The Aldebaran Mystery

In Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:48:24 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How does people thinking Global Warming is a hoax lead to damage to
our society?

Because there are enough credulous people, incapable of critical
thinking, that conservative think tanks and politicians can lead them
around by their noses, and further induce other politicians to avoid
taking action.

While liberal think tanks and polticians are incapable of doing any
harm?

Since there will always be credulous people, and people in power will
always try to grab as much power as the system allows, a better approach
would be to limit the power and scope of The State.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On 29 Jun 2011 13:59:27 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

While liberal think tanks and polticians are incapable of doing any
harm?

In general, yes. Liberal people, pretty much by definition, tend to be
less credulous. They are better educated. They are less likely to be
religious- especially dogmatically religious (they aren't
fundamentalists). They are more open to new ideas, and more likely to
discuss and think about them. Overall, this makes for a mind set of a
person that is harder to manipulate.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of a lot of liberal think tanks trying to
manipulate people. But there are at least a half dozen conservative
ones, funded by industry, which are implicated in the efforts to claim
that tobacco is safe, Reagan's Star Wars technology was workable, AGW
is a hoax, and the like.

On 29/06/2011 14:43, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:36:15 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote, in part:

How is this relevant to the Aldebaran belief? That doesn't involve any
political changes causing harm, does it? Is this just an example of you
picking an extremely poor analogy?

What damages society is not so much that people do believe funny sturr
about Aldebaran, but that they're stupid enough that they *can* believe
funny stuff about Aldebaran.

The US government has done its level best to keep its population
ignorant - only the rich can afford a decent education. An astonishing
number of Americans could not recognise George Washington or name the
Vice President on Radio 4s foreign correspondent programme Americana.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0122rnr

There don't seem to be quite so many inbred yokels from the flyover
states claiming to have been abducted by aliens these days as there were
in the 60's & 70's. So some things have improved.


With people like that lying around, some person is going to take
advantage of them, and so they can be manipulated to vote in ways
harmful to our society and so on. An intelligent and rational electorate
would lead to a better class of politician.

Unfortunately it serves the interests of both politicians and religious
leaders to keep the general population ignorant and fearful.

They might be held to account by a rational electorate.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jun 2011 13:59:27 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

While liberal think tanks and polticians are incapable of doing any
harm?

In general, yes. Liberal people, pretty much by definition, tend to be
less credulous. They are better educated.

Have you got any data to back this up, or is it just wishful thinking on
your part?


They are less likely to be
religious- especially dogmatically religious (they aren't
fundamentalists). They are more open to new ideas, and more likely to
discuss and think about them. Overall, this makes for a mind set of a
person that is harder to manipulate.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of a lot of liberal think tanks trying to
manipulate people.

The IPCC for starters.

But there are at least a half dozen conservative
ones, funded by industry, which are implicated in the efforts to claim
that tobacco is safe, Reagan's Star Wars technology was workable, AGW
is a hoax, and the like.

None of them receive a fraction of the funding of the IPCC alone.

Guess this completely destroys your argument.

Are all Liberals this stupid?

In Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On 29 Jun 2011 13:59:27 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

While liberal think tanks and polticians are incapable of doing any
harm?

In general, yes. Liberal people, pretty much by definition, tend to be
less credulous.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"John Savard" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:48:24 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote, in part:

How does people thinking Global Warming is a hoax lead to damage to our
society?

Well, they vote for politicians who don't do anything about it, so the
weather does get warmer, and people starve in tropical countries.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the global warming scheme. I just don't think
there is enough evidence to support the global warming conclusion. Our own
sun could be causing the warming just as easily as man. I point out the
recent sunspot cycle (or lack thereof) that continues to baffle scientists
worldwide. For all we know, there could be several solar cycles not yet
discovered by man, since we have only been able to detect such things for
the last hundred years or so, and any one of such cycles might cause
temperatures changes in the sun that affect earth temperatures. The sun
cannot be ruled out.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jun 2011 13:59:27 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

While liberal think tanks and polticians are incapable of doing any
harm?

In general, yes. Liberal people, pretty much by definition, tend to be
less credulous. They are better educated. They are less likely to be
religious- especially dogmatically religious (they aren't
fundamentalists). They are more open to new ideas, and more likely to
discuss and think about them. Overall, this makes for a mind set of a
person that is harder to manipulate.

And for a person who often cites evidence, where is your evidence this time?
Sounds like someone "wants" the comparison to be that way. By contrast, I
have also found some liberals to be the most immoral, irresponsible people
imaginable and quite unlike the "better educated" individuals you describe.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of a lot of liberal think tanks trying to
manipulate people. But there are at least a half dozen conservative
ones, funded by industry, which are implicated in the efforts to claim
that tobacco is safe, Reagan's Star Wars technology was workable, AGW
is a hoax, and the like.

Ah, so now we see your opinion shining through here. Makes sense now. No
evidence, personal opinion only.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 29/06/2011 14:43, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:36:15 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote, in part:

How is this relevant to the Aldebaran belief? That doesn't involve any
political changes causing harm, does it? Is this just an example of you
picking an extremely poor analogy?

What damages society is not so much that people do believe funny sturr
about Aldebaran, but that they're stupid enough that they *can* believe
funny stuff about Aldebaran.

The US government has done its level best to keep its population
ignorant - only the rich can afford a decent education.

Only the rich, huh. That must explain why Obama is president then.

An astonishing
number of Americans could not recognise George Washington or name the Vice
President on Radio 4s foreign correspondent programme Americana.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0122rnr

There don't seem to be quite so many inbred yokels from the flyover states
claiming to have been abducted by aliens these days as there were in the
60's & 70's. So some things have improved.

The media always tries to take a question and make an entire country look
horrible based on the responses. Looks like you buy into this fallacy.
Just because so and so can't answer who was president and when makes them a
dumbed down person. Or they don't know that water is blue. Yet, some of
these same people can solve mathematical equations way beyond what you or I
ever could. Explain that. Ever look at Einstein's grades, for example?
Ever read about his "true" mathematical abilities? Yet, he is considered
brilliant. Don't always judge a book by its cover.


With people like that lying around, some person is going to take
advantage of them, and so they can be manipulated to vote in ways
harmful to our society and so on. An intelligent and rational electorate
would lead to a better class of politician.

Unfortunately it serves the interests of both politicians and religious
leaders to keep the general population ignorant and fearful.

They might be held to account by a rational electorate.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"John Savard" wrote in message
...

An intelligent and rational electorate
would lead to a better class of politician.

A couple of thosand years ago, Rome was populated by "an intelligent and
rational electorate". Did their way of thinking lead to a "better class of
politician"?


John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:09:53 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuHJz...eature=related

Any input would be appreciated!

This just supports the fact that there are a lot of crazy people out
there. This kind of nonsense is nothing more than snake-oil: a con man
invents a wild story, and the credulous pay money for his books and
other media. Occasionally we get lucky and they all kill themselves
waiting for a comet to collect them, but mostly they just continue to
foul the human gene pool.

It's called "entertainment". Just like the big reality and ghost show craze
or other crazes. If you don't like it, don't participate. Simple.

While this silly stuff is relatively harmless in its own right, the
mind set that allows people to fall for it isn't- these are the same
sort of people who are convinced that vaccines cause autism or that
global warming is a hoax. In other words, people who think in a way
that genuinely leads to damage in our society.

Well, what evidence is there that vaccines don't do more harm than good in
some cases? Also, if you look at "global warming", many people aren't
saying it's a "hoax" (that's typical media hype), they simply arrive at a
different conclusion- that it isn't necessarily being caused by man.