4 ms·

I love UFOs because UFOs tell us a lot about how we deal with non-reproducible observations. Walk outside and see a green, glowing light that hovers then disapp

I love UFOs because UFOs tell us a lot about how we deal with non-reproducible observations. Walk outside and see a green, glowing light that hovers then disappears? You can walk outside again for the rest of your life and never see it again. Does that mean you didn't see anything? Of course not. This really messes with people's heads. The rationalists will say that since we can't independently observe it, it might as well not exist. Folks who have a deep mythology as part of their worldview will simply incorporate their observation into their mythology. Even cooler is the fact that something is obviously going on that we can't categorize or figure out. (See thunderstorm sprites and jets as a recent example). Is it one phenomenon? Highly unlikely. But beats me how many different and really cool things there are out there to discover. I'm sure some of these may take hundreds of years to nail down, if ever. And then the government gets involved and -- get this -- starts deliberately fucking with people about it. Hey, that wasn't a new stealth bomber, that was probably aliens. While it may have confused the Soviets, it was also a deliberate attempt to mislead the voters. I'm not a constitutional expert but seems to me the one thing that ought to carry the severest penalty is government officials in a democracy deliberately trying to mislead the public about critical issues. And then we have them pawning their B.S. off on mentally ill people. Nice. Very classy. UFOs tell us a lot more about ourselves than they do anything from another planet. Unfortunately, much of what they tell us is rather unpleasant.

krapp 11y ago
> I'm not a constitutional expert but seems to me the one thing that ought to carry the severest penalty is government officials in a democracy deliberately trying to mislead the public about critical issues. There's nothing in the constitution that requires the government to reveal the existence of classified projects to the public. Would you expect the Air Force to admit that "yes, actually, that's our new stealth plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, don't tell the Soviets" when someone sees one?
rhino369 11y ago
Our American government was never based on the idea that the people would have direct input on all issues. We elect leaders (not followers) to run the country. They probably shouldn't keep fundamental facts about government from us. But lying about our first strike nuclear capabilities to get an edge is understandable. That's why it's important to vote not just for a platform but for the candidate. Because they'll be dealing with issues that aren't known, be them hidden or just yet to surface. Especially for president. Our president is modeled after a limited monarch, just with an limited term.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Hope I didn't sound like I was arguing for a totally open government. That would obviously never work. I'm arguing for a "well-enough" informed electorate. Informed enough to strategically make choices about choosing representatives. Abusing mentally ill citizens, performing experiments on the poor and destitute, gathering records on citizenry forever -- these are things that an informed electorate would shut down if given the chance. These are things that the constitution would forbid if it were foreseen. Nobody's arguing that secrets can't be had. The argument is that those employed by the voters are actively acting long-term in ways neither the voters nor the constitution would approve of. Short term bend any kind of rules you think the system will allow. Long-term? This has got to stop. (Perhaps you do that by a constitutional amendment sunsetting any secrecy classification after 20 years or some such)

krapp 11y ago

> I'm not a constitutional expert but seems to me the one thing that ought to carry the severest penalty is government officials in a democracy deliberately trying to mislead the public about critical issues. There's nothing in the constitution that requires the government to reveal the existence of classified projects to the public. Would you expect the Air Force to admit that "yes, actually, that's our new stealth plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, don't tell the Soviets" when someone sees one?

rhino369 11y ago

Our American government was never based on the idea that the people would have direct input on all issues. We elect leaders (not followers) to run the country. They probably shouldn't keep fundamental facts about government from us. But lying about our first strike nuclear capabilities to get an edge is understandable. That's why it's important to vote not just for a platform but for the candidate. Because they'll be dealing with issues that aren't known, be them hidden or just yet to surface. Especially for president. Our president is modeled after a limited monarch, just with an limited term.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Hope I didn't sound like I was arguing for a totally open government. That would obviously never work. I'm arguing for a "well-enough" informed electorate. Informed enough to strategically make choices about choosing representatives. Abusing mentally ill citizens, performing experiments on the poor and destitute, gathering records on citizenry forever -- these are things that an informed electorate would shut down if given the chance. These are things that the constitution would forbid if it were foreseen. Nobody's arguing that secrets can't be had. The argument is that those employed by the voters are actively acting long-term in ways neither the voters nor the constitution would approve of. Short term bend any kind of rules you think the system will allow. Long-term? This has got to stop. (Perhaps you do that by a constitutional amendment sunsetting any secrecy classification after 20 years or some such)