Freedom of speech and protest

[IFocus]

I admire Red stays on subject and straight directly to the point, one of the few here that actually understands the English language and uses it unsparingly on everyone, intolerant of pretenders (thats everyone else) but engages staying on point.

I have often learned new things from the interactions keep up gods work Red

I also miss Bi-polar petty seems to have moved on.

 

[SirRumpole]

and uses it unsparingly on everyone, intolerant of pretenders

You mean he's a bigot ?

 

[qldfrog]

I initially thought Red was a paid troll labour ? green? Not sure until i finally found one gold related post from him which had some sense
It is a shock that someone not completely dim can act and post as he is
That is probably where opinion enters in play
Facts do not matter just his beliefs
So Red carry on, based on freedom of speech but
Allow me to set Ignore on

 

[Smurf1976]

I’m no lawyer but I’ve seen enough of how courts work as a witness and I’ll make a simple observation.

Everyday language, that is high school level not something requiring a degree, is sufficient to explain any concept in layman’s terms. At most, a very limited number of technical terms may be required but these are themselves explainable in a straightforward manner.

Once discussion turns to the meaning of words and arguing the definition of things, that’s a sure indication that there’s guilt involved.

Nobody who’s genuinely innocent relies on legal technicalities to win the case. Nobody needs to argue the definition of arson versus accident if they didn’t start the fire.

Same concept with pretty much everything.

 

[rederob]

That is probably where opinion enters in play
Facts do not matter just his beliefs
So Red carry on, based on freedom of speech but
Allow me to set Ignore on

I usually say if I am offering my "opinion" as I seldom see the need to.
There is an amusing number of posts where people assume things which I would either never say, do or "believe."
Facts do matter to me, and have for as long as I can remember. So when I see people in this forum and others abusing and distorting information so that justified true belief is a pawn in their game, I try to set the record straight.
In climate threads the sad reality is that science deniers will never be swayed until a climate catastrophe confronts them and causes a rethink. But climate changes over generational time scales so most people of my vintage are barely going to notice.
The reality that people choose to ignore me gives me great heart. It means that they are affected by what I say/write. It also means they are thinking.

 

[Smurf1976]

Examples:
If you accept that we know things, such as the bottom of the ocean has volcanoes, the speed of light can be calculated, and that the right type of matter as big as your fist can destroy a city, then you have a basis for justified true belief. Put another way, if you did not know, there would be way to show you it was true.
We do not need to be subject experts to "know" things because we have a reasoned basis for trusting people that are trained to tell us the truth about what they learn.

You seem to have completely missed the point that "authority" has lost credibility over time so far as many are concerned.

Here's a current news item: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...-traces-asbestos-found/11619958?section=world

I've linked the ABC version but for the record News Corp and Fairfax are both running the same story. This a current news item.

So what we have is a long established and supposedly reputable manufacturer of consumer products with asbestos in baby powder. Can't get much worse than that really, a proven and widely known carcinogen in a product specifically marketed for use on babies.

Now there's few points of relevance to the point I've made:

1. Yet another reminder to consumers that even "reputable" businesses aren't to be trusted. Not the first such incident with the same product after all and the dangers of asbestos are common knowledge.

2. Yet another reminder to consumers that government regulators also are not to be trusted. Took them how many decades to get onto this one?

Now that's just one incident with one consumer product but it's one among many. As the years go by ordinary consumers keep getting these little reminders to not simply take as accurate what those in authority say.

A few decades ago sure, if an expert in whatever said something then people tended to trust that as being true. Doctors and universities were beyond doubt but even big businesses were held in reasonably high regard that they'd provide factually correct information and steer consumers in the right direction.

Those days are long gone and the reality is that the general public is aware that if they can't prove it themselves then caution is warranted. Too many false alarms, too many denials and so on have lead to that.

Get any saucepan, fill it with cold tap water, place it on a hotplate and turn it on. Result is it gets steadily warmer until it boils. This is easily proven at home since practically everyone has access to at least one cooking pot of some sort and a gas, electric or other heat source indeed most people have boiled water on numerous occasions.

