numerous to enumerate and it's all there for anybody to read and to see. And furthermore, no technical skill at all on that particular subject is required to know this. What he wrote simply contradicts what you said and it's there for anybody to see.

Rather ironic you would argue that the equivalent of "2+2= some integer" is somehow a better/superior answer than 4, esp coming from someone not terribly familiar with the relevant physics of interstellar travel. But I'm sure that personal introspection provides greater insight into this problem than the natural sciences, much as your conservative counterparts do.

a: It's simply a fact that most any sophisticated tech useful for modern civilization requires algebra or equivalent. Again, understanding this is differentiated from not understanding it, for which we've developed the words better/superior to categorize the relationship. Attempting to redefine words to claim some rhetorical victory is a worthless exercise, and again understanding that words mean something is superior to not understanding it. 2+2=4 is likewise superior to 2+2=22, no matter the apologetics.

M: Here we go again. You try claim that the fact that 1 = 1 is correct and 1 = 2 is incorrect makes the argument that 1 = 1 is superior. It isn't superior, It's a fundamental given in math. Nobody but you dreamed up the idea that 2 + 2 = 22 is an apology for whatever it is you're imagining. It is not an apology for anything that superior and inferior require a context in which to be true and that means that to understand anything you have to consider the context from which you are viewing. Ones context is in part based on what unconscious assumptions you are making about reality that may in fact be wrong. Does that mean the 1 + 1 = 22. No it doesn't mean that.

No, it's trivial to understand that 2+2=4 is a superior answer than 22, which can be demonstrated in a number of convincing ways both mathematical and practical. Again knowing that in both an abstract and practical way is also superior to not. This applies to any number of reality based facts, which agreement upon has produced considerable technological progress in the natural world, in stark contrast to no such advancement by mystics who've proclaimed divine knowledge from within since the beginning of history.

Of course you can adamantly deny the obvious by blathering about contexts or whatever, but it's easy to see why people who are trivially wrong would argue that right or wrong is just a matter of perspective.

a: Similarly, it's comically ironic that you would redefine an explanation of this as some kind of counterattack, when it reveals that you're highly motivated to not understand what's meant, just like your description or more accurately labeled projection. Consider the scenario in school when some instructor explains a factual concept, why a poor student might be motivated to make the same proclamations you do: the instructor is in denial of his feelings and unmotivated to grasp his self-contempt. It's clearly a hilarious nonsense defense mechanism to deflect from the unimpeachable substance at hand.

M: After redefining what I said as an apology for why 2 + 2 = 22. So if you're not projecting why is it that you claim I'm doing what you just did?

It's pretty clear that your claims of what I did were comically erroneous as illustrated by the scenario, and as mentioned rather ironic given you were enacting those claims.

Know too that the so called wise men are fools. I only know of one professor who knows anything. People who don't know anything are rare.

Sure, all the people who can solve a myriad of practical problems and reside at the edge of human knowledge are the Real fools, and the guy wantonly speculating that all knowledge comes from within is the Real intellect. The conservatives are really rubbing off on you.

a: Also worth mentioning I write this explanation because you're capable of understanding it, unlike many here who you're aware of; certainly a distinction appropriately categorized as superiority.

M: My superiority lies in the fact that I know what it means to feel inferior. It's a lens that sees in the dark.

See, if you had any success teaching that to those conservatives you'd have something. Good luck with that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Rather ironic you would argue that the equivalent of "2+2= some integer" is somehow a better/superior answer than 4, esp coming from someone not terribly familiar with the relevant physics of interstellar travel. But I'm sure that personal introspection provides greater insight into this problem than the natural sciences, much as your conservative counterparts do.



No, it's trivial to understand that 2+2=4 is a superior answer than 22, which can be demonstrated in a number of convincing ways both mathematical and practical. Again knowing that in both an abstract and practical way is also superior to not. This applies to any number of reality based facts, which agreement upon has produced considerable technological progress in the natural world, in stark contrast to no such advancement by mystics who've proclaimed divine knowledge from within since the beginning of history.

Of course you can adamantly deny the obvious by blathering about contexts or whatever, but it's easy to see why people who are trivially wrong would argue that right or wrong is just a matter of perspective.


