@NetRunner


"deeply-ingrained behaviors they learned in childhood"

Let's speculate... would I be a progressive if I was raised in your family, and would you be a capital-generating scientific rationalist if you were raised in my family? We can actually answer that, because my parents and siblings were in fact liberal, and my instincts were aligned against their instincts since my earliest memories. That's to my benefit, since my instincts are orders of magnitude more useful in the world than their instincts, but that's not really just.


"If research is showing that it is indeed genetic, then we are probably stuck with politics much like what we have now."

Liberals oppose genetics because it's immutable, and they oppose reprogenetics because it has to do with genetics, which they oppose. Fast forward to the 2030s and liberalism has done a 180 after opposing genetics for 100 years, because they've realized advancing everybody's biology is the only way to create genuine human equality instead of pretend human equality.

That's great news. It means we have a choice.

Heh, now I'm off to traumatize some younger siblings.

@blankfist - Yeah, Canada is pretty racist. The cities not so much - alot of diversity in the bigger cities (although I've noticed many Chinese-Canadians are terrified of aboriginal folk too), but rural communities can be pretty bad.

I don't like to give those folks the benefit of the doubt - if they're going to paint us all with the same brush they don't deserve my considerations.

Good discussion. Hope your gf's nephews are doing ok. I've got several First Nations siblings that my mom adopted (and continues to adopt) because she couldn't stand the conditions they were living in, and Inuit children often face the same circumstances. My gf and I are planning on adopting a few just to give them a better shot at a future.

What I take from the clip of the two siblings fighting like that is that kids are kids no matter where they are. Kids anywhere of this age fight like this... it's very cute.

I get what you're saying, but I still think what he's proposing necessarily forces people to make value judgments that are beyond science. While science can find evidence of empathy in the brain it can't tell us whether such empathy is necessarily good or bad. Say there is a society that is more "empathetic" than another society and that first society is more materially well off. You can't jump to the conclusion that empathy is good for survival, because there are hundreds of variables that affect the wealth of a nation and furthermore correlation does not necessarily mean causation. It could very well be the case that being materially well off creates a more empathetic society (or creates the conditions that allow such a society to arise). Or it could just be a total fluke.

That's what I found unclear in his speech--how exactly is science making value judgments? Science is providing facts about the world, but it still requires human consciousness to interpret those facts in a meaningful way. And people will interpret the facts differently and this will lead to conflict (global warming, the various string theories, etc.). How that conflict is resolved (whether with words or guns, for instance) will depend on a lot of things--including the values of those participating in the conflict. So it seems like a Catch-22 to me. You're using science to try to come up with value judgments about things, but in order to do that you have to make value judgments about the data you've collected. You're right back where you started.

Changing topics a bit here, I find his argument about the Muslim dress code frivolous. He is specifically cherry-picking by using Taliban-style extremely fundamentalist Islam as representative of all Islamic beliefs. It is true that certain Islamic governments have created laws to enforce a power divide between men and women but it is equally true that not all Muslims share this view and that Islamic countries vary widely in what is considered appropriate dress. The Koran itself admonishes both men and women to be modest in their dress and actions. Obviously certain Islamic scholars have ignored the "men" part and focused on the women in order to pursue their own agendas and strengthen their own power. Sam Harris blames religion for this but I blame human nature. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about religion, a political ideology, law, or any other organized system--there will be humans in the world who will attempt to twist and exploit it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of those they don't care about. The crusade against religion that people like Dawkins and Harris are waging is, in my opinion, a waste of time. If you really want to change the world, find a way to change fundamental human nature.

Ironically, I believe this is the true purpose of religion--to encourage us to change our base desires or harness them for use towards a greater good. For me, whether a God or gods actually exist is irrelevant. If religion can help people to overcome their own innate self-destructive or selfish tendencies and work together for the good of humankind, then it is a useful tool. But all tools can equally be used as weapons. That doesn't mean you get rid of the tool, though. The problems of religion that both Harris and Dawkins talk about aren't problems with religion per se but with how certain people have interpreted religion in ways that are self-serving. I don't think religion needs to be destroyed. But I do agree with Sam Harris that we need to be vigilant against those who would use religion--or any other organized system for that matter--in order to pursue their own ends, and we need to be willing to call a spade a spade and not keep silent for fear of being considered ethnocentric. That's why I have no problem criticizing the Taliban's interpretation of the Koran and Islamic law. It seems to me to be a thinly veiled grab for power and dominance that uses religion as its cover. I could say the same thing about the drive to ban gay marriages in the U.S. or a host of other issues. My point is that these things are not representative of religions as a whole but instead are examples of discrete individuals (mis-)using religions to further their own agendas.

Sorry for writing so much. Took me a while to sort out all my thoughts on the matter. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

>> ^mgittle:


I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.
For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.
Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.
I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

>> ^SDGundamX:
His answer is that you have to think about the majority and not an individual case. But isn't that a moral judgment right there? Once you take that step you're no longer relying on science but on an arbitrary proposition that what is good for the majority must be good for everyone.



