Humanity: Good News, Bad News

[Lord J Esq]

Heil Hitler News:
Young Indians Love Hitler

Come on, Indians. You're better than this. It's not a fluke, either. I read a similar report a couple years ago. Something in Indian pop culture has decided that Hitler is all the rage. There's really no smart way to come away with a favorable impression of this guy.

[Lennis]

If young Indians are this desperate for a decisive figure to look up to, the domestic situation in India may warrant careful examination.  The last thing the world needs is a resurgence of Fascism in the world's soon-to-be most populous country.

[Truthordeal]

Eh, to be fair, Hitler in Indian pop culture might have the same status as Che Guevara in American pop culture. Lord J might disagree with me on this, but I don't think we're heading down a path to a fascist dictatorship either.

Still, to be safe, the situation should be monitored.

[tushantin]

Whoa! Quite a co-incidence there! Just this morn I came across Mein Kampf, the ONLY book in the store which has been just lying there for over 3 years without selling and I was wondering if anyone would even buy the autobiographies of someone so hated.

But I've faced so many co-incidences in my life I've lost track. I should probably start believing in Metaphysics.

xDDD But one thing's for sure, selflessly benevolent or self-deluded, India LOVES breeding SoY quality patriots and heroes, and there's even more of patriot lovers around. I'm not sure if I should assume Hitler to be a "patriot" just yet, but I really wish I had the time to read Mein Kampf. It seems to me not much is written about his "sinister-evil-supervillainy" in that book which is something most youths take for granted.

"The killing of Jews was not good, but everybody has a positive and negative side."

My ass! It's like saying, "You murdered your own family and poisoned the innocent orphans while inflicting pain upon cute and harmless animals, but you're still a nice guy once we get to know ya."

I still don't get the left-wing right-wing deal though.

[Lord J Esq]

Bad News:
Top U.S. Afghanistan Commander Summoned to Washington D.C. to Explain Anti-Administration Sentiments

This is pretty damning. Other than John Kerry, nobody comes out of this story looking good. But the military culture in particular takes a beating. That comment at the end by a uniformed private is unconscionable. He should be discharged. People like that do not deserve to wear the uniform. And then, all the way at the other end of the spectrum, for General McChrystal to allow himself and his staff to indulge in such chatter about the civilian administration is very troubling. I think he should be removed from his command and discharged from the military, and his entire command staff replaced.

I'm sympathetic to the need for military leaders to be able to speak their minds, and to disagree (in private) with the administration on matters of strategy. More of that would have done us some good in the Bush years. But McChyrstal has crossed a line. His own contempt for the administration is damning enough, but for him to have surrounded himself with, and fostered, a culture of contempt among his senior staff is far, far worse. Perhaps he should even face an inquiry; I'm not well-versed enough in military policy to say.

We need institutional reform in the military. I'm pro-military, and pro-troops, but I can't keep that up unless our military and our troops are, themselves, pro-integrity. An undisciplined military is a terror to its own citizenry, let alone the nations of Earth. I smell a much larger problem here than simply an undisciplined general, a corrupt command staff, and a misanthropic underling. I'm well aware that our military can be very attractive to that same kind of aggressive personality that causes so much harm to our modern society. I'm quite frankly scared of the idea of some of these people becoming proficient in the use of deadly weapons and deployed to deal with foreign civilians in a war zone, then brought back home to integrate with our own society. I trust the military to very closely monitor the mental competence of its troops. I don't want my trust shaken, because, if it were, my solution will be vicious: complete institutional reform and widespread criminal prosecutions.

This story tells me that bad thinking and poor character in the military are not immediately and strongly shot down. I never trusted McChrystal; I read something about him in a report a couple of years ago...I don't even remember what, but it cost me my respect for him. Yet he's still here. That is the military's failure and more importantly it is the administration's failure. I hope that he is being recalled to Washington to give advice on transferring the command to his replacement, because he doesn't belong in that job, and he hasn't for a while.

Edit: I neglected to link to the original Rolling Stone story. Here it is:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

[Lord J Esq]

WTF News:
Republican Hoists Self on Own Petard

This conservative farmer puts up a sign saying that people are either producers or parasites, and calls the Democratic Party the party of parasites. The local newspaper then finds out that he has received over a million dollars in federal farm subsidies over the years. He insists that it's different in his case.

So, either this genius is a parasite like us Democrats, or his premise was ridiculous to begin with. Either way...I predict a bright future in the Tea Party and on the Fox News circuit!

[Acacia Sgt]

Earthquake Moved California City 31 Inches

Well, that's quite the surprise. But how could this went unnoticed until recently? I mean, it couldn't really have been that subtle at land view, isn't it? Especially if it was nearly a meter. Then again, it hasn't been shown yet in the news over here (or maybe I just missed it, but I doubt it otherwise it would have spread quickly at school or something).