Now if I tell you that the internet works then you can prove this yourself with any device connected to it. If I tell you how it works then unless you have technical expertise we are now in the realm of belief. You cannot readily prove to yourself exactly how it works - either you believe the explanation of myself or others or you don't believe it but regardless of what you conclude, it will be a belief for anyone who isn't themselves technically knowledgeable. There are facts available yes, but they are not easily proven by demonstration such that a person's understanding becomes a belief in practice - a belief that someone else correctly understands it and has correctly communicated that information without bias or omission.

Now if we go onto subjects like religion (any of them) or climate change then those things are well and truly beyond the ability of most people to prove or disprove indeed religion is beyond outright proof period. As such, an individual's understanding in relation to these matters is a belief that they are being told the truth by someone else in an environment where absolutely opposing views are commonly aired.

My personal belief on the question of religion is that the entire thing is fictitious. That is however a belief and I cannot prove it one way or the other.

My personal belief on the climate issue is that the problem exists but that humans probably don't understand every detail of it. I say that having read an abundance of work on the subject by others, having looked at weather data sources I know to be accurate and so on. It seems to be correct but I cannot personally prove this and as such my understanding of the issue is a belief.

Religion and climate are not like the pot on the stove where I can repeatedly demonstrate it with the exact same results thus removing all reasonable doubt. I can't go to heaven, have a look around and verify the whole thing. Can't go to hell and do that either. Also can't actually prove that they don't exist and are works of fiction. Much the same with the climate - I can read a report of someone else's work and assume that the report is factually correct but I can't muck about with the earth's atmosphere and watch the temperature go up and down to prove it.

So we're back to beliefs and authority at a time when authority is increasingly distrusted.

 

[sptrawler]

Rob, you probably need to join a probis club, or a debating club, maybe even go back to Uni. Maybe retirement isnt fullfilling enough, but bogging down Joe's forum with pedantics, really doesnt help the forum IMO.
I know you love the cut and thrust of the debate, but it probably isnt what Joe is after, maybe start a debating blog for frustrated ex public servants i.e yes minister, lets talk? Or something like that.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Smurf1976]

In climate threads the sad reality is that science deniers will never be swayed until a climate catastrophe confronts them and causes a rethink

There is also the commonly overlooked reality that someone can accept the science as apparently correct whilst questioning the issue at the same time.

You won't find the IPCC stating that greenhouse gases are the only cause of climate change for example but it's not hard to find some activist who will argue that as being the case.

You also won't find the IPCC claiming that all details are fully understood but again there many who will claim otherwise.

Someone can accept the basic science as being correct whilst challenging the politics surrounding it. That does not make them a denier of the science.

 

[Smurf1976]

pedantics, really doesnt help the forum IMO

+1000

Agreed and I'll leave it at that.

 

[rederob]

You seem to have completely missed the point that "authority" has lost credibility over time so far as many are concerned.

Actually I was writing about "knowledge" and how it can be derived from inquiry, so your point is category mistake.

 

[rederob]

Rob, you probably need to join a probis club, or a debating club, maybe even go back to Uni. Maybe retirement isnt fullfilling enough, but bogging down Joe's forum with pedantics, really doesnt help the forum IMO.
I know you love the cut and thrust of the debate, but it probably isnt what Joe is after, maybe start a debating blog for frustrated ex public servants i.e yes minister, lets talk? Or something like that.
Just my thoughts.

Thanks.
These threads gets lots of visits for reasons which have been well explained, and it's not that I do not post on stock related issues, but I try to find a good reason to when I do given that there are dozens of sources covering more things you can poke a stick at.
I have said before that posting here is a lot more about how we think, and what drives us to think that way.
Yes, people say some batshyt crazy stuff, and as the thread title suggests, they have that right.
When it does not make sense or is a deliberate distortion, or is an appeal to ignorance, then it deserves challenge.
ASF as a microcosm of the community is very tame in the world of forums, and exceptionally informative by comparison.
WRT to pedantics, it can avoid confusion over what is meant by a word that has various definitions and nuances, and ensure we are not talking at cross purposes. With respect to avoiding confusions, it is important as, for example, in @Smurf1976's post he was meaning "authority," which is in a separate realm to "knowledge." Building an argument around category errors is unsound.
It does not mean that some premises are are wrong, but it does mean the argument cannot be relied upon.
In the case of @cynic, he constructed a contradiction, and this has no meaningful response other than to say it was just that. Of relevance was that it at least touched on how we define "reality" for ourselves.

