But theism and gnosticism are two separate dimensions relating to belief and knowledge about gods. Theists/atheists believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. Gnostics/agnostics claim to possess knowledge that gods do or do not exist. Thus it is possible to be theist-gnostic, believing and knowing gods exist; theist-agnostic, believing but not knowing gods exist; atheist-gnostic, not believing in gods and knowing gods don't exist or atheist-agnostic, not believing in gods and not knowing gods don't exist.

Since there has never been any evidence of gods, indeed the notion of gods is not provable nor disprovable, I don't see being gnostic as an honest position either way, only agnosticism seems right to me. However on balance of probability atheism seems more rational. Atheist-agnostic me.

If you look at a painting, you could run experiments to count the number of brush strokes, calculate the dimensions of the frame, determine the chemistry of the pigments, the age of the canvas, and so on. Does that diminish the meaning of the piece? Does that negtate the fact of the painter who painted it? If the answer is no, then neither could our scientific understanding of the Universe prove that there is no meaning to it or there is no Creator behind it.

@bcglorf @Fairbs

I used to hold the same view on military intervention. If only it were applied impartially by a nation or alliance, then any would be genocidal leader would be deterred by threat of imprisonment or death.

However we all know that in reality this is stymied by the lack of altruistic intentions, the political dimensions of risking soldiers' lives in foreign wars and the unintended consequences of even fully altruistic intervention.

I can't really argue against there being a case for intervention in Rwanda or after Saddam gassed the Kurds.

A sufficiently large force by the US/NATO would have probably deterred the Hutu militias in Rwanda from waging their genocide. Had the international community demanded Kurdish sovereignty from Iraq following the gas attacks, Saddam would have probably accepted it coming off the Iran-Iraq war for fear of being attacked by Iran while he waged a civil war.

In either case I can also play devil's advocate. Would the inevitable Tutsi government set up by intervening forces in Rwanda have been seen as legitimate by its people? Would reconciliation really have been effective if it was effectively imposed by outside powers? Would civil war have reignited? Even with how things turned out in the absence, we know that Kagame's government is increasingly authoritarian and has supported militias like M23 in Congo against the remnants of Hutu militias which has itself been a source of much death and violence. In the case of the Kurds, what if calls for cession resonated in the Kurdish population in Syria and Iran and the opposition turned violent in those countries?

In most cases, while hypothetical intervention may appear the clear moral ground I just can't be certain the outcome would have been better. In the case of Rwanda, probably, a large portion of the 500,000 lives lost would have been spared. In the case of the Iraqi Kurds, no intervention would have pre-empted the initial gas attack, however inciting the situation could have resulted in more people dying in violent struggle and resistance.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Fifth-Dimension-Working-On-A-Groovy-Thing

The Fifth Dimension- WOrking on a Groovy THing- Woody Allen has been added as a related post - related requested by chingalera on that post.

The Fifth Dimension - Working On A Groovy Thing has been added as a related post - related requested by chingalera.

It refers to the attitude of the speaker. If the speaker means to praise the subject along any dimension it is favorable attention. If instead the speaker intends cruelty toward the subject it would be decidedly unfavorable attention.

Is this not an obvious difference to all of you? I don't think this is a gendered issue at all. I find it cruel to equate unwanted (if you prefer) sexual attention with the complete debasement accompanying internet abuse.

I agree, I restricted my point to things that can easily be changed. That was intentional. Those were the sorts of comments she was complaining about (e.g. that she's being "intentionally unattractive"). Men would receive similar criticism. If straight up sinewy stud wore baggy assed stained hoodies to his weatherman job, or thick rimmed glasses and a pocket protector with suspenders then a handful of people would give him shit for it. I promise you. They would. A handful more will talk about how they don't give a fuck and want to jump on his magnetic pole. The rest will talk about how they hate "wintery mix."