I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.

For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.

Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.

I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Point one, the fact that you didn't -like- my answer does not mean I didn't answer.
Point two, you sadly underestimate the capabilities of a five year old. They are fully capable of taking actions on their own. That fear you fixate on is -taught- to them by parents that are paranoid about the 1-in-100000 chance of meeting one of those exceedingly rare predators. You're promoting ignoring a real problem for a potential problem. Which is more likely? I'm pretty damned sure that getting lost is -far- more likely than getting the attention of a predator...by at least a hundred to one.
I'm just glad my parents weren't advocates of the ostrich school of child development. You're free to fuck up your kids any way you like...but I fail to see how ignoring the more likely problem is better.
I'm done beating my head against the wall. You're not interesting enough to justify the irritation.

Might I point you towards the thing I was raised on, the Block Parent Program. This program is what most Canadian children are brought up on, it's taught in schools (At about grade 3, you know, around 8 years old) but most kids have already heard about it.
The theory behind it is fantastic, the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that I've seen 3 houses with those signs in them my entire life. I'm not underestimating the capabilities of a 5 year old, I remember my childhood, and I've got two younger siblings. I know all about the capabilities of a 5 year old, and they DON'T want to approach any strangers houses.
I've got stories, they've got stories, hell, even my parents have stories about a time when they were young, got lost, and completely panicked. Not to mention, what are the odds someone's even in the house? Most people don't get off work until 4-5ish, and most kids are home around 3:30. What's to guarantee that the house you go up to has someone in it to call the cops?
Which leads me to another point about both the block parent training, and you're "Idea".. For the block parent program, what happens when you can't find one, or your idea, what happens when a couple houses don't answer the door, or have nobody home.
Your kid panics. Yet another fatal flaw.
I'll refer back to the point that I've been trying to make this entire time, but you don't seem to get this.
You don't - leave - kids - alone. This should never have been an issue, and never should be an issue.
The bus driver was taking care of the kids, the kid should never have needed to be in this situation of not knowing what to do. This is nothing you should need to train your child for.
As for them getting lost.. Where would they get lost? Again, 5 year olds don't go places by themselves. Most kids don't until they're much older. If you go anywhere, you're accompanied by a parent. If you're in the mall and get separated, the parent is the one that instigates getting the child back. And don't bother trying to tell me that a 5 year old will stay calm in a shopping mall full of people, and go to the front counter of a store, or up to the security guards, because they won't. They'll panic, and probably cry.
However, getting picked up by a predator in the mall? That's a horse of a different colour. I was -always- told, that if someone came to pick me up, and it wasn't my parents, they'd know our "code word". If they didn't know it, they were someone that I shouldn't be talking to, and need to get away from them, but that's another discussion entirely.
However, I never said I didn't like your "Training" (Although, I don't, it's a silly idea to tell your kids to approach a strangers house in the first place) but it's not practical.



LOL SHEPPARD YOUR A MORON PLEASE SHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> ^Stormsinger:
Point one, the fact that you didn't -like- my answer does not mean I didn't answer.
Point two, you sadly underestimate the capabilities of a five year old. They are fully capable of taking actions on their own. That fear you fixate on is -taught- to them by parents that are paranoid about the 1-in-100000 chance of meeting one of those exceedingly rare predators. You're promoting ignoring a real problem for a potential problem. Which is more likely? I'm pretty damned sure that getting lost is -far- more likely than getting the attention of a predator...by at least a hundred to one.
I'm just glad my parents weren't advocates of the ostrich school of child development. You're free to fuck up your kids any way you like...but I fail to see how ignoring the more likely problem is better.
I'm done beating my head against the wall. You're not interesting enough to justify the irritation.


Might I point you towards the thing I was raised on, the Block Parent Program. This program is what most Canadian children are brought up on, it's taught in schools (At about grade 3, you know, around 8 years old) but most kids have already heard about it.

The theory behind it is fantastic, the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that I've seen 3 houses with those signs in them my entire life. I'm not underestimating the capabilities of a 5 year old, I remember my childhood, and I've got two younger siblings. I know all about the capabilities of a 5 year old, and they DON'T want to approach any strangers houses.

I've got stories, they've got stories, hell, even my parents have stories about a time when they were young, got lost, and completely panicked. Not to mention, what are the odds someone's even in the house? Most people don't get off work until 4-5ish, and most kids are home around 3:30. What's to guarantee that the house you go up to has someone in it to call the cops?

Which leads me to another point about both the block parent training, and you're "Idea".. For the block parent program, what happens when you can't find one, or your idea, what happens when a couple houses don't answer the door, or have nobody home.

Your kid panics. Yet another fatal flaw.