 

[rederob]

There is also the commonly overlooked reality that someone can accept the science as apparently correct whilst questioning the issue at the same time.

What issue?

You won't find the IPCC stating that greenhouse gases are the only cause of climate change for example but it's not hard to find some activist who will argue that as being the case.

This is what they said in AR5:

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.​

So activists are "extremely likely" to be right.

You also won't find the IPCC claiming that all details are fully understood but again there many who will claim otherwise.

Really, as I have never heard that one!
This is the obfuscation argument that denialists use and is a very handy tactic.
What is fully understood is that to no longer warm the planet there needs to mechanisms that change the energy balance. The perturbations of the climate system which are not fully understood are a consequence of the imbalance.

Someone can accept the basic science as being correct whilst challenging the politics surrounding it.

If we let politicians govern how we think, and what is true, we are headed for catastrophe!

 

[IFocus]

Rob, you probably need to join a probis club, or a debating club, maybe even go back to Uni. Maybe retirement isnt fullfilling enough, but bogging down Joe's forum with pedantics, really doesnt help the forum IMO.
I know you love the cut and thrust of the debate, but it probably isnt what Joe is after, maybe start a debating blog for frustrated ex public servants i.e yes minister, lets talk? Or something like that.
Just my thoughts.

SP a group standing around nodding there heads in agreement is not a learning environment ever, its a .....gasp ....basket weavers club.

Next thing you maybe demanding is we all stand in and circle hands singing.

Smurf as to the level of acceptance / believing in authority etc I have never seen that to be the case as for asbestos I remember blokes cutting sheets of it using a 9" grinder year after year installing fences, companies and Governments were fully aware of the consequences this was in the 60's/70's I dont think anything has changed in that respect.

 

[SirRumpole]

SP a group standing around nodding there heads in agreement is not a learning environment ever, its a .....gasp ....basket weavers club.

Next thing you maybe demanding is we all stand in and circle hands singing.

Smurf as to the level of acceptance / believing in authority etc I have never seen that to be the case as for asbestos I remember blokes cutting sheets of it using a 9" grinder year after year installing fences, companies and Governments were fully aware of the consequences this was in the 60's/70's I dont think anything has changed in that respect.

I think this is really a practical forum, not a philosophy class.

Minutely dissecting the meaning of words in order to try and prove one's intelligence doesn't add anything to solving the problems of the world or making investment decisions. It's tiring and unproductive.

I agree with Smurfs comments about authority losing credibility, because in so many areas 'authorities' are public relations fronts or hired consultants who really have no idea of the practicalities of what they are supposed to be regulating, either that or they are so underfunded that they don't have the resources to do their jobs in the first place.

 

[moXJO]

Two sides of a discussion are important. Head nodding stops people learning.

 

[rederob]

Minutely dissecting the meaning of words in order to try and prove one's intelligence doesn't add anything to solving the problems of the world or making investment decisions. It's tiring and unproductive.

This comes from a person who commented on a range of things including "identity politics" without showing that he knew what the words meant.
Words are powerful weapons and misusing them, deliberately or otherwise, has consequences.
The other point is that this is not a competition.
Markets are ruled by emotion and the best counter is clear thinking, unless you work to a rock solid strategy. So when you see stocks going stratospheric, you have the option of working out the risk by researching why, or jumping on the bandwagon and hoping they knew something you didn't.
Complaining about other's posts, without being constructive is equally unproductive.

 

[SirRumpole]

This comes from a person who commented on a range of things including "identity politics" without showing that he knew what the words meant.

From someone who called me a racist for criticising another country's politics.



Talk about not knowing the meaning of words.

 

[rederob]

From someone who called me a racist for criticising another country's politics.



Talk about not knowing the meaning of words.

I linked to your comments, which were unsubstantiated dog whistles.

 

[SirRumpole]

I linked to your comments, which were unsubstantiated dog whistles.

You deny using the term "racist" do you ?

 

[rederob]

From someone who called me a racist for criticising another country's politics.



Talk about not knowing the meaning of words.

Not a single comment I linked, and made by you, was about politics.
Instead, they smacked of intolerance based largely on what is commonly called racism.