It's pretty clear that your claims of what I did were comically erroneous as illustrated by the scenario, and as mentioned rather ironic given you were enacting those claims.



Sure, all the people who can solve a myriad of practical problems and reside at the edge of human knowledge are the Real fools, and the guy wantonly speculating that all knowledge comes from within is the Real intellect. The conservatives are really rubbing off on you.



See, if you had any success teaching that to those conservatives you'd have something. Good luck with that.

I will value this opinion right up there as the kind of thinking you can get from somebody with so bad a case of intellectual snobbery, read "had to have been humiliated somewhere in childhood with the notion you're stupid', such that, in the rush to inpune the intellectual capacity of another poster, and one whose biography you don't even know anything about, you were boldly able to state right after he listed two of what he plainly stated were just two of many other possible reasons, that he was intellectually inferior because he didn't name your chosen reason, that space flight is impractical. And furthermore, to sever a thread with a sword, your favorite way of dealing with block heads, your fears of being seen as intellectually inferior run so deep that the most logical reason why we have received no visits from the stars, that interstellar travel is impracticle can only be made by somebody who imagines his understanding of the universe is so complete that he can actually say what impracticle means. This is like saying the earth is never visited by aliens because God made only people. It's a very conservative way of looking at things indeed. Shame on those liberal giants who dream that such flight will one day be possible and wonder if somewhere it's already been achieved.

Thank you for your advise. You to your intellectual contempt for those who do not see as you do and me to my vow to save all sentient beings. Ponder what Bertrand Russell said on his death bead.

 

[bshole]

Thank you for your advise. You to your intellectual contempt for those who do not see as you do and me to my vow to save all sentient beings. Ponder what Bertrand Russell said on his death bead.

Save all sentient beings? Lol? Wut? All sentient beings are made for a life of unspeakable suffering and then nothingness. A trillion years from now, the universe will have not a single jot of evidence that our solar system even existed.

Everything that humans think or do is objectively pointless. This is where you have to give the religious fanatics their due. At least when they immolate themselves in a fiery terrorist act, they believe the delusion that they are on the cusp of a great reward and are supremely happy. When my times comes it will be a time of monumental fear and despair. In the meantime, I think daily of that horrible time that is destined for me with quivering trepidation and worry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Save all sentient beings? Lol? Wut? All sentient beings are made for a life of unspeakable suffering and then nothingness. A trillion years from now, the universe will have not a single jot of evidence that our solar system even existed.

Everything that humans think or do is objectively pointless. This is where you have to give the religious fanatics their due. At least when they immolate themselves in a fiery terrorist act, they believe the delusion that they are on the cusp of a great reward and are supremely happy. When my times comes it will be a time of monumental fear and despair. In the meantime, I think daily of that horrible time that is destined for me with quivering trepidation and worry.

You may have noticed I spend a lot of time trying to save you from this. I keep telling you that everything is utterly hopeless and meaningless exactly as you say. That's the point. Your monumental fear and despair are meaningless too. It's not death that you fear but the death of your ego, the death of everything you treasure and believe in, that life should have been good with immortality as a reward. You suffer because you cling to that. You know the truth but you have not surrendered to it. Let that ego die. I tell you that the universe created you just as you were as a child, full of being joy and happiness because you brought God to the world by being him yourself. That is what the universe gave you, the capacity for infinite love. Fear dies, the ego dies when love awakens when you wipe away all the shit you were buried under by surrender. To surrender is to give up and die to the ego. You are not the ego, who you imagine you are and it's a hopeless battle of despair to hang on to it. You say you know that so let go. Where is the pre-ego child you used to be? You can be a million things you think you are, but you can never not be who you are. Find that one. That one is the Lover.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't think there is any "winning" in any scenario. If he does get yanked and Pence steps up, then we have the hell and brimstone Evangelical arm of the GOP coming to power and all of the social dogma associated with that. Much of the drama and bravoso around Trump is gone and congress will all fall into line without any major hysteria surrounding them. Then who knows what sort of conservative and socially degressive policies we'll have shoved down on us. Maybe by the time my kids are adults we'll be able to unfuck everything that has happened from a social policy, deregulation and a stacked conservative supreme court and get back to where we were before 45 stepped up to the plate.

