As someone who understands Japanese, let me burst your bubble: they're not doing this to see boobs. They would do it even if they were attached to another guy's sweaty butt. The goal is to win and make people laugh, whatever the cost. The girls are only there for the viewers.

>> ^legacy0100:

He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.
Dude, the guy is a primatologist. He studies primates for a living. I think he knows more about primates than you do.


Also, he's talking about "crowded spaces", not solitary confinement.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Meh, I prefer the current, short system. Seems to make more sense to me, who's not a mathematician and is just someone who occasionally needs to say large numbers.

In French we only use the long system and it makes sense to everyone, even to non-mathematicians. What's your point?

Ha, I knew it! Yves Corbeil.

>> ^dannym3141:

@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.


Refusing to accept received "truths" is exactly how science advances. The Ancient Greeks thought infinities and infinitesimals were dumb and irrational numbers, well, properly irrational. Now we "know" they're just numbers like every other number. Same thing with the square root of minus one. Ultimately though, they are just tools and we will use them until they no longer suit our purposes. There are already many number systems in which 0.(9) doesn't equal 1. Who knows when they'll be useful.

But I think the real question is, what of the transfinites? No one ever thinks about the transfinites.

Thought it sounded familiar: the song is by Nakata Yasukata, the same producer/songwriter as Perfume. You can hear Perfume's first hit in the Tokyo portion of Cars 2 by the way.

>> ^jmzero:

Meh - not very nerdy.
A little nerdy maybe - but you don't have to be much of a nerd to have taken high school math/chemistry, bumped into some pop-sci physics (Heisenberg and what not), read Harry Potter, or heard some pop philosophy. And "show you my natural log" is the polar opposite of nerd humor - it's a locker room snigger about a math term. It isn't a clever reference to some property of e... it's just giggles cause he said "log".
When I think nerd humor, it's more like this - it has some exclusivity about who will get it, it works on a couple levels, and yet is still very much a groaner (which is fine - I think nerd humor is more about demonstrating some cleverness, and the meta-joke that "you could think that was funny" than it is about actually making someone laugh).
That said, "her Patronus is a cake" is pretty funny.


You think most of the jokes aren't nerdy enough and then you laugh at a Harry Potter joke? What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.

Why would they make a robot that walks by striking its heels? That's the most stupid thing I've ever seen. If you want to copy the human walk, at least copy humans who can walk properly.

While the two girls/guys are Asians, this is from *Canada.

>> ^messenger:

@Truckchase
You and I agree, I think. I especially like what (I believe) your quote is getting at, which is that we need to understand our enemy. I don't think we do. If we did, then we'd never get mad at them, nor even frustrated like a teacher at students who aren't catching on to the easy stuff. We would understand where they were coming from and why they continue to oppose us.

That's not AT ALL what Sun Tzu is getting at. He was a pragmatist. A pragmatist Chinese war strategist. If you understand yourself and you understand the enemy, then you crush the enemy under your boot like the worm he is.

In this case doubly so. The creationists started the war against evolution and they will pay sooner or later. Reason may have started the war against religion, but since it's got reason on its side (duh) it will prevail too. Unfortunately, reason can be used even when you're religious, so it may take a while.

I'm a pacifist, but this is a war that we must see through or we will never be able to live true to ourselves. The war is truly against mental slavery, and just like physical slavery religion is the first enemy we must face.

Seen on reddit:

As much as you believe you're right, they believe they're right. Honestly, neither of you KNOW. One side's has more brains than the other, the other side has more heart than the other, but no one KNOWS. 150-200 years ago modern science KNEW that blood-letting would cure your diseases. Hell, 100 years ago science KNEW that there was no reason to wash your hands before surgery. They probably have a very good idea, but who knows what we'll discover in the next 100 years that makes us look like cavemen did 6000 years ago. (intentional date troll there, calm down)

That's exactly why religion is dangerous: it evolves and adapts (like every meme), but it never gets better at reflecting the world unlike science. In fact, it doesn't want to reflect the world better. Christianity still holds the same basic worldview as a Jew born (around) 2000 years ago. I wouldn't trust what a scientist said an hour ago, let alone what a non-scientist said 2000 years ago.

Also, I must correct something. Only religious people believe they're right. Scientists KNOW they're right. At least they know they're more right than religious people. They know that because they know they don't know shit, whereas religious people believe they know shit, hence they can't know that they don't know shit.

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.

>> ^draak13:

It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.


Well, religious idiots think such reforms must come with some kind of religious doctrine attached. Wintstonfield et al would deny it so as to appear virtuous and selfless, but ultimately indoctrination is the goal of religions themselves even if it may not be the goal of every individual member. And as every dealer knows, giving the first dose free is the best way to create addicts.

This is the original "religion is good and should be encouraged" argument by Winston:

(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

(A) is of course. Although I prefer "ethics" because it refers to strictly to actions.
(B) is a load of bullcrap. Churches, or any kind of religious organizations, don't have the development of a moral belief in the population as their primary function. Their primary function is the indoctrination of people in the belief system of said religion. That these belief systems come with moral/ethical precepts is irrelevant here.
(C) is dubious, at the very best. Supporting a religion's effort for morality development is akin to endorsing the underlying metaphysical nonsense of that religion. The problem is knowing whether the good brought by a religion's moral development outweighs the bad brought by the indoctrination into that religion. I do not accept any indoctrination at all, so religion is out of the question for me, but some may think that it is a good tradeoff. Most of those people are either already indoctrinated or morons.

