Jot Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Hint: next time you start a post like this you'd better give us a link.
J. D. Stembal Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Wasn't the recent broadcast of the miniseries, Cosmos, hosted by NDT, a vehicle for anthropomorphic climate change propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/cosmos-climate-change_n_5268839.html Qualify "awesome".
st434u Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Someone who calls for more taxes to fund NASA (and therefore, himself) can't be described as "awesome" in my opinion.
Better Future Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I would say he is one of the more reasonable statists. Doesn't meet my standards for awesome though.
J. D. Stembal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I would say he is one of the more reasonable statists. Doesn't meet my standards for awesome though. Reason and the state is like oil and water. 1
shirgall Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I like Tyson getting people interested in science (especially astronomy), but--as others have pointed out already in this thread--his uncorrected misquotes and political wranglings detract from his moral standing. 1
TheSchoolofAthens Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Same with Bill Nye - sure he gets people interested in science, speaks about atheism, but the man is pro government and pretty leftist at that.
Pepin Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I could care less about him being a statist. 99.99% of people are statists, which makes the probability of finding someone as awesome as him who isn't a statist very very very low. If I was less into science, perhaps I'd have similar ideas to people here, but I am very very serious about science.
A4E Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I agree he is sort of awesome, and I too like him alot for making astronomy more interesting. But what is disturbing to me, is that such a cool person is a climate change acceptalist as mentioned, but perhaps lesser known is that he is also an apollo program acceptalist. I would have loved for humans to atleast try to get to the moon when we are ready. But to be ready we need to realize that there are huge problems around human space travel that need to be solved. And we are not getting much progress done by pretending that we have already been on the moon. 2 2
J. D. Stembal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I could care less about him being a statist. 99.99% of people are statists, which makes the probability of finding someone as awesome as him who isn't a statist very very very low. If I was less into science, perhaps I'd have similar ideas to people here, but I am very very serious about science. I will reserve my love and respect for the .01% rather than an abstract concept which doesn't exist.
Pepin Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I will reserve my love and respect for the .01% rather than an abstract concept which doesn't exist. It's not really a dichotomy that I would postulate myself, as what you likely love and respect about the .01% is the relation of their beliefs and actions to the abstract concept of the NAP. To say you love non-aggression is to say that you love people who are opposed to initiation of force and do not act on it. To say you love science is to say that you love people accept the scientific method and form their beliefs and ideas according to it. If one were to say that they love Objectivism, they do not have a love for an abstract concept, but rather they have a love for the implementation of the concept. If we were in a world where almost everyone clearly violated the NAP, to say that one loved the idea of non-violence would not be love of an abstract concept, but would rather be love of a potential society which followed it.
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 While I know he is a major Statist, I did like this video. He shows once again that the glass ceiling does not exist. The cream will always rise to the top. 1
st434u Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I could care less about him being a statist. 99.99% of people are statists, which makes the probability of finding someone as awesome as him who isn't a statist very very very low. If I was less into science, perhaps I'd have similar ideas to people here, but I am very very serious about science. It's absolutely not 99.99% of people who openly and unapologetically demand that more money be robbed from everybody else under threat of murder and given to them. This man is evil and you are making an excuse for his evil behavior based on a personal preference for his work.
Pepin Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 It's absolutely not 99.99% of people who openly and unapologetically demand that more money be robbed from everybody else under threat of murder and given to them. That is certainly testable. If we use the against me argument on 1000 people, I'd predict that only 1/1000 people would pass the ethical test. For my argument, it doesn't particularly matter if it 1/1000 or 1/50, because the probability that a person who passes the test and is also a physicists is far lower, and the probability that they pass the ethical test, are a physicist, and also a decent and credible conveyer of physics is astronomically low. This is simply to say that if you or I have an interest in any academic field, finding a resource who does not advocate for the state is next to impossible. Really, finding any sort of medium to consume which is not produced by people who advocate violence is very difficult, though the internet helps. This man is evil and you are making an excuse for his evil behavior based on a personal preference for his work. I don't think "excuse" is quite the word, but rather it is a practical choice to not isolate myself from intellectual subjects other than libertarianism. Stefan has talked about many statist's whose work he admires, such as Shakespeare, Ann Coulter, and Dawkins. There have been a decent number of guests on his show who Stef associates with who are statists and advocate violence, such as Warren Farrell. This isn't quite an argument, but I don't feel much moral dilemma given that Stefan elicits a similar behavior. If you are willing to detach yourself from public intellectuals who are statists, then you likely have more fortitude than I do.
