Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

  1. oh,... where to start... Having watched his debates on religion he's best approached with extreme skepticism.
    4
  2. The Epikoros I didn't advocate that Malthus was right. I argued that his critiques lacked imagination when dismissing the basic principle that the world is finite. And it is finite. It has nothing to do with ideology. It is neither a libertarian view or a non-libertarian view. It's physics. In the end it's a simple fact that the world only receives a certain amount of energy from the Sun. (from which most renewables ultimately generate their energy). We have learned that we cannot indiscriminately burn the saved up Sun energy from geological time. (we hit the limit there too). There's also a limited amount of Nuclear energy available in the end. And there won't get any more land - actually the opposite seems to be true. Fusion energy might be able to effectively push the limit so high that it doesn't matter in practice, but it's a race against time to invent that technology... and right now we're loosing it.  
    4
  3. Oh... It hurts my ears every time I hear a religious person speak of "objective moral values" . Btw... kudos to Dave for actually asking questions which are not just soft balls. Do that more often!
    4
  4. Not paying people to spread dangerous nonsense is not a stiffing of free speech. People would protest about hiring people to write anti-vaxxer misinformation too. ... Some kinds of pseudo-science is actuall dangerous. People die when pseudo-science gets too wide spread. Measles is not a harmless problem - neither is climate change.
    4
  5. Thanks... not much surprise here. I really like Gary. If just the Libertarian Party as a whole was more earth bound like him, it would not seem so dangerous to let them loose on government. I'm not a US citizen, but the only thing which would stop me for voting for Gary is the fact that he has absolutely no plan for what to do about climate change. At any other point in history he'd be fine.
    4
  6. Nicoli: Maybe ... but empirical experience shows that there's enough gullible people out there for non-fact checked nonsense to propagate wildly ... Like Pragers pseudoscientific ideas about evolution and climate change. Look up "Brandolini's law" ... Bullshit - if not challenged has a natural tendency to spread.
    4
  7. russell d Are you sure you know what "regressive" means? It doesn't mean: "criticizing the republicans" just FYI
    4
  8. Eon Fontes-May I've been a very vocal critic of how the Rubin Report has developed, but I must say that your post reflect exactly NOT what my criticism has been about. (And I certainly hope that Dave is aware that not all criticism is like the one you just did) I don't doubt that Dave is a liberal (in the true sense of the word). It's also obviously false that he hasn't had "leftitst" on. - however, when he does, the talk is often not about actual important issues. My criticism is about that while he might have been fighting for free speech, he has totally failed his stated goal of "applying reason to the big questions". It's perfectly fine to have right wing people on (and I liked the Glenn Bech interview), .. it might even be fine to have predominantly right-wing people on if you cannot get the leftists or regressives to come on ... but don't sit there throwing soft balls at the right wing science deniers. Don't throw soft balls at anyone ... I know he can do it. He challenged Bishop Barron ... but I feel he has abandoned the goal of reason by throwing soft balls at too many right wing ideologues.
    4
  9. Eric Duprey So when 97% of scientists tell you we need to diverge an near earth asteroid, you'd prefer to sit on your hands pointing to someone who once told you sugar was healthy?
    4
  10. Non sequitur. You can easily get "enemies" (as in harsh critique) as a result of never actually standing up for anything - even if you claim you do.
    4
  11. Lewa500 ... you can "bother" other people if you are a spineless apologist for things which should be criticized. So "not bothering" those you should "bother" can actually bother someone else.
    4
  12. *****  It's always a good sign that the conversation is grown up, when the participants show they know anatomy.
    4
  13. I'll bet you a whole nights beers that most Americans couldn't tell a Dane from a Norwegian or a Swede - or a Icelandic for the matter. Heck, I've even been stopped by a German in Paris who couldn't tell that I wasn't German. But anyway... if you are going to decide who can live in a country based on being "Danish" you better well have a non-idiotic explanation of what that is. Listening to someone preach about an imaginary friend two time a year is NOT such an explanation. Neither is language btw... Lots of people (including Danish citizens - most prominently the crown prince) marry people with a different native language. The issue is not some subjective criteria like "Danish" which everyone can have their preferred subjective definition (and the religious right of course want to elevate their religion) ... the issue is whether you want to live in a free secular society with secular liberal values or not. ... if that's not the case, - by all means, throw people out. But welcome those who want to live in a free world - people like say - Ayan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz. And I don't care whether they speak the language or go to church.
