Is anyone genuinely going to boycott?

[Dahnsouff]

47 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think perhaps a reading of Poppers Paradox of Tolerance might be a good idea at this point.

Doesn’t this relate to one’s given society and certainly not a global one? It does not seem compatible society as a global concept.  

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Doesn’t this relate to one’s given society and certainly not a global one? It does not seem compatible society as a global concept.  

Can you elaborate on this some?

 

I see no reason why it cannot - in in some cases perhaps must, for the sake of survival - apply as a species as well as an individual demographic.

[HighPeakFox]

I sometimes worry that the desire to educate and inform is regarded as an agenda. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I sometimes worry that the desire to educate and inform is regarded as an agenda. 

Especially when on some matters such information is critical.

 

*Cries in science communicator*

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Can you elaborate on this some?

 

I see no reason why it cannot - in in some cases perhaps must, for the sake of survival - apply as a species as well as an individual demographic.

To be honest, I have tried to edit my post many times, it felt wrong. I am struggling badly to express myself on this, so apologies.

 

The concept is obviously sound, intolerance should never be tolerated, but concept (I think) relates to identifying a point at which free speech is too free and leads to intolerance tantamount to what would be considered hate speech.

 

So would this point of tolerance globally be the same? I find it hard to imagine it would, especially against religious or other dogmatic ‘teachings’

Edited 26 November 2022 by Dahnsouff

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

To be honest, I have tried to edit my post many times, it felt wrong. I am struggling badly to express myself on this, so apologies.

 

The concept is obviously sound, intolerance should never be tolerated, but concept (I think) relates to identifying a point at which free speech is too free and leads to intolerance tantamount to what would be considered hate speech.

 

So would this point of tolerance globally be the same? I find it hard to imagine it would, especially against religious or other dogmatic ‘teachings’

I get you, it can be a pretty nebulous concept in the first instance.

 

Ideally, there are some matters on which most if not all humanity must agree for vital collective action to be taken and therefore some intolerance of intolerance would have to be universal, but practically that's of course bloody difficult. For me, I guess it just comes down to making progress one issue, one demographic, at a time.

[shade]

17 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

To be honest, I have tried to edit my post many times, it felt wrong. I am struggling badly to express myself on this, so apologies.

 

The concept is obviously sound, intolerance should never be tolerated, but concept (I think) relates to identifying a point at which free speech is too free and leads to intolerance tantamount to what would be considered hate speech.

 

So would this point of tolerance globally be the same? I find it hard to imagine it would, especially against religious or other dogmatic ‘teachings'

Intolerance not being tolerated isn't a paradox, it's hypocritical and nefarious. Who decides what were tolerant of? Until very recently Spain was tolerant of a 30 year old lying with a 13 year old, but we're not. It's the classic problem of the leftist literati, diversity of everything but thought, the moral arbiters of values and morals are ironically the most closed minded of all.

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, shade said:

Intolerance not being tolerated isn't a paradox, it's hypocritical and nefarious. Who decides what were tolerant of? Until very recently Spain was tolerant of a 30 year old lying with a 13 year old, but we're not. It's the classic problem of the leftist literati, diversity of everything but thought, the moral arbiters of values and morals are ironically the most closed minded of all.

... how useful is diversity of thought when the asteroid is on a collision course?

 

Don't Look Up wasn’t supposed to be a documentary.

 

Edit: diversity of thought is, in a lot of cases, very important and useful. In others, it really isn't. Advocating for universal diversity of thought is as dangerous to the future as advocating for universal unity of thought 1984- style.

Edited 27 November 2022 by leicsmac

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 hour ago, shade said:

Intolerance not being tolerated isn't a paradox, it's hypocritical and nefarious. Who decides what were tolerant of? Until very recently Spain was tolerant of a 30 year old lying with a 13 year old, but we're not. It's the classic problem of the leftist literati, diversity of everything but thought, the moral arbiters of values and morals are ironically the most closed minded of all.

Parody account. Had me fooled, so well played, but I'm afraid 'leftist literati' is a step too far. Cover blown, but hat doffed, you had a hell of a run.

[shade]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... how useful is diversity of thought when the asteroid is on a collision course?

 

Don't Look Up wasn’t supposed to be a documentary.

 

Edit: diversity of thought is, in a lot of cases, very important and useful. In others, it really isn't. Advocating for universal diversity of thought is as dangerous to the future as advocating for universal unity of thought 1984- style.