jpahmad Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 It's absolutely not 99.99% of people who openly and unapologetically demand that more money be robbed from everybody else under threat of murder and given to them. This man is evil and you are making an excuse for his evil behavior based on a personal preference for his work. Do you really believe this guy is evil?
st434u Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Do you really believe this guy is evil? Yes, of course I do. And I explained why.
jpahmad Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Yes, of course I do. And I explained why. Why does that just intuitively not feel like an accurate description of the man? I just don't get that "evil" vibe from him It's absolutely not 99.99% of people who openly and unapologetically demand that more money be robbed from everybody else under threat of murder and given to them. This man is evil and you are making an excuse for his evil behavior based on a personal preference for his work. Where did you get that info? Is there a quote or a video?
J. D. Stembal Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Is evil identified by a vibe? Politicians, such as Clinton, who send thousands to their deaths get paid large sums of money for speaking engagements, autobiographies, and are routinely cheered by crowds. How is the cult of state science behind Tyson different?
st434u Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Why does that just intuitively not feel like an accurate description of the man? I just don't get that "evil" vibe from him I don't know why it doesn't feel that way to you. Whether someone is evil or not is not determined by a "vibe". Where did you get that info? Is there a quote or a video?
Better Future Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Yes, Neil Degrasse Tyson advocates theft. I wouldn't call him evil because of that. He is a very good physicist and speaker but a very bad economist and moral philosopher. Most statists are not even good physicists. If Neil Degrasse Tyson is evil then all of our ancestors were evil for not supporting marriage equality. It just comes down to ignorance. Ignorance has caused great harm throughout history. Personally I think "evil" is an outdated concept. 1
Deil Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Yes, Neil Degrasse Tyson advocates theft. I wouldn't call him evil because of that. He is a very good physicist and speaker but a very bad economist and moral philosopher. Most statists are not even good physicists. I think evil is excessive too. If he was literally collecting money with a gun for NASA, sure, but plenty of people advocate taxes for decent things. If someone advocates that more road money should go towards a particular road project, then your money spent on paying for roads would go that way. I'm talking free society right now. If you like NASA, and lots of people do, then your money is going to something you like anyways. If you don't like NASA, then technically more money is being taken from you involuntarily. Personally, I don't mind if more of my taxes head NASA's direction rather than military's.
Belluavir Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Does anyone know if he or his wife beat their children? If not then he is considerably less evil than the vast majority of the worlds population who do or would.
J. D. Stembal Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Does anyone know if he or his wife beat their children? If not then he is considerably less evil than the vast majority of the worlds population who do or would. I would go with the odds.
J. D. Stembal Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Which odds and why? Most parents use corporal punishments in the United States, and black parents at a higher rate than all other ethnic groups. http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/10/researchers-african-americans-most-likely-to-use-physical-punishment/ I don't know if Dr. Tyson has children, but if he does, the odds that he doesn't hit them are a little over 8 to 1 against.
st434u Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 The odds are lower being that he's far smarter than average. (though I don't personally believe he's as smart as most of his fans seem to believe. I would guess he's about 120 IQ)
Deil Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 The odds are lower being that he's far smarter than average. (though I don't personally believe he's as smart as most of his fans seem to believe. I would guess he's about 120 IQ) This is my thought on it. Usurp, please explain how Tyson does not seem like an exception to you. He doesn't live in the projects, he has money and intellect. Here is an excerpt that may even plead against your case, in his own words. Does that sound like an abuser?
Recommended Posts