If Trump stays around for the next few years, *AND* we don't end up in a war, maybe the WH will spend so much time in cleanup and damage control mode very little will actually get done and the focus on every little thing that they do will be scrutinized. Plus at least there's something interesting a lot of mornings when I wake up. So that entertainment is worth something.

Not that either is ideal...but one is at least singing while Rome burns.

I have to reach back in my "impressive database" of news-items over several years. It was Sarah Palin who derided the idea of "incrementalism," signaling T-(ory)-party revolutionary change. She is totally crocked. Susan Sarandon was attempting to do something else, hoping for a Progressive revolution.

So I'm a little amazed at how I myself appear to be "close to the middle" -- a "middle-of-the-road-er."

What the Right appears to be doing is so far a threat to dismantle a government that has been built and evolving over some 100 years of successive generations, enough thoughtful people with vision as opposed to lunatic-fringe thinkers. This will have great cost, because now, having thrown my weight to the Left, many more will insist that we move things back in the opposite direction after the know-nothings have damaged it.

Imagine what happens if they further damage the career civil service, and we have to go back and replace all the expertise in FDA, EPA, the list goes on and on.

Progressives need to be determined to destroy this administration by all legal means that leaves the nation's sense of values and principles intact. The longer it takes, the more damage will be done. Some of it could just seem to be irreversible, which is another great Evil that the GOP-Right perpetrates.

Meanwhile, Trump is behaving like a guilty person in panic, anticipating a police-raid, exposure or apprehension. So he continues to double-down on his wire-tap fantasy. I'm almost impatient to see what tomorrow's "fake news" will bring.

 

[agent00f]

I will value this opinion right up there as the kind of thinking you can get from somebody with so bad a case of intellectual snobbery, read "had to have been humiliated somewhere in childhood with the notion you're stupid', such that, in the rush to inpune the intellectual capacity of another poster, and one whose biography you don't even know anything about, you were boldly able to state right after he listed two of what he plainly stated were just two of many other possible reasons, that he was intellectually inferior because he didn't name your chosen reason, that space flight is impractical. And furthermore, to sever a thread with a sword, your favorite way of dealing with block heads, your fears of being seen as intellectually inferior run so deep that the most logical reason why we have received no visits from the stars, that interstellar travel is impracticle can only be made by somebody who imagines his understanding of the universe is so complete that he can actually say what impracticle means. This is like saying the earth is never visited by aliens because God made only people. It's a very conservative way of looking at things indeed. Shame on those liberal giants who dream that such flight will one day be possible and wonder if somewhere it's already been achieved.

Given what you're arguing here for countless possibilities, consider the irony when your own explanations for all behavior invariably come down to some simplistic freudian childhood trauma.

Also consider the irony that said liberal giants are the ones who discovered the physics that narrow down the countless imaginative possibilities to (im)plausible solutions for interstellar travel. This is what you'll also discover by studying the specifics of what they found instead of blathering rhetorically. Science isn't the study of what could be but rather what is; any future possibilities are a result of understanding physical reality.

Thank you for your advise. You to your intellectual contempt for those who do not see as you do and me to my vow to save all sentient beings. Ponder what Bertrand Russell said on his death bead.

How's christianity & such been doing vs science as of late?

 

[MikeMike]

wrong thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: Given what you're arguing here for countless possibilities, consider the irony when your own explanations for all behavior invariably come down to some simplistic freudian childhood trauma.

M: It is not I who is arguing for countless possibilities. I am arguing that if somebody states two possibilities while suggesting others are possible, that person can't be said to have a limited argument because he mentioned two he picked at random over one that you preferred. That is illogical, rationally ridiculous, and absurd, etc.
What he did not do was suggest possible reasons for no known visits by aliens for reasons that violate the known laws of physics. What he did do is acknowledge that we can generate numerous reasons why they may not have come for scientific reasons we have yet to understand. You took it upon yourself to ridicule him for that as if he were an ignoramus in a way that allows that title to pass to you.

a: Also consider the irony that said liberal giants are the ones who discovered the physics that narrow down the countless imaginative possibilities to (im)plausible solutions for interstellar travel. This is what you'll also discover by studying the specifics of what they found instead of blathering rhetorically. Science isn't the study of what could be but rather what is; any future possibilities are a result of understanding physical reality.