So I agree that religions, or Churches or whatever, have no place in a discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping. Now, if only those religious idiots would stop trying to attach religious doctrine to every piece of ethical advice they give we could actually get this discussion somewhere.

You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious. A church is a community, yes, but is also much more. Before anything else, it is a place of worship (church comes from "house of the lord"). Whether you're talking about a church like the building/community or a Church the organization, it is the same: an institution. Two sides of the same coin. A church is nothing without its Church. Otherwise you would call it a community and not a church.

But saying that communities reinforce morality is like saying that butter is made of fat. It's an obvious, trivial fact. The point I was trying to make and which you seem to have totally missed is this: communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved. Religions only murk things up by attaching useless intellectual garbage to good old ethical wisdom. It is how they reproduce and why they should all be destroyed, so that secular communities can take back ownership of what they hijacked.

Nothing good comes out of anything that is purely religious. The good they do comes from hijacked behavior and beliefs that existed before. By attaching these good behaviors/beliefs and claiming universal truth, they make people believe that everything they say is the ultimate truth. It's not. Any good that religions do can be done by something else. The rest is pure garbage.

And if you think Winstonfield's exposition or arguments are good, then you're even more of an idiot than him. But seeing how you write, that should be obvious to anyone.

>> ^enoch:

@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.
see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.
winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.

OK Winstonfield, I'll tell you why you're a (religious) idiot. You seem to be asking for it after all.

1. All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers. It probably goes further back than that, but we only have records up to the Greeks. Religions at that time did not concern themselves with ethical matters, at least not in any systematized way (it was a collection of old wives' tale about what happened to the boy who cried wolf, etc.). Judaism was one of the first, if not the first, religion to do this. This is why it was laughed at. Everyone in the ancient world knew that religion had nothing to do with raising good people: the City did. Nowadays we would say: the school, or the government or whatever. Only when religion takes over the schools or the government (like Judaism did in Judea or Christianity in medieval Europe) does it serve that purpose. And all monotheistic religions, by their nature, seek to become the only power, so it makes sense that they would encompass all things about life. Which makes their message too spread out and (philosophically) weak. This is why a religion like Christianity, that was proliferated by Roman slaves, could itself become the basis for Black slavery centuries later.

2. Churches do not want to build better people for a better world. They want to indoctrinate people so that the Church becomes the World. They want uniformity of thought. They are totalitarian in their very nature. Especially monotheist Churches. But then again, polytheisms usually do not have Churches.

3. Churches do not teach moral behavior. They preach moral behavior. Anyone can preach. Few can teach. The ancient Greek and Roman nobility would pay fortunes to get a good teacher for their children, and the City was seen as having a duty to educate all children to become proper citizens. And here you say we must put our faith in the words of preachers, who recite two thousand year old parables about a supposed King of the Jews that lived in a Roman controlled desert? What the fuck is wrong with you?

4. You should learn about Evolutionary Stable Strategies. For a strategy to be evolutionary stable, it is not required that it do anyone any good, only that it be good at reproducing itself. Religions are such strategies. They are parasitic. They hijack the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.

5. He means what I said at 4. Since it's important, I'll repeat it here: religions are hijacking the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.


To be on topic, as an aikidoka I believe this is a perfect example of the good usage of violence (or force). Once you cannot peacefully avoid conflict anymore and the opponent still presses for combat, you give him the fight of his life. It may very well mean that you failed to avoid conflict, but that is why we learn to fight: so that when we do fight, we can prevail without killing or maiming (this kid probably does not know aikido so give him a break). But even so, in very rare and specific circumstances, you will have to kill to preserve your life or that of someone close. But if you tried to avoid conflict as the precepts of aikido dictate, it is safe to say that you are still a better person than he was*. After all, sometimes a good razing is the only thing that will keep a forest alive. Individual trees do not matter in the long run.

*Some aikidoka would be reluctant to say this. They are either Japanese people and thus have a hard time admitting to unpopular/controversial opinions or they are deluding themselves and being weak. How can there be good if no one is better than anyone else, if no one is worth more than anyone else? Of course, it's easy to say "worth less" = "worthless", but that is only being cynical and misses the point. As for me, as an atheist I do not believe in Good or Evil and so goodness is more like IQ: normal people in a given society get a median of 100 points of goodness or virtue or whatever you want to call it. Even psychopaths need to be good sometimes in order to live in society (some may say they fake it, but faked or not their actions are sometimes good). Inter-cultural comparisons, while not impossible, are difficulty to do and ultimately arbitrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.
Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.
But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.
Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"
Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.
I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.

How can a discussion about voting systems go this long without someone mentioning Arrow's impossibility theorem? Just about the most important economics finding of the 20th century if you ask me.

Also see the criteria in evaluating single winner voting systems. Now, whether we want or need a single winner is another matter though.