Crazy ideas thread

[solarz]

I drive about a hundred miles a month. I've reduced water usage in my house to around 70 gallons a day for three people when the average is about a 100 gallons a day per person. I do as much as I can but I don't do it by going around calling myself environmentally conscious.

Sounds like you've got a beef with the environmentalism movement as a whole. There are ignorant loudmouths within any movement, including environmentalism, but there are also a lot of people with genuine knowledge of what they're advocating.

You're right: people who keep advertising their environmental consciousness when in reality they know jack-all about how climate or ecology works is really annoying, and hurts environmentalism more than climate change deniers. However, that's what happens when a particular cause is popular among teenagers and Hollywood celebrities. It doesn't change the fact that the state of our environment is something to be concerned about.

It's like Socialism. I cringe every time a bunch of advocates think we can reduce poverty by raising the minimum wage. However, that doesn't change the fact that we should be concerned about poverty, and be working toward reducing it in our societies.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Sounds like you've got a beef with the environmentalism movement as a whole. There are ignorant loudmouths within any movement, including environmentalism, but there are also a lot of people with genuine knowledge of what they're advocating.

You're right: people who keep advertising their environmental consciousness when in reality they know jack-all about how climate or ecology works is really annoying, and hurts environmentalism more than climate change deniers. However, that's what happens when a particular cause is popular among teenagers and Hollywood celebrities. It doesn't change the fact that the state of our environment is something to be concerned about.

It's like Socialism. I cringe every time a bunch of advocates think we can reduce poverty by raising the minimum wage. However, that doesn't change the fact that we should be concerned about poverty, and be working toward reducing it in our societies.

Yeah I got a problem with those that hide their selfishness behind a cause. That's a lot of people. The ones that are pragmatic are the ones that get shut down by the loudmouths. Look at the environmentalists that are open to nuclear energy these days because it shows it is cleaner and less polluting than current methods. But some are watching too many science fiction movies or like I said people are hiding because causes for their own self-aggrandizement so anyone that shifts the narrative is a threat to them. That's the tactic with anything these days. No one is for an actual intellectual debate. Why? Because the loudmouths have more of a say these days.

I have a Republican friend who calls me to point out hypocrisy of Democrats on their beliefs. Yeah I see what he's talking about but I tell him that Republicans do that too. And what does that mean? It has nothing to do with standing up for what they believe. The battle between Republicans and Democrats is simply a power struggle on who controls the country and rewards their friends. Their beliefs are like people who hide behind environmentalism or anything other cause.

 

[solarz]

Speaking of nuclear technology, and to get the thread back on topic, what does everyone think of this idea?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reminds me of Fallout. I think it could work, just as long as the car doesn't trigger a nuclear explosion when it crashes, lol.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I don't know about any studies out there that might refute this claim. If there are, I don't know about them.

This COULD be a potential limitations, but I guess the overall explanation is that because even if individuals are influenced by their life stories or individual experiences that affected their compassion or dietary behaviours, it will only be one individual scores that's getting affected. It would not be enough to affect or throw the data off balance. However, I will say your point has a very thoughtful touch to it because IF the study was conducted only on one group of people of a certain demographic, then yes we can go on to argue it's possible groups of certain demographic, age bracket, areas, may pose significant confounds. This is why replications of the study, meta-analysis, and random sampling is extremely important. By having a large enough sample of people of all sorts and walks, then the data will be even more accurate. However often they are limited by funding, so again what you said I will say there's some weight to it. As for the actual operation definition, I don't remember, but often they avoid bias or letting the participants from detecting the study by hiding the stuffs within a bunch of distractors.

This is just to rebuff your idea I do because others do it too.

I do admit I didn't read it carefully, but I did get confused with the wordings back and forth at some point. And actually I brought up the study not exactly because I believe that's the golden truth, but rather because I just happened to know of it so I want to share it as a "speaking of which". It's an interesting study, which I think i mentioned, because I was surprised about that myself.

Nature don't set up the environment to kill us off. Let's say supervolcanic eruption happened, or natural climate change or some forms of physical geographic phenomenon happened that wasn't the cause of human activity occurred and as a result we are dying, then that is natural. Anything that's happened as a result or from the cause of human behaviour, then we are responsible.