M: Only somebody who paid no attention to what was said or is incapable of scientific reasoning could make such an absurd claim and yet that is what you did. And like many another fuzzy thinker, you're trying now to obfuscate your way out of it by such means as an argument that the Moon circles the Earth. Perhaps you would like to add that Obama had the NSA hack your post. And to say that science isn't the study of what could be is as inane a statement as I've ever seen. The whole study of science is based on experimentation and data collection and analysis, of what exactly, of hypothesis, naturally, what could be the reasons for things. It is the process of hunch, gut feeling, intuition, put to experimental test to examine the validity of speculation. The reason why you might wonder why nobody has come is in part, to figure out if there is some reason we cant go ourselves. The question of whether travel to the stars is possible is of great interest to many people.

Your argument about simplistic and simple is equally absurd. When a person stands on a past collection of wisdom and looks forward, the possible futures one can envision are always endless. People speculated deeply as to why the orbit of Mercury seemed to deviate from Newtonian norms. It looked to be really complex, whatever was going on. But the discovery of a simple fact that space and time are identical and that energy and mass are related was the 'simplistic' truth that cleared it all up. When we discover the principles and laws by which things operate we reduce the complex to the simple. When we look to the past we see what we know in all of it's revealed simplicity, but when we look to the future we see complexities, the simple explanations for which we have yet to discover. But then, were you here for understanding this should have been instantly obvious. But you seek to find a some way to hide your fallacious thinking you tried to tar Hay with. It was rude and thoughtless and something I wasn't inclined to let stand.

a: How's christianity & such been doing vs science as of late?

M: Doing in what area? Context is everything, remember. As for collecting charity for the poor, it's doing way better.

 

[disappoint]

a: Also consider the irony that said liberal giants are the ones who discovered the physics that narrow down the countless imaginative possibilities to (im)plausible solutions for interstellar travel. This is what you'll also discover by studying the specifics of what they found instead of blathering rhetorically. Science isn't the study of what could be but rather what is; any future possibilities are a result of understanding physical reality.

M: Only somebody who paid no attention to what was said or is incapable of scientific reasoning could make such an absurd claim and yet that is what you did. And like many another fuzzy thinker, you're trying now to obfuscate your way out of it by such means as an argument that the Moon circles the Earth. Perhaps you would like to add that Obama had the NSA hack your post...

Haha well said Moonbeam! Agent00f is just like the orange person he hates the most. A Sociopathic Narcissist. Classic case of Cluster B personality disorder.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: Given what you're arguing here for countless possibilities, consider the irony when your own explanations for all behavior invariably come down to some simplistic freudian childhood trauma.

M: It is not I who is arguing for countless possibilities. I am arguing that if somebody states two possibilities while suggesting others are possible, that person can't be said to have a limited argument because he mentioned two he picked at random over one that you preferred. That is illogical, rationally ridiculous, and absurd, etc.
What he did not do was suggest possible reasons for no known visits by aliens for reasons that violate the known laws of physics. What he did do is acknowledge that we can generate numerous reasons why they may not have come for scientific reasons we have yet to understand. You took it upon yourself to ridicule him for that as if he were an ignoramus in a way that allows that title to pass to you.

He was just parroting pop sci material, ie wishful thinking, on the matter as mentioned. It's pretty obvious you don't know much of it either, and the way knowledge works two people who don't know what they're talking about doesn't add up to any meaningful sum, and this is a topic where facts matter. Interstellar travel isn't just absurdly difficult but also a complete shot in the dark given that in all 4 billion years of our planetary existence intelligence life has only occupied a negligible sliver. It's basically buying a quadrillion dollar lottery ticket with a questionable jackpot.

a: Also consider the irony that said liberal giants are the ones who discovered the physics that narrow down the countless imaginative possibilities to (im)plausible solutions for interstellar travel. This is what you'll also discover by studying the specifics of what they found instead of blathering rhetorically. Science isn't the study of what could be but rather what is; any future possibilities are a result of understanding physical reality.