[Lord J Esq]

Not good or bad; just sad:

Sad News:
Additional Evidence Supports Theory That Universe Will Expand Forever

The question was already fairly settled, by my understanding. This is simply another piece of corroborating evidence.

[xcalibur]

Not good or bad; just sad:

Sad News:
Additional Evidence Supports Theory That Universe Will Expand Forever

The question was already fairly settled, by my understanding. This is simply another piece of corroborating evidence.

Yes, but I don't think the ultimate fate of the universe has truly been proven. We still barely understand dark matter and dark energy, which are highly important. It is possible that dark matter and energy oscillate or change in relation to each other and the universe, so there are still many possibilities.

Whatever happens, we've got plenty of time to work with.

[Lord J Esq]

I don't think the ultimate fate of the universe has truly been proven. We still barely understand dark matter and dark energy, which are highly important. It is possible that dark matter and energy oscillate or change in relation to each other and the universe, so there are still many possibilities.

Is your objection speculative or substantive? I would suspect the former. You can't look at compelling evidence and simply discard its conclusions because it is not perfect evidence. You can use that gap to retain some skepticism, but that's all. If you dislike the implications of an ever-expanding universe, that's understandable, but if you disagree with the likely reality of an ever-expanding universe then you need to mount a stronger defense. Otherwise, you must withdraw your objection, for the laws which shape the universe do not answer to the preferences of Terrans.

Whatever happens, we've got plenty of time to work with.

It would seem we do!

[xcalibur]

I don't think the ultimate fate of the universe has truly been proven. We still barely understand dark matter and dark energy, which are highly important. It is possible that dark matter and energy oscillate or change in relation to each other and the universe, so there are still many possibilities.

Is your objection speculative or substantive? I would suspect the former. You can't look at compelling evidence and simply discard its conclusions because it is not perfect evidence. You can use that gap to retain some skepticism, but that's all. If you dislike the implications of an ever-expanding universe, that's understandable, but if you disagree with the likely reality of an ever-expanding universe then you need to mount a stronger defense. Otherwise, you must withdraw your objection, for the laws which shape the universe do not answer to the preferences of Terrans.

It was more along the lines of speculation and skepticism. I certainly won't dismiss a theory out of hand because it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and/or over personal feelings. An ever-expanding universe does have lots of findings and evidence to support it.. however, this this is not conclusive. While it is the most likely theory to be correct, it seems to me that studying the universe is like going further down the rabbit hole - you keep finding stranger things and more surprises. While our science has enlightened us to a great extent, there are questions and debates that remain unsolved. We need to gain a better understanding of dark matter/energy, as well as black holes, string theory, and the possible "entropy gap" in order to be more conclusive. These questions, among others, definitely bring up different possibilities than the current views of the big freeze.

And yes, while the universe has allowed us life, it is thoroughly neutral towards us. It has a monumental indifference towards how we feel about it. Science is the best way we've found for understanding it, and technology is how we get it to work for us.

Whatever happens, we've got plenty of time to work with.

It would seem we do!

Yes, which is an optimistic note. It may be that we can survive distant eons with the help of black holes.. but thats getting into speculation again.

The main point here is that there are different possibilities and outcomes when it comes to the cosmos. While we have a strong grasp of some things, it is always reasonable to retain skepticism when dealing with this field.

[Lord J Esq]

Skepticism is always an admirable trait, but only if it is used for doubt rather than denial. My complaint, I suppose, is that you have styled your position to downplay the strong likelihood that we live in an indefinitely expanding universe. It may or may not be "The Truth," but it is our best theorization, at least for now, and to admit its potential inaccuracy also requires that we acknowledge its plausible accuracy.

[xcalibur]

Skepticism is always an admirable trait, but only if it is used for doubt rather than denial. My complaint, I suppose, is that you have styled your position to downplay the strong likelihood that we live in an indefinitely expanding universe. It may or may not be "The Truth," but it is our best theorization, at least for now, and to admit its potential inaccuracy also requires that we acknowledge its plausible accuracy.

I do acknowledge its plausibility and supporting evidence. I'm not running from the implications of an expanding universe, it may well be true. But I don't think the course of cosmological events has been settled or completely determined just yet. Indefinite expansion is currently the most plausible model, but there's still room for questions... that's what I've been trying to say.

[Lord J Esq]

I do acknowledge its plausibility and supporting evidence. I'm not running from the implications of an expanding universe, it may well be true. But I don't think the course of cosmological events has been settled or completely determined just yet. Indefinite expansion is currently the most plausible model, but there's still room for questions... that's what I've been trying to say.

You have used the word "acknowledge" in regards to the evidence, but you have not really acknowledged it. Indeed, you are insisting quite strongly that your opinion is superior to what the evidence thus far suggests, which implies you do not acknowledge it at all. You're saying, if I may paraphrase, "Oh, well, there's the so-called evidence, but who really knows what the truth is?"