It was published and cited. What?
Not sure what you mean, but do you mean because I didn't provide sufficient information, therefore you just have to assume with what I have told you? I'm slightly lost at what you mean. Um as for the paper, I have to find it, although I do think it's actually cited material in a journal called species-ism, which explored how humans see ourselves as superior to other forms of beings, and thus also creates hierarchy and classisms and so on. In the reference they will always have the original paper, so usually that's how you can find where it's from. Anyway, IF you really do want it, I can try and search it up. It's a good read because they explore classism amongst many things, and it's very interesting.


What? What are you talking about?

Let me sum up everything like this. Your word that this study is legitimately scientific is not enough.

Where's the world body that enforces legitimacy so you think you can safely say the study was conducted properly without bias? There is none. Meaning people can lie. Paul McCartney's wife, Linda, wrote a book telling women if they eat meat, they're more likely to get breast cancer. If you believe if someone publishes a study, it had to have been vetted by experts. Then you must believe a book has gone through the same scrutiny. Guess what? Linda McCartney died of breast cancer despite telling women if they eat meat they're more likely to get it. She's an example of how eating meat or not eating meat doesn't factor in who develops breast cancer. Whether she outright lied or was sadly mistaken, she was in no position to make such claims. Anyone can write a book that says anything. Anyone can write a study that says anything. If you believe just telling me it's legitimate so it has to be... that's what I'm talking about narcissism. Why do you think I accuse people who advertise their causes are promoting themselves more and not the cause. "Take a look at me at how wonderful I am for caring." Why are there people that brag about how they're animal lovers? Like anyone who doesn't declare it has to be cruel to animals? You have a name you recall from this so-called study? An organization? A PDF file I can look at? If you have nothing I can check, then you think your word is good enough. That's narcissism. No one really talks about it and that's a reason why people hide behind causes. It's like a shield and no one has the right to question motives if they have a grand cause in front of them.

 

[airsuperiority]

Yeah I got a problem with those that hide their selfishness behind a cause. That's a lot of people. The ones that are pragmatic are the ones that get shut down by the loudmouths. Look at the environmentalists that are open to nuclear energy these days because it shows it is cleaner and less polluting than current methods. But some are watching too many science fiction movies or like I said people are hiding because causes for their own self-aggrandizement so anyone that shifts the narrative is a threat to them. That's the tactic with anything these days. No one is for an actual intellectual debate. Why? Because the loudmouths have more of a say these days.

I have a Republican friend who calls me to point out hypocrisy of Democrats on their beliefs. Yeah I see what he's talking about but I tell him that Republicans do that too. And what does that mean? It has nothing to do with standing up for what they believe. The battle between Republicans and Democrats is simply a power struggle on who controls the country and rewards their friends. Their beliefs are like people who hide behind environmentalism or anything other cause.

Again, I can understand why you feel that way, but I'd think it's important to be careful with who you're condemning. There's a lot of people like that, but then there are always people out there who are genuinely concerned, and those who are genuinely concerned but still had their bias or lack of knowledge towards certain things. They may not be ill-intended , or might established their attitudes from specific experiences. For example, a Russian or Japanese environmentalist may voice objections to nuclear energy due to experiences with the Chernobyl nuclear accident or the Fukushima. When those happen, they become even less opened to nuclear energy. To you or others, it may seemed like they are biased and you have reasons for thinking that they are like that, but the same time they couldn't be blamed entirely for thinking that way neither.

Saying that, there are plenty of people who could be hypocrites or with special interests as well, which I'm definitely not ruling out. And plus, groups like PETA earn a poor name because they would be exactly what you're saying. Despite all of that, again I won't be so haste to proclaim no one is in for intellectual discussions. I don't even like the word debate because there's no point in arguing when there's more by learning through sharing ideas.

Finally, I hope you understand that loudmouths are those who goes out to make deductive, offensive, close-minded statements against others. There are plenty of members and people who share ideas and knowledge for the sake of learning without any hidden agendas, but when you're denouncing them without even really knowing who they are or actually knowing what they're thinking, you're playing the loudmouth.

It is therefore not a good idea to assume you know what others think and their intentions are.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Again, I can understand why you feel that way, but I'd think it's important to be careful with who you're condemning. There's a lot of people like that, but then there are always people out there who are genuinely concerned, and those who are genuinely concerned but still had their bias or lack of knowledge towards certain things. They may not be ill-intended , or might established their attitudes from specific experiences. For example, a Russian or Japanese environmentalist may voice objections to nuclear energy due to experiences with the Chernobyl nuclear accident or the Fukushima. When those happen, they become even less opened to nuclear energy. To you or others, it may seemed like they are biased and you have reasons for thinking that they are like that, but the same time they couldn't be blamed entirely for thinking that way neither.

