>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Fucked up, apologized, this could of been much worse. Im taking this as a feel good story all things considered


Agreed sometimes people react and they don't realize they did something REALLY F'n stupid. He apologized hopefully he'll be watched a bit closer now and he'll not make the same mistake again. I feel a lot better about this guy than the Seattle Police Department though I'll say that much.

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

@shinyblurry

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved. As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either. Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices. I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!? We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically. One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted. My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had. So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic. I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned. As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.


Edit ome hasty edits in the a priori section that I can expand out if you take issue with it later

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

Your video, Colbert on Occupy U. C. Berkeley: Students Gently "Nudged", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Of course it wont happen - doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though >> ^Trancecoach:

Yeah... that won't happen.>> ^Skeeve:
These cops need to be charged with assault.
There was no reason for police to attack - no threat of violence, no threat to any of the police.
Any citizen caught on tape doing this would be spending time behind bars.

Yeah... that won't happen.>> ^Skeeve:

These cops need to be charged with assault.
There was no reason for police to attack - no threat of violence, no threat to any of the police.
Any citizen caught on tape doing this would be spending time behind bars.

>> ^chilaxe:

1. Fairness:
How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.
I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.

Genetics isn't the only thing you inherit from your parents. You also get citizenship in the country they live in, you get raised and educated in their social and economic class, and you might also be able to take advantage of their network of business contacts. And that's not even mentioning the potential differences in parenting techniques and lessons they impart.

When I say "you think life is fair", I'm mostly saying that you seem to think we all have the same paths in front of us to choose from. We don't.

I had a lot of opportunities available to me that other kids from my neighborhood didn't, not because I'd done anything to earn them, but because my parents were well off.

I had a lot fewer opportunities available to me than my classmates at school, not because I hadn't earned them, but because I wasn't the child of the owner of a multinational corporation.
>> ^chilaxe:
2. Racism:
You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.
Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.
California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.

There's a pretty big difference between having a debate over what the most fair (i.e. non-racist) admissions policy would be -- policies that promote racial diversity, or policies that discount race altogether -- and what you were talking about.

We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010.

In that short little quote you asserted:

1. Some races can't be educated, no matter how much money we spend trying to educate them
   
2. Some races will always commit lots of crimes, and no amount of policy change will stop it
   
3. Some races will be "permanently poor", and no amount of economic opportunity will change that
   

That's more or less the soul of the Jim Crow style of politics. There are good races, for whom higher education spending, and economic opportunity will work, and there are bad races, for whom such things are a waste. Therefore, the logic goes, smart policy would be to reserve that spending and those opportunities only for the good races, since they're the only ones who could ever make use of it.

Oh, and keep an eye on your valuables whenever one of those bad races comes by. You never know about those people.

You sure that all people in that kind of world can determine their ultimate fates, purely through their own individual choices? Hasn't that been disproven by history time and time again?
>> ^chilaxe:
3. Human rights:
Yes. People are free to work for anything they want.


Really, that's the only one? Rather than open that can of worms, I'll just follow through with my original line of thought -- that's a right you think everyone should have, right?

Why? Why not abolish such liberal ideas as "equal rights", and tailor our legal system to the findings of your studies?

>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe it seems to me that you do believe life is fair. Why you believe that is beyond me.
It also seems to me like you want to institutionalize racism again (and on pretty thin grounds at that).
I guess this begs the question, do you believe in fundamental human rights?


1. Fairness:

How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.

I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.



2. Racism:

You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.

Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.

California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.



3. Human rights:

Yes. People are free to work for anything they want.

#1, #2.

Netrunner said: "You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work."

Yes, that's definitely true for the majority of genomes in the US.

Step 1: Devote all waking hours to reading, working, and exercise. Do these things until you're smarter than everyone around you. Eschew meaningless experiential pursuits and don't get married until as late as possible.

Step 2: Profit.



#3 Netrunner said: "I didn't say people should lie."

Pronouncements that scientists should downplay, not publicize, or otherwise bias their results because we don't like those results (they "lend credence to racial stereotypes") has the final effect of countless liberal academics lying and using whatever means are at their disposal to force compliance.



#4 Netrunner said: "I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies."

It's useful for predictions. We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010. If we really want population-replacement that bad, just import poor people from China, and they'll on average outscore White Americans within a generation.



At this point, the fastest way to decrease poverty, academic achievement gaps, and most associated trends is to increase funding for genetics and technologies that lead to reprogenetics. If you want universal access for the poor, that's good.




>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe both your #1 and #2 points seem to be based on the premise that life is fair. You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work.
That's not true.
As for #3, I'm a little lost on what you're talking about. I didn't say people should lie, I was trying to explain why "liberal" people would say "we don't care if it's true" about studies that would seem to lend credence to racial stereotypes. I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies.
And assuming you mean this when talking about reprogenetics, I'm all for it. Here's my kicker though, I'll be demanding that it be covered under everyone's universal healthcare.