That's not skepticism. It's faith. A faith-based rejection of a premise. I am reminded of creationists who try to discredit evolution by saying "We don't have all the answers yet." True enough, we don't, but it is a logical fallacy to use the perfection of the unknown to imply that the best-supported theory surrounding a given phenomenon is inaccurate or even incorrect.

It is agreeable that you do not take it on faith that we live in an endlessly expanding universe when presented that claim by the media via a post here at the Compendium, but you've gone too far in the other direction. When presented with a well-supported scientific theory, the only tenable response for a layperson, in the absence of further information, is tentative acknowledgment. "As best I understand it, we live in an endlessly expanding universe, unless further discovery should reveal otherwise." Or, at the most, "I do not understand the subject well enough to tender a position." I would hazard to presume that you have a limited understanding of cosmology, which makes you a layperson and raises the question of what ground you think you're standing on when you press your doubts to the brink of active objection. Unless you are considerably more knowledgeable in the subject than I realize, you could not possibly begin to substantiate such an objection.

Maybe this is all a breakdown in communication, a case of you not wording yourself clearly and unintentionally conveying a position you did not mean to convey. But I'm likelier to suspect that you are in need of reevaluating the rigor of your scientific mindset. A friendly criticism.

[xcalibur]

Meant to get back here sooner. lets go...

I do acknowledge its plausibility and supporting evidence. I'm not running from the implications of an expanding universe, it may well be true. But I don't think the course of cosmological events has been settled or completely determined just yet. Indefinite expansion is currently the most plausible model, but there's still room for questions... that's what I've been trying to say.

You have used the word "acknowledge" in regards to the evidence, but you have not really acknowledged it. Indeed, you are insisting quite strongly that your opinion is superior to what the evidence thus far suggests, which implies you do not acknowledge it at all. You're saying, if I may paraphrase, "Oh, well, there's the so-called evidence, but who really knows what the truth is?"

Where did I say this? I did in fact acknowledge that endless expansion is a viable theory, and did not say that I have a superior opinion. I simply pointed out the limitations and uncertainty in our current body of knowledge, based what we know, what we know we dont know, and current cosmological debate. To say that "this theory is good, but its not 100% certain because of A B and C" is not the same as rejecting it, based on faith or any other reason. which brings me to...

That's not skepticism. It's faith. A faith-based rejection of a premise. I am reminded of creationists who try to discredit evolution by saying "We don't have all the answers yet." True enough, we don't, but it is a logical fallacy to use the perfection of the unknown to imply that the best-supported theory surrounding a given phenomenon is inaccurate or even incorrect.

What is my faith, exactly? I have not been basing my statements on an allegiance to a fixed ideology - not a scientific pet theory, nor to scriptural dogma. I would have to have faith in some alternative to continuous expansion for this to be a faith-based rejection.. and as I said, I never even rejected it, simply questioned it.
The evolution analogy does not apply here. Evolution is the best and only scientific theory with a large body of evidence to explain biological development. On the other hand, the endless expansion theory, while favored and strong, is certainly not the only valid view of the universe.. there are other views and possibilities within the realm of science and scientific evidence as I mentioned previously.

It is agreeable that you do not take it on faith that we live in an endlessly expanding universe when presented that claim by the media via a post here at the Compendium, but you've gone too far in the other direction. When presented with a well-supported scientific theory, the only tenable response for a layperson, in the absence of further information, is tentative acknowledgment. "As best I understand it, we live in an endlessly expanding universe, unless further discovery should reveal otherwise." Or, at the most, "I do not understand the subject well enough to tender a position." I would hazard to presume that you have a limited understanding of cosmology, which makes you a layperson and raises the question of what ground you think you're standing on when you press your doubts to the brink of active objection. Unless you are considerably more knowledgeable in the subject than I realize, you could not possibly begin to substantiate such an objection.

But I am not a layperson (as you define it) and I am not in absence of further information. I am not a scientist, however, I have made a fair study of the cosmos, and I have a decent enough grasp on these ideas to make the statements I did.. as well as defend them further if you'd like.

Maybe this is all a breakdown in communication, a case of you not wording yourself clearly and unintentionally conveying a position you did not mean to convey. But I'm likelier to suspect that you are in need of reevaluating the rigor of your scientific mindset. A friendly criticism.

I worded myself quite clear. I say that the ever-expanding universe is a strong theory with plenty of evidence. I also say that based on more evidence from these same scientific processes, we cannot consider this set in stone just yet. We know that the great majority of the mass of the universe is built of stuff we barely understand. There is also ongoing debate about the processes of the universe, from the big bang up til now. Thus it is very scientifically reasonable to leave room for doubt and other possibilities, especially in this situation.

Question me further, and I will be happy to illuminate you.

if not, then...