Skeptic Project

Thanks for that orelvrs.

I'm already on a 1,400 calorie a day diet, but every little extra way to loose weight helps!

I'm glad I amuse you then Matt. (You know, there is a forum someplace thats just about me, you'd fit well in there I imagine..)

I know I'll have made it when you see me not as a joke, so your an ideal measuring stick.

Yet you keep reading them :-)

OH its just a place for folk to poke fun at me/etc.

Their latest concern was that I might try and buy some heavy water, I don't have the heart to tell them I already got some off Ebay years ago :-)

I joke with them sometimes, like the time I faked my own death for April 1st and they fell for it :-)

I came back 3 days later..

They think I don't take notice of safety issues.

I'm always asking about how to do things safely!

If anything, I overdose on safety..

People play with fusion all the time safely:

http://www.fusor.net

(Thats not to say people haven't suffered radiation burns from being careless, but I don't intend to be careless!)

While I hear you Ed and I understand where you are coming from, I feel you are right they should not be prioritised above any of those that need them through bad genes or bad health, if its self induced they should certainly not be a priority above a more worthy candidate.

But it comes down to can you educate an addict to stop if they dont posess the will power or care to prevent themselves from harming themselves ?

If they have paid for a service like others they are still entitled to it this we can agree upon I am sure, circumstances on how they arrive at the clinic and how important their life is above anothers is not something I would like to make the decisions on. But its safe to say I would choose a non alcoholic, or a child with its life to lead above a relentless drunk.

I don't get no government dole (Or any other government assistance what so ever.), so no worries there.

> can you educate an addict to stop if they dont posess the will power or care
> to prevent themselves from harming themselves ?

No you cannot educate them all. (Or even most it seems..)

You must encourage them with the environment, and if necessarly for the benefit of the majority, laws.

> I prefer benefits for prevention

Likewise.

> A friend pays his employees for using the gym regularly, stuff like that should
> be encouraged.

Nice solution.

Perhaps I could include the fat variable into peoples wages, eg. if your overweight you get paid less..

Its the same as getting paid more if your slim, the fat people will get paid less.

The chocolate ration has been increased!

So its alright to manipulate people into thinking its a good thing with the right words ?

I tried to get it back on the rails with a new topic bkyle, your name is in the title.

So thats a yes then ?

I just wanted to be clear before I go to the effort to word things as you recommend, that ethically its ok to do so.

Personally I prefer calling a spade a spade, but I can see the benefits in calling it something else if it works better, I just constantly worry about the ethical side of things with going too far.

To me personally wording it positive looks like a scam, as if people don't know what it really means!

But if they really don't know what it means and fall for it..

Well, I suppose its ok if its for a good cause..

> this is the aspie showing in you.

Indeed.

One of the benefits I find in forum whoring if you like is getting advice on better understanding joe public and how to address their issues in a way that is more productive than I might see myself.

(I think I started to understand the issue better after reading part of that book that CJ talked about re. cults, as it helped show the techniques they use to get people to believe.)

They'll be knocking down your door any day now, Nanos.

Thats a yes Nanos, using the positive context is usually considered preferential. Whether it will work is another matter though.

I have to agree men, this is quite the dire thread now.

"Also, to answer bkyle's question, tabula rasa being true is a prerequisite for an rbe (and this is confirmed by peter and jacques) becuase for an rbe to work you need to change people's behavior on a fundamental level and keep it that way since there are no more incentives (money) or dis-incentives (prison) to otherwise influence behavior with. You have to get people to be altruistic and think of the greater good at all times in order for an rbe to work and thats not possible unless tabula rasa is true, which it is not.
To answer your other question, yes, it is a mixture of nature and nurture in reality." -domokato.

How would we need to "change people's behavior on a fundamental level and keep it that way"? Give me an example of how we need to change people for an RBE to work. This is not an example...

"You have to get people to be altruistic and think of the greater good at all times in order for an rbe to work and thats not possible unless tabula rasa is true, which it is not."

I believe that no one needs to change anyone, but people will change themselves when put into a new less competitive environment. Let's say one is told that they don't have to work, they're given a nice home (better than 80% of homes, for example), they're given food, education, health care, and everything else they need. Further, they know that the resources they're are using are sustainably managed for the good of the planet and will also be available for all future generations. How could such a new environment not change one's behavior?