Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Political background (Score 1) 151

by Wild_dog! (#47468885) Attached to: Scotland Could Become Home To Britain's First Spaceport

"Whether you like it or not, the tide of history is moving from smaller to larger groups."

Things tend to happen whether anyone likes it or not. That is not really specific to me.
You are right about the tide of history of smaller groups moving to larger ones. Possibly the eventual world will be one giant entity with some form of feedback loop for governance that allows for greater say by the populace on how that governance is manifest. Checks and Balances and Divided government and Voting will certainly be parts of the equation if such a government could exist.
In the interim however, I think there is a counter movement toward smaller units gaining more say in their own affairs as larger entities are formed. Even in my own community which is a small town, we seem to be gaining more autonomy over certain aspects of our governance even in the face of larger overarching governance. The state provides the overarching rules, but within those rules it is the local government that determines how such rules will actually be implemented.

"I really could not care about how the UK was not created well. It can work well nowadays. 1745 was a long time ago."

Certainly the past is the past. The UK was formed in the way most large nation states formed back then conquest. That is fine.
I think more pertinent to today is the question 'can a group have more autonomy if they feel their needs would be better met by smaller governance'. It seems to me that the argument has to do more with the idea that many of the Scots would like more say in their own affairs today. But like everyone else they also seem to want to be part of something bigger in retaining membership in the EU. Belonging to a bigger geopolitical marketplace won't be such a problem for the Scots if they choose to have greater local control over their own affairs in my opinion.

"The UK is not perfect but neither is my car. I won't make my car work better by sawing bits off."
This is analogy seems a bit off point to me.
Separating the 2 countries is not like lopping a baby in 2. It is more like separating a liver. Both parts can function and grow separately of one another because both are fully functioning even though both will have diminished size from what the whole was. Both can grow to have economies that are larger and function well also.

"Despite what the SNP tells us, if Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves every alliance the it is in."
Not really. Scotland will get to pick its own alliances and reframe how those alliances are formed is all. That means greater liberty to follow ones own course in my book and is a net positive. Every alliance formed for the UK will be revisited by all of the parties for similar terms with the Scots. Who knows, I can see scenarios where the Scots will have opportunities to form even broader alliances with parties the UK won't form alliances with.

"It will be able to apply for entry but this is not a fast process and meantime, we are outside."
I think it will be more like a rubber stamp or somewhere in between that and new EU member applications. Scotland is already in the EU as part of the UK.
Some specifics will need to be worked out, but the process will not be very lengthy or even likely inconvenient. I could see the EU giving the Scots a tentative waiver for many functional things so the transition won't be too disruptive. The EU is hoping for a greater level of stability. It is not in their economic interest to keep the Scots at arms length. They are a know quantity. The EU will avoid throwing even more chaos into their western borders in my estimation. It is in the EU's interest to move to lock down stability with Scotland rather than create greater problems.

Comment: Re:Disbelief in evolution=proof of science illiter (Score 1) 772

by Wild_dog! (#47115727) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy

A fallacy in what way? I'm not sure you are using the term correctly.
I am not positing some sort of argument. I am making a statement. And more than that, my statement is neither misleading nor deceptive. You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree then please present a concrete counterpoint about how my statement is false. Perhaps you are interpreting what I am saying wrong since it is only a one line statement. You an I could even perhaps agree on most points in fact. or not.

Do you know how the Universe came about? If, as your "That's a fallacy" statement infers then you must have a clue how the universe came about. To me such an inference would be a bold statement indeed. I would then have to ask you to qualify this understanding of yours further. Where did everything before the big bang come from? Was there a before? Will there be an after? Is the universe we currently exist in merely 15 billion? What is the nature of time. What is the nature of space as it currently exists? How many dimensions actually do exist? Are we even living in a real world? Are there things beyond the known universe or is ours universe it? If there are other universes, how does ours fit into a larger scheme. Is there some sort of generator of universes or are they merely spontaneous. Have there been recurrent big bangs of our universe?

There are so many questions to be asked and answered. Many of the answerable things are being answered, yet the amount that has been answered I feel is still small compared to the larger questions about the vast unknown. Because we live on one pinprick of a planet in all of this vastness, our ability to determine things observationally are a bit limited because of our perspective. Because human civilization has been around merely some 10k years roughly and of those it has been merely 500 or so years where we have really began to delve into things as science began to take hold, I feel there is much more to learn and find out about the 15 billion year old universe, its origins, and the nature of the great infinite which seems to surround us. We have a lot more learning to do.

Firstly it isn't a fallacy to make an opinion statement, but even more I doubt very much that you can construct a coherent argument as to why my opinion is false. You can merely disagree with my statement, but I am not sure what the point of that would be either. None of us really has a clue since there is much to be learned yet and I include myself in this mass of humans who don't know much. We are trapped corporeally in our universe of apparently 3 discreet spacial dimensions. We are stuck in a universe that theoretically came into existence with a big bang some 15 billion years ago, but we know nothing about beyond the universe or outside the universe. Our knowledge is rather paltry in the grand scheme of things although we fashion ourselves as enlightened somehow.

Is your "pro tip" directed at me for saying that 'none of us from this tiny backwater of a planet have a clue how this universe came about.' Seems a bit of a misguided ad hominem. Especially in the face of such massive uncertainty such as the ultimate nature of our universe and the vast complexity of what exists. Plus you just did the very thing that you were warning about in your pro tip. Seems a bit like Kafka's the Castle to me ending up where you began.

I make no assumptions about people I have never met. There are those who have infinitely greater understanding than do I in all areas of human endeavor, and yet, all of the people I know, are stuck on this one planet, in this 3-d spacial paradigm, with a scant few hundred years of observational data and theory about what our universe ultimately is and how it came about. Last time I checked everything regarding what we know is still theoretical. Humanity seems to be stuck on the same boat called earth and all of our knowledge and understanding is bottled up with us.

If your experience is different that is nice. I think you need to define what you are talking about more before making easy statements like "That's a Fallacy"
Elaboration would be needed if you wish your statement to have heft. but first you would have to know what fallacy is and not confuse fallacy with mere statements and opinions.

Comment: Re:Disbelief in evolution=proof of science illiter (Score 1) 772

by Wild_dog! (#47107503) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy


Literalists have a hard time with the mythic stories from the various cultures of our planet and what exists on our tiny ball for all to see. Ultimately, none of us from this tiny backwater of a planet have a clue how this universe came about. What the nature of the universe is or its ultimate origins are will likely remain somewhat of a mystery far beyond the existence of us as a species.

But a bold statement about belief in creationism preventing folks from scientific literacy seems a stretch. I know many fantastic scientists who have strong religious beliefs. Generally, they are not literalists, but they have a firm knowledge of science and its methodology.

Comment: Re:Police (Score 1) 584

Let the free market decide. If people want to buy a gun that only they can shoot, and neither their kids nor the kids friends can shoot anyone accidentally with, then let them buy such a gun.
If there is a market for it, such guns will be sold. Shop owners have a legal right to carry legal firearms and sell them to their patrons.
No need for death threats to shop owners who want to carry such things for clients who want to buy them as reportedly happened in this case.

Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955