M: Only somebody who paid no attention to what was said or is incapable of scientific reasoning could make such an absurd claim and yet that is what you did. And like many another fuzzy thinker, you're trying now to obfuscate your way out of it by such means as an argument that the Moon circles the Earth. Perhaps you would like to add that Obama had the NSA hack your post. And to say that science isn't the study of what could be is as inane a statement as I've ever seen. The whole study of science is based on experimentation and data collection and analysis, of what exactly, of hypothesis, naturally, what could be the reasons for things. It is the process of hunch, gut feeling, intuition, put to experimental test to examine the validity of speculation. The reason why you might wonder why nobody has come is in part, to figure out if there is some reason we cant go ourselves. The question of whether travel to the stars is possible is of great interest to many people.

Your argument about simplistic and simple is equally absurd. When a person stands on a past collection of wisdom and looks forward, the possible futures one can envision are always endless. People speculated deeply as to why the orbit of Mercury seemed to deviate from Newtonian norms. It looked to be really complex, whatever was going on. But the discovery of a simple fact that space and time are identical and that energy and mass are related was the 'simplistic' truth that cleared it all up. When we discover the principles and laws by which things operate we reduce the complex to the simple. When we look to the past we see what we know in all of it's revealed simplicity, but when we look to the future we see complexities, the simple explanations for which we have yet to discover. But then, were you here for understanding this should have been instantly obvious. But you seek to find a some way to hide your fallacious thinking you tried to tar Hay with. It was rude and thoughtless and something I wasn't inclined to let stand.

Science is by definition the study of what is, ie empirical reality, in the natural world. Of course what's learned from such scientific/empirical discovery might be used as a tool for speculative questions. For example interstellar travel is limited by the speed of light, in addition to many practical engineering concerns.

This really isn't that hard to grasp, and blathering with all that rhetoric to conflate the issue doesn't make your pop sci background any more useful beyond that.

a: How's christianity & such been doing vs science as of late?

M: Doing in what area? Context is everything, remember. As for collecting charity for the poor, it's doing way better.

Doing in making a convincing case that it explains the world we live in better than empiricism, as reflected in membership over time.

 

[agent00f]

Haha well said Moonbeam! Agent00f is just like the orange person he hates the most. A Sociopathic Narcissist. Classic case of Cluster B personality disorder.

Not really helping his case for someone like you to declare agreement.

 

[disappoint]

Not really helping his case for someone like you to declare agreement.

Why would he need my help? He's doing just fine. The only mistake he made is interacting with someone like you.

 

[agent00f]

Why would he need my help? He's doing just fine. The only mistake he made is interacting with someone like you.

That's a question for the dumbshit offering moral support. You know, the one who's arguing again his own actions.

 

[disappoint]

That's a question for the dumbshit offering moral support. You know, the one who's arguing again his own actions.

You seem to think my motive was to help him, another one of your many blunders. My motive was to help you. As for arguing against my own actions, I don't interact with you nearly as much as he did, and I know you're well aware of how often I have ignored you in the past, so your mischaracterization is an intentional act of deception which is your usual method of operation and quite transparent to nearly everyone who reads your posts I assure you.

 

[agent00f]

You seem to think my motive was to help him, another one of your many blunders. My motive was to help you. As for arguing against my own actions, I don't interact with you nearly as much as he did, and I know you're well aware of how often I have ignored you in the past, so your mischaracterization is an intentional act of deception which is your usual method of operation and quite transparent to nearly everyone who reads your posts I assure you.

I'm sure moonbeam appreciates someone this dishonest chearleading for him. "Haha well said Moonbeam! Agent00f is just like the orange person he hates the most."

 

[disappoint]

I'm sure moonbeam appreciates someone this dishonest chearleading for him. "Haha well said Moonbeam! Agent00f is just like the orange person he hates the most."

You know for once you're right. You're not as capable as Trump, and far more hateful.

 

[agent00f]

You know for once you're right. You're not as capable as Trump, and far more hateful.

How does that make any sense in your head? It's a simple a matter of fact that you were cheerleadering then vehemently tried to deny it when it became inconvenient, followed by the predictably pathetic blustering expected of the conservatives here. That's just the empirical natural of things.