Saying that, there are plenty of people who could be hypocrites or with special interests as well, which I'm definitely not ruling out. And plus, groups like PETA earn a poor name because they would be exactly what you're saying. Despite all of that, again I won't be so haste to proclaim no one is in for intellectual discussions. I don't even like the word debate because there's no point in arguing when there's more by learning through sharing ideas. which means the very people I'm talking are the majority.

Finally, I hope you understand that loudmouths are those who goes out to make deductive, offensive, close-minded statements against others. There are plenty of members and people who share ideas and knowledge for the sake of learning without any hidden agendas, but when you're denouncing them without even really knowing who they are or actually knowing what they're thinking, you're playing the loudmouth.

It is therefore not a good idea to assume you know what others think and their intentions are.

Reasonable people have been relegated to the background. Which means the lunatics are running the asylum. Republicans vs. Democrats is a perfect example of how self-interests trumps reason. That kind of thinking is not relegated to just Republicans and Democrats. Any one who thinks in black and white... that's how it ends up. Why? Because their sole tactic is you're either on my side or the wrong side. Reasonable people are not in control. It's people who are only looking out for their self-interests.

 

[airsuperiority]

Let me sum up everything like this. Your word that this study is legitimately scientific is not enough.

Where's the world body that enforces legitimacy so you think you can safely say the study was conducted properly without bias? There is none. Meaning people can lie. Paul McCartney's wife, Linda, wrote a book telling women if they eat meat, they're more likely to get breast cancer. If you believe if someone publishes a study, it had to have been vetted by experts. Then you must believe a book has gone through the same scrutiny. Guess what? Linda McCartney died of breast cancer despite telling women if they eat meat they're more likely to get it. She's an example of how eating meat or not eating meat doesn't factor in who develops breast cancer. Whether she outright lied or was sadly mistaken, she was in no position to make such claims. Anyone can write a book that says anything. Anyone can write a study that says anything. If you believe just telling me it's legitimate so it has to be... that's what I'm talking about narcissism. Why do you think I accuse people who advertise their causes are promoting themselves more and not the cause. "Take a look at me at how wonderful I am for caring." Why are there people that brag about how they're animal lovers? Like anyone who doesn't declare it has to be cruel to animals? You have a name you recall from this so-called study? An organization? A PDF file I can look at? If you have nothing I can check, then you think your word is good enough. That's narcissism. No one really talks about it and that's a reason why people hide behind causes. It's like a shield and no one has the right to question motives if they have a grand cause in front of them.

You know I never discounted the chances of cheats within the system(I actually even mentioned the possible flaws when I explained the process earlier. Also, many conscientious scholars will agree it's not flawless, but rather it is currently the most practical system), and I personally don't believe most studies are completely flawless. The question is if there's a strong external validity and through replications. Also no, I don't just read any random person's book(even if I have been referred by friends many times) because I DO know anyone can write a book(Dick Cheney published his own too), which is why I don't go read everything and think it's instantly true. Also there's a fallacy called appeal to experts (where people blindly endorse everything an expert say).

Anyone can write a study that says anything.

That's straw man. Just because anyone can publish books doesn't mean anyone can publish studies. If you don't have educational credentials in that relative field, with the approval of the board, along with the fundings, you can't actually conduct your study unless you bribe your way into getting your works published, which I'm not even sure if that can actually happen. The other unethical method we often hear about would be those researchers funded by corporations, so those are done with interests.

If you believe just telling me it's legitimate so it has to be... that's what I'm talking about narcissism.

No first of all I'm not shallow enough to do something like that.

Why do you think I accuse people who advertise their causes are promoting themselves more and not the cause.

Again it depends. Some try to demonstrate by example, some are their own spokesperson like you said, and some probably don't even know how to talk. But for sure I do know, and believe, there are plenty of people who advocate for the cause, and again of course not everyone talks about it. This of course leads to the same point that because you may not have met people who's actually promoting the cause, that doesn't mean there's no one there. Since you said those real ones are non-vocal, then of course unless you know of them, you won't hear of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Why are there people that brag about how they're animal lovers? Like anyone who doesn't declare it has to be cruel to animals?