    4
  14. Highland Chicken. ... that depends very much upon where in the world you use those words and which specific meaning you put into them. I'm European. I'm a classical liberal. The closest word that describes the specific direction in english is "geo-libertarian" (in other words I'm a supporter of a Land-Value-Tax based on the arguments of Thomas Paine and Henry George")... already there's the word "libertarian" ... but I'm very much opposed to anarcho-capitalism (which have also been "on the show" and IMHO is just a utopian idiocy as communism) ... but these guys also calls them selves "libertarian". So you have to be more specific - which kind of libertarian and liberal are you talking about?
    4
  15. Luis Dias "What, is Exxon stopping their shareholders from reading IPCC reports?" Exxon knew about this as early as 1979 ... when exactly was the first IPCC report released? ... and when did Exxon start funding  misinformation about climate science? Do you also think the Tobacco RICO case was baseless?
    4
  16. Luis Dias Well... let me enlighten you with some facts then: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
    4
  17. Luis Dias You are not getting it ... not only did they know about the concept, but their internal research were practically arrived at the same conclusions that IPCC would first publish in the nineties. ... and which is btw. basically the same overall conclusion as we have today. This is not just knowing of the topic... they had results and conclusions like we do today. Please... before throwing anymore swearwords and accusations against me... read up on the topic.  
    4
  18. > Topphat18 It works perfectly well in Denmark. We have a healthcare tax and doctors in hospitals are employed by the public. The local doctor you go to first are independent private companies under contract with the government. ... and all he myths we are hearing from the political campaign about single payer systems are simply not true. If you are sick - you get treated ASAP by very professional staff. It's beyond me why Americans want to punish them selves on the specific area.
    4
  19. Hmm... Bill Nye has done a really important work to address a really important problem by giving people access to actual facts- maybe the biggest problem humanity. And I have a really hard time believing he actually meant what Gad Saad accuses him of. He has said that climate change was a factor in the Syrian drought... but the "solar panels" stuff ... ??? ... Is there a reference, or is Gad Saad not being honest? I know the problem Gad Saad tries to address is important - but so is the one Bill Nye addresses. Please don't misrepresent opinions.
    4
  20. +Chris G If you are not on the right side of the argument, being louder is a way to compensate.
    4
  21. Matthew Morris What "philosophy" ? ... denying scientific facts? I have no patience for science denial.
    4
  22. Innis Returns What about you start by providing the context in which it was said. Krauss often use metaphor and I can easily imagine him trying to make a point about the non-intuitiveness of physics in the extreme with such a statement.
    4
  23. +Fern Moore So basically you describe what a fascist dictator would do. Should we feel happy about that? I'm not disputing that there's a method to what Trump does. I'm disputing that it's not malicious.
    4
  24. "I am glad some from the environmentalist left are finally beginning to study the actual facts around nuclear power." Climate Scientists have for a long time warned that we might need nuclear to avoid a catastrophe. You are propagating a cliché
    4
  25. + t1337Dude I certainly hope you can see the difference in only imposing negative externalities on your local community and doing it on the entire globe. ... and the consequences of the latter is playing out as we speak.
    4
  26. So - is he saying you can sit down and reason with US conservatives? Impressing... wonder why there's still ~50% creationists in the US.
    4
  27. > Mohammad Quarashisasjndjsa Well ... you are rude. You have no basis for making that accusation of being uneducated. I do however agree with your basic argument about the legal interpretation of the establishment clause.
    4
  28. > I bothered watching the entire video, and reading the constitution. I took the time to understand what the establishment clause entails, Well that's admirable. > while he clearly did not. You have no basis for that claim. - it's pure guesswork. > If you want to argue, do your due diligence to understand what the fuck you're talking about. Oh... I see a pattern here.
    4
  29. Before I care about "establishment" or not, I care about being honest, facts, and truth.
    4
  30. Regardless of whether Dawkins is arrogant... his statement is factually correct. I'll happily provide evidence... For which specific claim do you lack evidence?