@dystopianfuturetoday

1a. Some of globalization might be improved, but a lot of it is inevitable. At most, we can hope to reduce the efficiency of humankind by blocking people in developing nations from fairly being employed where they're most needed (by 1st world companies). If we had to overpay for unskilled labor, automation in the US would just increase even more quickly, so transferring labor from humans in the developing world to machines in the US wouldn't be a big help overall.

1b. Yeah, the public sector is definitely good at a lot of things, like the areas you mentioned. But the point still stands that, in effect, I'm probably more prosocial than my collectivist friends because I pursue career like an individualist, and it's through our careers and our resulting personal development that we contribute to the world.

2. Ok.

3a. The cliff notes version of human bio-diversity is that most problems with society that liberals dislike are caused by neurogenetic inequality, not by policy. The current push by liberals to restore racist discrimination against Asian Americans at California universities is tacit admission of this.

3b. The problem with regulation is that liberals moved the goal post by replacing the population of our society with the population of a poorer society. The result is things like fabricated "failures of the market" like widespread unemployment, permanently lowered academic test scores and health outcomes (which increasingly correlate with cognitive complexity as personal health management becomes more complicated) and a workforce that's too unskilled for society to be able to afford things like infrastructure and cutting edge 21st century healthcare.

3c. The good news is that, by all appearances, reprogenetics (reprogramming genetics) will begin around the middle of this century to solve all the problems caused by natural neurogenetic inequality. Embryo selection has been in use in in-vitro fertilization clinics for several years to screen out embryos with disease genes, and its use will continue to grow as genetics knowledge continues to advance at an exponential rate.


Good chatting with you also, DFT

@blankfist [edited b/c I didn't like my original comment]

You can't have it both ways.

Either
"Salk's research was funded privately, I'm afraid"
or
"Private charities won't cover it all"
--------------------------------------------

I'd also like to point out something interesting I dug up in the process of this discussion. While the polio vaccine was being tested on schoolchildren, before regulations went into place to prevent such a thing, 10 children were killed and 164 were paralyzed for life as a result of a bad batch of the polio vaccine being administered.

"The Salk vaccine was licensed at a time when we basically didn’t have vaccine regulation in this country. The government learned that having 10 people oversee vaccines, and frankly doing it on a part-time basis, was not good enough. The Cutter incident was a painful lesson about the fact that we needed much better oversight." - PBS's American Experience: Polio

"Investigators soon learned that all the sick children had been injected with a bad batch of vaccine, made in Berkeley, California. After a hasty and poorly staffed government screening process the vaccine had been deemed safe. In fact it had contained virulent live polio virus." - Same PBS link as above.

You left out the part where schoolchildren died or were paralyzed for life because of lack of oversight.

see 4:45

Any interview that features laughing, while waxing philosophic from your comfortable chair in Berkeley, CA, detailing how you made a device to murder people qualifies as smug in my book.

One could argue he thought he was making the device "just to scare the enemy" with thoughts of being murdered, but I dont buy that one of the smartest guys alive at the time had no concept of what he was doing.

Searching religion and cats got me this sad piece of knowledge:

Beginning in the 11th century, tolerance for cats began to decrease in Europe for religious reasons, and “by the 13th century the church viewed witches as real and cats as instruments of the devil” (Lynnlee, p. 20). Dante (1265–1321), for example, mentioned cats only once in his work and compared them to demons. From the 14th century well into the 18th century, cats were regularly killed on specific religious holidays. “By the late 15th century the persecution of cats and witches was a mainstay of European society. . . . The 15th and 16th centuries are almost devoid of any cat literature and art. . . . During this period the cat still was used to control rodents, but it was rarely seen as a pet, for if so its existence and that of its owner were in jeopardy” (Lynnlee, p. 21). Cats became especially associated with heretical religious sects, such as the Waldensians and Manichaeans, and members of these sects were accused of worshiping the Devil in the form of a black cat.

On feast days all over Europe, as a symbolic means of driving out the Devil, they were captured and tortured, tossed onto bonfires, set alight and chased through the streets, impaled on spits and roasted alive, burned at the stake, plunged into boiling water, whipped to death, and hurled from the tops of tall buildings, all in an atmosphere of extreme festive merriment. (Serpell JA, The domestication and history of the cat, in Turner DC and Bateson P, eds, The Domestic Cat, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 156).

"At Metz, for example, on “cat Wednesday” during Lent, 13 cats were placed in an iron cage and publicly burned; this ritual took place each year from 1344 to 1777" (Kete K, The Beast in the Boudoir, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, p. 119).

(http://www.stanleyresearch.org/dnn/LaboratoryofDevelopmentalNeurovirology/ToxoplasmosisSchizophreniaResearch/IAllaboutCats/tabid/173/Default.aspx)


Great, as if we needed more reasons to hate religion...

The last dinosaur? What are birds then?