patrick.net

I say we form a new kind of "thought police." Whenever we don't like someone's point of view, we can say (or yell) "politically correct, politically correct !!"

Thus informing everyone that such thoughts need to be dismissed, because they are PC bullshit, that the mysterious elitist libruls are trying to brainwash us with.

thunderlips11 says

identitarian bullshit

That's another one I tought of--they were always mulling about "who am I". A friend of mine was always saying he didn't know who he was and I said all you have to do is take out your driver's license and it has your name on it.

thunderlips11 says

Showing there is a prime mover cannot be done with pure logic and no evidence from observation.

Even if there were a prime mover, there is no reason to believe that such a mover would be sentient. The tides don't go in and out based on will or sentient decision making. The cosmos itself, whatever that is, could be the prime mover and still be completely non-sentient, amoral, and oblivious to human existence. Such a prime movers would not be a god by any definition and certainly not the Christian god.

thunderlips11 says

Philosophy assumes much, and then uses a priori logic from there.

And often poorly so since most philosophers couldn't pass a college level math course. Aquinas being one such philosopher.

thunderlips11 says

Malcolm X joked about Blacks in Boston who cleaned for a Bank saying "I work in Finance".

And then got a real estate loan!

thunderlips11 says

When BBs got older, they kicked the ladder out behind them since they were used to having society revolve around them in all stages of their life.

Now that they get older, you're going to see lifetime right-wing Boomers demand Nursing Home regulation, mandatory Medicare payments for Home Health Aides and Buttwiping, etc. Just like when they started to buy houses, they killed off affordable housing subsidies; when they passed their college years they turned against College Tuition subsidies. When they entered their peak earning years they fulminated against the high tax rates that provided the affordable housing and subsidized tuition policies (and libraries, parks, etc.) they enjoyed when they themselves were young, benefiting from all that spending as children, but not having to pay the taxes for it.

God, that's the best summary of the Boomers I've ever read.

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

Showing there is a prime mover cannot be done with pure logic and no evidence from observation

Give an example where that is not true.

www.youtube.com/embed/ODetOE6cbbc

marcus says

I say we form a new kind of "thought police." Whenever we don't like someone's point of view, we can say (or yell) "politically correct, politically correct !!"

Thus informing everyone that such thoughts need to be dismissed, because they are PC bullshit, that the mysterious elitist libruls are trying to brainwash us with.

Some ideas are great. Some ideas are terrible. Hitler's final solution was a terrible idea. Terrible ideas should be opposed by rational minds using rational arguments and never becoming silent to the evil. Opposing terrible ideas based on reason and evidence is not political correctness. Why you support or oppose an idea matters.

To stay silent when confronted by evil is a form of political correctness. The lack of opposition to Bush's wars despite the fact that we all knew he was lying is an example of evil happening because good people did nothing.

Ironman says

and 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes now

Why should people with no income or minimum wage pay income taxes? That would be stupid.

If people have no income or a non-living wage, that's the failure of capitalism to efficiently use human resources to produce wealth. Such a grand failure implies we should seek new economic systems that are more advance than the ideas from those of the Bronze Age.

Dan8267 says

Some ideas are great. Some ideas are terrible. ................................................................................................ Opposing terrible ideas based on reason and evidence is not political correctness. Why you support or oppose an idea matters.

My point exactly. Even if I comment that I find a train of thought or expressed point of view as racist, it makes far more sense to come back to me, and ask why I find it ridiculously racist, if it's not obvious, than to just dismiss my view, as me trying to be the PC thought police.

the denial of race is one more aspect of PC-conformity which demands you ignore what you actually see and suppress your anti-PC thoughts. sure, once again the sentiment is laudable (acknowledging the existence of race might lead to deterministic thinking about race) but we should put the truth above sentiment.

As for "the denial of race" phrase, I find this to be a straw man, because people trying to say that we are all close to the same, and that differences among races are for the most part do to cultural and social differences, are usually not trying to say that there are no races. Those who do say this for whatever reasons are being extreme with their semantics to make a point.

I would love it, if Patrick could elaborate on the following, explaining what he means and why. Maybe give some examples of the harm incurred by not embracing this important truth, or an example of how embracing this important truth would be helpful.

we should put the truth above sentiment

Dan8267 says

Why should people with no income or minimum wage pay income taxes? That would be stupid.

Depending on how stupid the income tax code is. "People with no income" is obviously a fiction; everyone has to be beneficiary of someone's output in order to survive.

If people have no income or a non-living wage, that's the failure of capitalism to efficiently use human resources to produce wealth. Such a grand failure implies we should seek new economic systems that are more advance than the ideas from those of the Bronze Age.

"No income" is a fiction, entirely dependent on what is counted as taxable income and what is not; the person is certainly taking some kind of "income" into his mouth; otherwise he'd starve to death. "Non-living wage" is another fiction, as the person is obviously living.

People not productive enough to pay their own way yet can still survive is a testament to the society's prosperity and other people's generosity. The problem is that the welfare state is enabling slackers taking advantage of other people's coerced generosity.

Dan8267 says

Even if there were a prime mover, there is no reason to believe that such a mover would be sentient.

Let's look at this on an individual scale. An individual is the exterior cause of his home. The individual is sentient and cause in this "universe", his own universe.

It would appear incongruous that the universe was created by a non sentient cause?

Reality says

People not productive enough to pay their own way yet can still survive is a testament to the society's prosperity and other people's generosity. The problem is that the welfare state is enabling slackers taking advantage of other people's coerced generosity.

