Even Q zapped himself back to his Continuum.

The flaw in this argument is that he is arguing from a non-existent present.

He argues that we can't curtail the second amendment until we reach cultural consensus, but depending on your interpretation, we either already have curtailed it, or never have.

There are basically two reasonable interpretations of the 2nd, either
A) it guarantees the rights as they were at the time: white landowning men can have muzzle-loaded un-rifled scatter guns.
or B) it guarantees weapon parity with foreign and domestic militaries: civilian nuke-ICBMs etc

Functionally nobody has a problem with A, and nobody endorses B. We are already on the continuum, it's pretty late to demand that we never get there. We are not having a debate of quality, only one of quantity.

>> ^artician:

I find that culture like this disgusts me, and the perspectives held by those within are vapid and illegitimate.


Well then sir, I find you fit for active duty and responsible for any corrections of non-beneficial rifts created in the time continuum that are within your capacity to correct.

You are hereby ordered to refrain from copulation which may lead to procreation!

FIXED!!
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Lest We Forget is a line from the Kipling poem, "Recessional"


lest/lest/
Conjunction:
1) With the intention of preventing (something undesirable); to avoid the risk of.
2) (after a clause indicating fear) Because of the possibility of something undesirable happening; in case.


Lest We Forget means let us not forget.

Your title, "Lest We Never Forget" means, "Let us Not, Not Forget--Ever."
So, we should forget to not forget??
or, Not to remember???
...trying to parse this sentence has caused a rift in the space-time continuum in my brain.

Lest We Forget is a line from the Kipling poem, "Recessional"


lest/lest/
Conjunction:
1) With the intention of preventing (something undesirable); to avoid the risk of.
2) (after a clause indicating fear) Because of the possibility of something undesirable happening; in case.


Lest We Forget means let us not forget.

Your title, "Lest We Never Forget" means, "Let us Not, Not Forget--Ever."
So, we should forget to not forget??
or, Not to remember???
...trying to parse this sentence has caused a rift in the space-time continuum in my brain.

I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

@HadouKen24 - I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

I'd recommend just trundling along to a public library and flicking through an introductory psych textbook for a section on attitudes and/or persuasion. After an intro book a psych book dedicated to social psych would probably be a good option too, as it would probably have a more in depth look at attitudes.

The material might be less related to your original post about your own introspections though. It would probably be more about what makes attitudes stable/labile etc. It's interesting stuff though!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What text(s) would you recommend?
In reply to this comment by berticus:
Actually, there is an enormous literature on persuasion, argument, attitude change, etc. Social psychologists love that stuff. You should look into the psychology of persuasion, it's fascinating -- but prepare to be depressed.

As to your 'mental states', I doubt it's black and white. I'd say it's a continuum as per jonny's comments, and shifts along this continuum are due to attending — or not attending — to certain cues at certain times that change the way you argue.

What text(s) would you recommend?
In reply to this comment by berticus:
Actually, there is an enormous literature on persuasion, argument, attitude change, etc. Social psychologists love that stuff. You should look into the psychology of persuasion, it's fascinating -- but prepare to be depressed.

As to your 'mental states', I doubt it's black and white. I'd say it's a continuum as per jonny's comments, and shifts along this continuum are due to attending — or not attending — to certain cues at certain times that change the way you argue.

Actually, there is an enormous literature on persuasion, argument, attitude change, etc. Social psychologists love that stuff. You should look into the psychology of persuasion, it's fascinating -- but prepare to be depressed.

As to your 'mental states', I doubt it's black and white. I'd say it's a continuum as per jonny's comments, and shifts along this continuum are due to attending — or not attending — to certain cues at certain times that change the way you argue.

There is bound to be some bias in your perception of the quality and reception of comments you've made in each state of mind, reinforced partly by any positive or negative feelings experienced in each state.

What you're describing, though, is a set of normal mental states that lie on a continuum between paralyzing social fear and sociopathic egotism. (Sociopaths can be incredibly charming and persuasive.)

It basically comes down to attention. In the "fear state", there's a lot of second guessing, correcting, self-censorship, etc. Also, the more your attention is distracted by thoughts of social acceptance/rejection, the less you have available for focusing on the ideas at hand, expressing your own ideas, making insightful connections, humorous points, etc.

Q Continuum Cat is passing judgement on Humanity.

>> ^rottenseed:

From my understanding of relativity and space-time continuum, 587 light years at close the speed of light wouldn't take very long to those on the space-craft because of "time-dilation". However, to those not on the spaceship...well, they'd be LONG gone. Somebody want to back me up on that? Maybe somebody smart?

That's true, but the problem is getting close enough to the speed of light to make an appreciable difference. I read in one of the science mags recently (SciAm or Science, I think) that traveling at 99.9% the speed of light would allow a crew to travel to the edge of the known universe and back in about 57 years, ship time. Not an exact quote, but it was something pretty insane like that. Unfortunately, we haven't even begun to dream of a propulsion system/energy source that would allow us to reach anywhere near that kind of speed.


Small moves. Let's get to Mars first.

There are 3 instances of intolerance here: The white lady in the first tram, the black guy in the second tram and your intolerance right here. To have not addressed your racism would have been 'selective', as you say. Part of your problem is that you fail to see yourself as part of this continuum. As I said in my previous comment, had you chosen to present this in a non-racist way, you would not have had any problems. I think you'd rather be a victim than to have to face tough questions about who you are and what you stand for.

Go back and read the thread, kir_mokum, Boise_Lib, malldaffer, Jinx and myself all condemn the guy. There is no one that comes to the defense of the guy, except your ideological ally, bob, who says the guy was just drunk. The objections are not that you showed a racist black guy, but rather a) that you used racist language to do so and b) that you tried to make a case for parity between a racist bully and a racist nut, presumably because you are sympathetic to the bully.