    4
  31. +Lazypackmule I can claim that evidence points to all biologists being wrong about evolution too ... that doesn't make it correct. It basically just make me sound like an ignorant fool.
    4
  32. +Hailthorn Yeah... let's debate and put up for review the following scientific facts: The helio-centric system, evolution, quantum mechanics, ....etc. Let's have every lay-person weight in with their opinion and ensure we never make any scientific conclusions but keep "debating" even the most well supported theories. ... because "science is always to be debated". No matter how overwhelming the evidence is - as IT IS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE ...
    4
  33. DJ7223 "prove to me climate change as the left believes it to be exists." First of all... I don't know what "the left" believes or what you think "the left" believes. ... and I really don't care. What matters is what the scientific community believes on the basis on the accumulated evidence.  - and you don't "prove" things in natural sciences. You substantiate hypothesis' with evidence and build explanations which are well-substantiated - called "Theories" . Quantum mechanics is not "proven". Nothing outside of mathematics and computer-science is. But QM is one of the most well substantiated theories we have, - along with relativity, evolution, plate tectonics AND anthropogenic global warming. So... I don't know what it would take to convince you, (which was probably what you meant), but I also cannot guess what will convince you. You'll have to say what would convince you... then I can say whether or not that is based on a misunderstanding of the science and try to explain it. ... but just as I cannot guess what would convince a creationist that evolution is true, I cannot guess would would convince someone who has already decided that the climate scientists are not to be trusted. ... and whether or not you are convinced, doesn't really change the scientific reality anyway.
    3
  34. Ryuga Hydeki ... here we go again... the same old talking-points... "climate change even before humans were dominating this world already existed" Yeah right... and forest fires happened too before humans exists. That means humans can't cause fores fires, ... right? "the climate change theory that humans made it is stupid" ... yeah... and 31%  (*) of Americans think the earth is less than 10.000 years old. That means evolution is stupid too, right?... at least I provided a source for my claim. "Humans do pollute the planet, but humans have also tried manipulating the actual weather for centuries to no avail". Even setting aside that climate != weather, I hope you can see how bad the logic is here. Just because we haven't been able to do stuff in the past, it doesn't mean we can't have found a way to do it. ... remember... before the Wright brothers, we couldn't fly either. "We fucking do nuclear testing in oceans, do you see a drop or increase in the climate because of it?" No... but we see other changes. Here's a hint... when you construct a scientific argument, base it on something which science actually predicts. An equal fallacious argument would be "Tobacco don't cause cancer, since we have smoked herrings for centuries and no one have ever died from a smoked herring". "You do know the North Pole wasn't the North Pole before right?" Yeah... I do... what's the point? *: According to Pew research.
    3
  35. ninisgreekronaldo "time is a poor excuse in my book, but suit yourself. You'll have to be content with what people you apparently trust tell you to believe. If that's what you want, go ahead." Ah no... time is a factor for the simple reason that you haven't got time to fact-check everything you hear in great detail.... you HAVE to - at some point - perform a selection for people you have experienced to be trusted. Everybody does. So... take an example... I trust a guy like Sam Harris to be actually honestly interested in objective truth and reason, because I have experience with him to be well argued, not using fallacies and admitting when he is shown to be wrong. I don't trust a guy like Alex Epstein because my experience with him is EXTACTLY the opposite. So ... I tend to spend more time listening to Sam Harris than to Alex Epstein. I simply to have time to listen to every guy with a dubious relationship with truth and doubtful motives out there (and god knows... there are plenty of them).... At some point I have to call it enough, and apply a selection filter.  