I strongly disagree, perhaps, maybe, there's a tiny possibility that an imminent catastrophic event like an asteroid may not benefit from diversity of thought.  However, in almost every other circumstance, diversity of opinion isn't merely important, it's a necessity. I loathe the current atmosphere whereby dissenting voices are silenced. It's not that long ago you would be suspended from Twitter for saying the vaccines didn't stop transmission or that lockdowns would kill more people than they saved.

 

28 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Parody account. Had me fooled, so well played, but I'm afraid 'leftist literati' is a step too far. Cover blown, but hat doffed, you had a hell of a run.

This old chestnut, it was particularly prevalent during the great vaccine debates of 21, which saw me banned (still) from General (speech is as free as the powers that can control it allow it to be). When they can't counter your argument with facts, they resort to ad hominem attacks, something I have never, and will never do.

 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, shade said:

I strongly disagree, perhaps, maybe, there's a tiny possibility that an imminent catastrophic event like an asteroid may not benefit from diversity of thought.  However, in almost every other circumstance, diversity of opinion isn't merely important, it's a necessity. I loathe the current atmosphere whereby dissenting voices are silenced. It's not that long ago you would be suspended from Twitter for saying the vaccines didn't stop transmission or that lockdowns would kill more people than they saved.

 

Nature doesn't care about nor entertain dissenting opinions. It doesn't deal in ambiguity - something either is or it is not. When dealing with challenges posed by it, unity is preferable, perhaps essential to human survival.

 

If the last few years and current events haven't demonstrated this and in fact some folks believe the opposite, that we can maintain a talking shop in the face of such events, then I just hope the next supposedly smart species to inhabit this planet is smater than we are, because they'll last longer.

 

Exactly how is diversity of thought a necessity in the fact of such threats, other than a means to brainstorm how to solve the problem (as opposed to downplaying it or denying it exists in the first place)?

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nature doesn't care about nor entertain dissenting opinions. It doesn't deal in ambiguity - something either is or it is not. When dealing with challenges posed by it, unity is preferable, perhaps essential to human survival.

 

If the last few years and current events haven't demonstrated this and in fact some folks believe the opposite, that we can maintain a talking shop in the face of such events, then I just hope the next supposedly smart species to inhabit this planet is smater than we are, because they'll last longer.

 

Exactly how is diversity of thought a necessity in the fact of such threats, other than a means to brainstorm how to solve the problem (as opposed to downplaying it or denying it exists in the first place)?

So - does this mean that science isn't just all about opinions, and every opinion isn't just as valid as every other??

[shade]

3 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

So - does this mean that science isn't just all about opinions, and every opinion isn't just as valid as every other??

Remember that crazy guy who said the earth was spherical and wasn't the centre of the universe? His dissent was nearly shut down and he would probably have been cancelled today.

[Dahnsouff]

Nuance of thought

Nuance of expression

We need not always look for what divides our written points of view, but the variation in this prose can unite our points of view

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

So - does this mean that science isn't just all about opinions, and every opinion isn't just as valid as every other??

Not quite. Science is all about opinions, that are then hypothesised, empirically assessed and agreed upon via consensus.

 

6 minutes ago, shade said:

Remember that crazy guy who said the earth was spherical and wasn't the centre of the universe? His dissent was nearly shut down and he would probably have been cancelled today.

Well, he was cancelled. By the religious authorities. And their version of cancelling is rather more extreme than what exists today, oddly enough.

 

But guess what? A few centuries onward, there is unity of thought on the matter (mostly, anyhow). Why? Because there was empirical evidence. Opinion without evidence can be dismissed as opinion where needed.

 

NB. I'd appreciate an answer to the question in my previous reply, thank you.

[shade]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nature doesn't care about nor entertain dissenting opinions. It doesn't deal in ambiguity - something either is or it is not. When dealing with challenges posed by it, unity is preferable, perhaps essential to human survival.

 

If the last few years and current events haven't demonstrated this and in fact some folks believe the opposite, that we can maintain a talking shop in the face of such events, then I just hope the next supposedly smart species to inhabit this planet is smater than we are, because they'll last longer.

 

Exactly how is diversity of thought a necessity in the fact of such threats, other than a means to brainstorm how to solve the problem (as opposed to downplaying it or denying it exists in the first place)?

The overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real, if people have an opinion that differs then that should be permitted, if they can provide evidence that is persuasive, fair enough. You do people a disservice, if not being straight out condescending, by not allowing them to decide for themselves if something is bogus or not. 

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, shade said:

The overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real, if people have an opinion that differs then that should be permitted, if they can provide evidence that is persuasive, fair enough. You do people a disservice, if not being straight out condescending, by not allowing them to decide for themselves if something is bogus or not. 

I agree with the first half here, but until those people present that convincing evidence in a way that satisfies the scientific method, their opinion should in no way be used in any kind of important decision making. That, I think, is the problem here - that the (correct) freedom of thought and opinion can lead to acts that are directly or indirectly harmful.

 

With respect to the second part, I have done and will continue to do my best to present people with information and let them reach conclusions on scientific matters. But at the same time, if a conclusion is patently obvious (like the Earth being an oblate spheroid) and someone still fails to come to that conclusion after I have tried my best,  through whatever reason, and does not present convincing evidence for their own conclusion, I will also continue to point that out for the benefit of other people involved.

 

I hope that is not condescending, but if some people think that it is then I guess so be it... honestly, my only motivation here is to try in my own very, very small way to help humanity actually last a bit longer than it perhaps otherwise would.

Edited 27 November 2022 by leicsmac

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I just hope the next supposedly smart species to inhabit this planet is smater than we are, because they'll last longer

Maybe being a bit less smart would do it for them too. We seem to be at precisely the point of being smart enough to be able to destroy what we need to live, but not smart enough to know not to do that, or smart enough to stop doing it.

 

Or maybe 'not smart enough to build a society where a selfish minority don't have the power to make decisions which will have disastrous consequences for the vast majority' is closer to the mark...

 

 

Edited 27 November 2022 by Manley Farrington-Brown
edited to add the second paragraph

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Maybe being a bit less smart would do it for them too. We seem to be at precisely the point of being smart enough to be able to destroy what we need to live, but not smart enough to know not to do that, or smart enough to stop doing it.

Interesting point.

 

I would posit that a species not quite a smart as us would lack the ingenuity to deal with totally "natural" events that would see them off instead.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting point.

 

I would posit that a species not quite a smart as us would lack the ingenuity to deal with totally "natural" events that would see them off instead.

Maybe. Although have we shown yet that we can do that?

(Deep Impact and Armageddon notwithstanding).

 

Edited 27 November 2022 by Manley Farrington-Brown

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Maybe. Although have we shown yet that we can do that?

(Deep Impact and Armageddon notwithstanding).

 

Yeah, it's possible, at least in reasonably secure theory.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, it's possible, at least in reasonably secure theory.

As long as we don't miss the asteroid and hit Poland.

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Maybe being a bit less smart would do it for them too. We seem to be at precisely the point of being smart enough to be able to destroy what we need to live, but not smart enough to know not to do that, or smart enough to stop doing it.

 

Or maybe 'not smart enough to build a society where a selfish minority don't have the power to make decisions which will have disastrous consequences for the vast majority' is closer to the mark...

 

 

Agreed. We’re smart enough to design and roll out incredible technological infrastructure but not smart enough to realise by doing so we’re making our own species redundant. Anyway what the fu3k are we talking about. I originally came on this thread to laugh at people who actually thought Qatar are going to be worse off after this World Cup or that some seismic changes are going to occur in football after this.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

Just now, grobyfox1990 said:

I originally came on this thread to laugh at people who actually thought Qatar are going to be worse off after this World Cup or that some seismic changes are going to occur in football after this.

Well I still haven't used my visa card to buy any adidas kit or budweiser while a match is actually on and I'm confident that the whole edifice is beginning to totter. If I can keep going it'll all be in ruins by the semi-finals.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

It's gone very quiet on here...

 

I see an Iranian woman got kicked out of a stadium for wearing a t-shirt that had 'Women, life, freedom' on it.

 

Does any part of that constitute a 'political' slogan banned by FIFA? Which of those three is culturally insensitive in Qatar?

 

Is it the women, the life or the freedom that's unacceptable? Should there not be women? Or are women okay but they shouldn't be allowed life, or freedom? Or maybe life and/or freedom themselves are simply beyond the pale.

Would a t-shirt saying 'Men, death, imprisonment' be ok?