You seem to miss my point. I think it's demeaning to suggest that being sexualized is the problem, or even that it is gendered. Cat calls, come ons and so forth should be seen for what they are. Compliments. The problem is exactly what you said in the last paragraph. What you look like, and the value of what you say should be seen as completely orthogonal dimensions. Unfortunately, in this world they aren't. That's lame.

It's not a conscious choice to use those methods, they just are what they are.
And I don't measure density, honestly, I have no reason to.

And I am a graphic designer, and when I'm designing for the web, pixel is the Only way to go, as all dimensions in the CSS and HTML are indicated in pixels.

- A web graphic is always 72 dpi, unless for some strange reason its
needed at higher clarity, then I use 96 dpi.
- Images for ads in news print are usually good at 200 dpi.
- Graphics used for full colour print use 300 dpi
I instinctively know the size on the image as it adjusts between the different dpi settings. it's part of the job from doing it for so many years (lol - plus, Photoshop tells you as you reduce the dpi what size it is )

But like I said, if I'm designing for print, then I use Points and Picas - not pixels.

Most of these are the same reason, and none are really arguments against the viewer's existence so much as what we think of as their conventional physical presence. Descartes, who was a half-wit, nevertheless managed to make a convincing argument for existence, even if he did pussy out of exploring some of the dimensions of his experiment in order to pursue his religious agenda.

The idea of simulated reality is pretty difficult to dispute. Of the many simulated universes we reasonably expect to be eventually created, what are the chances of finding ourselves in the single original 'real' reality? What's amusing is this doesn't really have any significant consequences for the way we live.

PBS Nova - Fractals - Hunting the Hidden Dimension has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Benoit Mandelbrot: Fractals and the art of roughness has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/PBS-Nova-Fractals-Hunting-the-Hidden-Dimension
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Benoit-Mandelbrot-Fractals-and-the-art-of-roughness

Red queen effect: Parasitic humans feed off of the cow, steals the natural flowing water and installs human-centric water holes. In competition with the human parasite the cow is forced to learn to use the water pump. And thus the arms race between cow and human.

Who will win?

My money is that humans destroy themselves and cow survives, finally free of it's parasitic relationship with the upright mammals. They then go on to evolve into upright cow people. Only to encounter the humans again.

They then join with the radioactive green humans (nuclear fallout survivors) and zombie humans (the ones that didn't survive the fallout but were taken over by parasites of their own) to kill the humans, many of whom are dwarves and really small midgets.

Some hippies that bonded with trees are found to have survived, each with their own vision of what it is to be a tree hugger. Some of them join the humans (with their now dominant midget genes) and some of them join the green humans and cow people.

Along the way we discover that in China pandas have evolved into panda people and all along there were werewolves and shit. Including dimensions made entirely of fire with slimes that thrive off of radiation, only to become what is perceived as fire elementals and H.P. Lovecraft's things were real too. Oh and the entire pantheon of all people from all of time.

Society rebuilds itself but war never changes.

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

sighs..nevermind man.
the fact that you thought i was throwing ad-homs at ya or calling you names is all i need to know.

you argue like someone who has found religion.
the vernacular is different but the style is the same.
hence my light hearted evangelical reference.
sorry you thought that was a dig at you.
already told ya i respected and admired you.

discussions to me are always about understanding.i learned a ton from you and truly appreciate the time.

but you didnt convert me.

and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.
disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

every system has its flaws.
both positive and negative.
and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences.
this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed and grow.
this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
instead i get a sermon.

hope has two daughters.
anger and courage.
anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.

i foolishly believed that you and i could have a conversation that would ignite the spark of ideas.
that through discussion and debate something new and exciting could be born.
capitalism has its problems.
as does socialism.
we need something better.

but you are blinded by dogma.
and i am just an old fool.
a silly old dreamer who really should have known better.

i sincerely apologize that you felt i was calling you names.

i havent had a beer in ten years.
gonna go grab me a beer or two.
what a silly,sad old man i have become.
old men should stop dreaming.....