We all know those people, but for those people I ignore or turn a blind eye on them. But of course the same time there are people who are genuine animal lovers who brag, or just people who like to share with others what they do. Whether we like that habit is very subjective, but I just don't think we can judge them as they shan't judge others.

That's narcissism. No one really talks about it and that's a reason why people hide behind causes. It's like a shield and no one has the right to question motives if they have a grand cause in front of them.

I like to learn by reading new things, not by making new things up.

 

[airsuperiority]

Reasonable people have been relegated to the background. Which means the lunatics are running the asylum. Republicans vs. Democrats is a perfect example of how self-interests trumps reason. That kind of thinking is not relegated to just Republicans and Democrats. Any one who thinks in black and white... that's how it ends up. Why? Because their sole tactic is you're either on my side or the wrong side. Reasonable people are not in control. It's people who are only looking out for their self-interests.

I totally agree with you. The world isn't black and white or runs so binary, but those people being not able to accept differences and respect people creates even more tensions and conflict, thus making our world even more cold.

Lemme try and find that article..

 

[airsuperiority]

I think this is the one. I think the study was cited inside the paper at one time, so you will have to look for it. It's a bit long, although it's a good read. Shreds new ideas on other topics as well:

Toward a wider lens: Prejudice and natural world. In L.M. Jackson, The psychology of prejudice: From attitudes to social action (pp. 137-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Try and find it online first. If you can't I will try and upload it somewhere

 

[AssassinsMace]

You know I never discounted the chances of cheats within the system(I actually even mentioned the possible flaws when I explained the process earlier. Also, many conscientious scholars will agree it's not flawless, but rather it is currently the most practical system), and I personally don't believe most studies are completely flawless. The question is if there's a strong external validity and through replications. Also no, I don't just read any random person's book(even if I have been referred by friends many times) because I DO know anyone can write a book(Dick Cheney published his own too), which is why I don't go read everything and think it's instantly true. Also there's a fallacy called appeal to experts (where people blindly endorse everything an expert say).

That's straw man. Just because anyone can publish books doesn't mean anyone can publish studies. If you don't have educational credentials in that relative field, with the approval of the board, along with the fundings, you can't actually conduct your study unless you bribe your way into getting your works published, which I'm not even sure if that can actually happen. The other unethical method we often hear about would be those researchers funded by corporations, so those are done with interests.

No first of all I'm not shallow enough to do something like that.
Again it depends. Some try to demonstrate by example, some are their own spokesperson like you said, and some probably don't even know how to talk. But for sure I do know, and believe, there are plenty of people who advocate for the cause, and again of course not everyone talks about it. This of course leads to the same point that because you may not have met people who's actually promoting the cause, that doesn't mean there's no one there. Since you said those real ones are non-vocal, then of course unless you know of them, you won't hear of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

We all know those people, but for those people I ignore or turn a blind eye on them. But of course the same time there are people who are genuine animal lovers who brag, or just people who like to share with others what they do. Whether we like that habit is very subjective, but I just don't think we can judge them as they shan't judge others.

I like to learn by reading new things, not by making new things up.

What do you call declaring something is legitimate without bias for a study that you can't seem to show me any evidence of it's existence? I'm jumping to conclusions? If you can't give me any sort of information that I can check, don't you think it's legitimate to question whether you know for a fact this study was done properly? Hence why anyone can write a paper and call it a study. Ever watch the movie Fargo? Right when the movie starts it says "Based on a true story." It was completely a lie. The directors were making fun how they can claim anything they want because there's nothing that says they can't do that. Whether you believe or not your study is making a gross generalization regardless if it was done legitimately. Because we know they did not follow are large group of people all over the world, and it would have to over 2000, for an extended period of time, checking off compassionate and sympathetic acts. And again I ask what acts of compassion and sympathy are they talking about? Is it only on animals? Then I can see how they can come up with that conclusion. But then that would mean Hilter was a compassionate and sympathetic man. Let's ignore everything else because that's what the study would be saying.

I think this is the one. I think the study was cited inside the paper at one time, so you will have to look for it. It's a bit long, although it's a good read. Shreds new ideas on other topics as well:

Toward a wider lens: Prejudice and natural world. In L.M. Jackson, The psychology of prejudice: From attitudes to social action (pp. 137-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Try and find it online first. If you can't I will try and upload it somewhere

The only author with that name I've come up with writes fiction books. That's not a good sign if it's the same person. Just remember Linda McCartney and her book.