I'll refer back to the point that I've been trying to make this entire time, but you don't seem to get this.
You don't - leave - kids - alone. This should never have been an issue, and never should be an issue.
The bus driver was taking care of the kids, the kid should never have needed to be in this situation of not knowing what to do. This is nothing you should need to train your child for.

As for them getting lost.. Where would they get lost? Again, 5 year olds don't go places by themselves. Most kids don't until they're much older. If you go anywhere, you're accompanied by a parent. If you're in the mall and get separated, the parent is the one that instigates getting the child back. And don't bother trying to tell me that a 5 year old will stay calm in a shopping mall full of people, and go to the front counter of a store, or up to the security guards, because they won't. They'll panic, and probably cry.

However, getting picked up by a predator in the mall? That's a horse of a different colour. I was -always- told, that if someone came to pick me up, and it wasn't my parents, they'd know our "code word". If they didn't know it, they were someone that I shouldn't be talking to, and need to get away from them, but that's another discussion entirely.

However, I never said I didn't like your "Training" (Although, I don't, it's a silly idea to tell your kids to approach a strangers house in the first place) but it's not practical.

Hmm. The porn / not porn argument seems a tad arbitrary. At the current point in my life, this isn't porn for me (rather the opposite). However, I seem to recall a time in my life when I didn't have cable or satellite TV, the internet hadn't been invented yet (at least not on the consumer level), and I had no older siblings or other sources of more traditional pornography, so the lingerie section of the Sears catalog filled that niche for me (no Victoria's Secret either).

That isn't really an argument that this is porn, or even that it might be porn (presumably to a ...uh... more mature lesbian or heterosexual male audience). I won't make an argument on whether or not I think this "belongs" on the sift, but I'll say that clearly we're well into the slippery part of the slippery slope.

One more thing, Shepppard...

It just occurred to me.... you did know that all those people were Christians, parents, friends and siblings of kids at a Christian school?

'Cause if you thought it was just any old school, I could see you getting pissed at me. Then it would have been the equivalent of saying "it's the Christian thing to do."

But since they WERE all Christians, it was what Christians actually did.

So we're still cool, right?

>> ^peggedbea:
i just had a flash back of having a month long period or so of listening to bob schneider over and over again after going to the show one thanksgiving with all of my siblings plus inflatablevagina.
it must have been during my "drunk period" because i do not like this at all, sorry rougy.
i did like the skanking accordion player though.


No problem.

I just heard this song for the first time a few days ago and it really grew on me.

Wow, you can tell who doesn't have kids here!
I tell you, with all the screaming, fighting and wining between siblings, I long for the times when my kids will just giggle uncontrolably for long periods of time...

Likeing the Giggles!

i just had a flash back of having a month long period or so of listening to bob schneider over and over again after going to the show one thanksgiving with all of my siblings plus inflatablevagina.
it must have been during my "drunk period" because i do not like this at all, sorry rougy.

i did like the skanking accordion player though.

>> ^bobknight33:
Read the news - Global Warmer is a HOAX -- Someone stole the scientists emails and documents and leaked them to the world--- go find them and read them.


No, I haven't taken the time out of my week to read 1000 e-mails and 79 other documents cherry-picked out of many, many other documents.

But I do know enough about online communication to know that any immediate conclusions are tremendously premature. And I also know enough about science and scientists--I have three siblings in engineering, and my own mindset is not all that divorced from a scientific perspective--to know that idiosyncrasies in terminology might sound incriminating, but not in fact be incriminating.

If the stuff that made it into the papers is the most incriminating that they have, then we should have no worries more worries about the climate science than we would have otherwise. It gives us no real information than that climate scientists have just the opinions and judgments that we should expect they would have.

>> ^kymbos:
Wow, reading these comments before watching the vid, I thought there was going to be some heavy shit in that video. Turns out it was just an older brother messing with his younger brother for youtube kicks. I'm not condoning it, as the last of five brothers I can tell you every younger brother in history has dealt with far worse than that daily.


Well it depends on your definition of worse. To be honest I think actual pranks and the such are far LESS worse than things like this. My older siblings during one little stint lead me to be impaled through the top of a pointy ornament that went right through the side of my body, later finding out it barely missed vital organs, we slapped two band-aids on each side and that was it until my parents got home and went hysteric over my bloody bedsheets. This now is nothing but a funny and loved story to tell around the dinner table. Don't even get me started on the time they put dirt over my clothes and face, getting me to beg for money so we could buy candy, only to be seconds away from being taken away/kidnapped by some man who said he was going to help me, also now just funny.

But would you really ever laugh about the time your older brother that you clearly respected, completely disregarded your trust? I don't know, maybe I'm overstating it but to me there's normal sibling behaviour we all go through, then there's just being a dick.

I was told to get off something countless times, countless, though I was just told to get off, not "haha not really, I just wanted to watch you suffer!"...seems different?