    3
  36. S Martz "would be inclined to agree with you if the entire 40 minutes of the interview was devoted to denying science, but it wasn't." I know... my argument here was that other episodes have done that and at some point you just have to evaluate whether the person at hand is actually one you would expect to "apply reason to the big questions of the day" (as the Rubin Report allegedly aims at) ... or chances are it will just be waste  of time. "And no, he isn't having one right-winger after another." Well... I have nothing against "right wingers" ... I've always considered my self a classical liberal anyway.I have something against wasting time on people who practice science denial. ... and there seems to be a good deal of overlap between the US right-wingers and science denial these days. I know he have has others on - like Shermer, Harris, Phil Mason ... people who I trust to actually know what "reason" is. (and which I don't regard as "on the left" anyway. But I could name at least a dozen of these convervative/anarcho-capitalistisk science deniers who seem to have been on, only to talk about how stupid Social Justice Warriors are. - which I agree with. But we already have  people like Jordan Peterson, or Jonathan Haidt who are "reasonable" ... you don't need every conservative youtuber who have been in a fight with a feminist to cover that topic.
    3
  37. PanasonicTooth We are... on a daily basis.
    3
  38. Ronin Garrison It might be a language issue ... isn't "libel" a legal term? You can say you don't want rude speech ... but calling it "libel" would AFAIK imply that there has been a judiciary evaluation that it actually broke libel laws.
    3
  39. Ayman Charafeddine I didn't say that ... and I'll refrain from calling you names just for not noticing that.
    3
  40. Ayman Charafeddine I don't argue the sequence of events. ... I objected to the idea that Twitter would the ones to decide what is "libel"
    3
  41. I'm totally on board with this guys argument about basing the world view on "reason" and science. But his integrity TOTALLY falls apart when you realize that he (too) is a avid climate science denier. (Speaking at the Heartland Institute calling climate science "nonsense" and a "lie") Dave... this is the 4th "right wing'er" you have had on - and the 4th. climate science denier. Isn't it time to have a person from the "right" on who actually uses reason and accept the science of anthropogenic global warming?? I can recommend Jerry Taylor from the Niskanen Center. ... or better yet. A Geo-libertarian - if you really want to talk about philosophical basis for morality in classical liberalism.
    3
  42. Maxime Laneville You've just disqualified your self from talking about reason. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: I regard the behavior of people denying the scientific results about anthropogenic global warming as EXACTLY the same as those denying evolution. Only difference is whether the ideology which motivates them is political or religious. So I have as little respect for your comment as I would have if a creationist said I were disqualified from talking about reason for calling their nonsense pseudo-science. Whether it's creationism, homeopathy or climate science denial - it's all pseudo-science, manufactured controversy and conspiracy theories. I have NO patience for that.  
    3
  43. Ok... so we can call anything which resolves this "contingency argument" for "God". Well ... enter physics.
    3
  44. mark js Btw... Mark... Walter Block who you cite is (AFAICT) a self described anarcho-capitalist. I make no excuse about I'm NOT an anarcho-capitalism. I think it's as bankrupt and utopian an idea as communism and it has to ignore just as many facts about the real world as communism to even be argued. I don't regard anarcho-capitalism to follow from classical liberalistic principles. Classical liberal egalitarian principles like everyone has the right to the fruit of ones labor, that you own your own body and that your freedom extend exactly so far as to not harm others or limit their equal freedom. ... does not entail anarcho-capitalism.
    3
  45. It would be sad if this de-generated into making statements about SJW triggering ... and not actually about applying reason.
    3
  46. d13sel1990 Currently Firefox... Which is totally besides the point. - and I know you are trying to claim "gotcha". There are still now 20 years later sites I can't access without IE which I actually pay for through my taxes. Googles sites are not amongst those, since Google actually seem to care about Open Standards.
    3
  47. So - if one judges Trump on the content of his character and concludes he's an authoritarian petty sociopath with the potential to become a fascistic dictator ?? (... not "fascism" as a SJW slur - but in it's actual meaning. - look up "fascism" and prove me wrong) There actually exists situations where comparing authoritarian rulers is relevant Dave.
    3
  48. "What else are we gonna do?" Well... geo-libertarianism has an answer. Not a Basic Income - but a dividend of common resources. - like they have in Alaska.
    3
  49. Yeah... if you can swipe your hand and pay... I can imagine how people would want to steal your hand and not your wallet.
    3
  50. RESISTFEAR I don't give a shit about Al Gore ... I haven't seen his movie. I don't care. He's not a scientist. What I care about is what every single relevant scientific organization world wide is telling us: We have a huge problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing
    3