I see them in our library every day. Young, able bodied men and women, they read paper backs or often have their own laptops where they're endlessly researching something of interest to them--I'd say we do pretty good by them. On the way to the library I pass by the former Ford dealership where my uncle was employeed from 1925-1970, which is being repurposed as a climate-controlled storage facility. http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/old-bird-kultgen-building-to-become-climate-controlled-storage-facility/article_2fc7c610-945e-5c73-b41e-342171b1f974.html As I passed by today, two young men were fitting new glass panes into the famous curve on the western wall of the building. At the same time, two young men about the same age, probably late 20's to early 30's, were walking by, one pushing a grocery store cart full of his belongings. They both looked well and able-bodied and fully capable of doing the least demanding of jobs in this process or anywhere for that matter, but for whatever reason they're on the street, and look perfectly content to me.

Dan8267 says

Such beliefs were created because of ignorance. An earthquake happens and the clerics say "the gods are angry with us" because they don't know about plate tectonics. Lighting strike and Zeus is angry because the ancients have no concept of the electromagnetic force and Faraday's Laws. Today, ignorant and foolish people take any mystery as room for bullshit. This is the God of the Gaps argument.

The only honest statement about a mystery is "I don't know the answer, yet." not "god did it.". This is why belief in the supernatural that you propose violates the very principle you are trying to use to support your supernatural nonsense.

Well said.

Reality says

Depending on how stupid the income tax code is. "People with no income" is obviously a fiction; everyone has to be beneficiary of someone's output in order to survive.

Income and output aren't the same thing. If you grow your own food, you sustain yourself but have no income unless you sell the food. But even if we accept your criteria, why should someone barely sustaining their own life pay income taxes?

indigenous says

Let's look at this on an individual scale. An individual is the exterior cause of his home. The individual is sentient and cause in this "universe", his own universe.

It would appear incongruous that the universe was created by a non sentient cause?

The most nonsensical thing ever written on the Internet.

Dan8267 says

The most nonsensical thing ever written on the Internet.

You are an expert in such matters.

Wow, that's the wittiest sarcasm I've ever heard.

Dan8267 says

Wow, that's the wittiest sarcasm I've ever heard.

Like I said, you and lips already know so much that you can't learn anything new

I learn new things every day. That's why I'm smarter than you will ever be.

Dan8267 says

That's why I'm smarter than you will ever be.

Yes spoken like a true student...

I consider learning to be a lifetime activity and that a wise person is always a student of the universe. That is something a petty mind like yours will never understand.

I see no evidence that you walk the walk.

It's already been proven that you accept no evidence that contradicts your prejudices.

Dan8267 says

- the rights of sentient non-human life on Earth like apes, dolphins, and whales

that's a cool bit about buddhism: it does not draw a sharp line between humans and other animals like the abrahamic religions do. dan might also enjoy the fact that buddhism does not stress faith, but instead practice and a kind of scientific approach, though it's still a bit woo-woo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

i think that judaism also allows and even encourages questioning of all aspects of the religion - as long as you continue to follow the 613 mitzvot.

i think that judaism also allows and even encourages questioning of all aspects of the religion - as long as you continue to follow the 613 mitzvot.

613 mitzvots is not like sharia because it does not promote violence to mediate differences and non-adherence, but it is similar in a sense that it is based on following "laws" and can literally intrude on every level of existence and interfere with comfortably living a western lifestyle.

buddhism does not stress faith, but instead practice and a kind of scientific approach, though it's still a bit woo-woo

Sources seem very inconsistent about whether Buddhism entails a belief in the supernatural. If it does not, then it is not a religion, but simply a philosophy, and none of my objections to religion or faith applies to it. I may or may not like the philosophy or specific parts. I may find inconsistencies and logical errors in the philosophy, but those objections would have nothing to do with religion.

However, if the Buddhist beliefs contain supernatural beliefs or beliefs based on faith rather than evidence, particularly if those beliefs are debunked by science, then it is a religion and all my arguments apply to it no matter how nebulous the religion tries to make its supernatural beliefs.

That said, the impression I get, and it may be wrong given that few people have the ability to write objectively and without political correctness when talking about anything that smacks of religion or culture, is that Buddhists are largely divided on issues of superstitions. Some Buddhists believe greatly in supernatural phenomenon while others are pure naturalists, and there's a whole gamut between these two positions.

Buddhism is certainly one of the least objectionable, if not the least, religion/cultures in human history, but there is no reason why the culture or philosophy of Buddhism should require any lies, faith, or the belief in the supernatural. Every good thing about Buddhism is justifiable using rationality and verifiable truth.

Dan8267 says

However, if the Buddhist beliefs contain supernatural beliefs or beliefs based on faith rather than evidence, particularly if those beliefs are debunked by science, then it is a religion and all my arguments apply to it no matter how nebulous the religion tries to make its supernatural beliefs.

Buddhism as it is practiced by 99% of Buddhists outside of California and a few Zen Temples in Japan is riddled with supernatural belief. That previous Buddhas can cure you of disease, as well as many other local superstitions. Also that Demons try to stop you from being enlightened, while others are helpers. Such as Mara, the Demon of lust.

Right now in Tibetan Buddhism there is a battle going on over whether a Demon is a helper angel or an Enlightenment-retarding Demon. Buddhism actually has more writings on Demonology than the Catholic Church by a long shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

Ironman says

and now you have free Obamacare for Millennials.

Obamacare ain't free.Ironman says

and now you have Section 8 that many Millennials get.

Section 8 isn't modestly priced housing to be pruchased by one person with a semi/unskilled job after a few years in the job in their mid to late 20s.

Ironman says

and 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes now, how many Millennials are in that group?

Much of the population paid no to very little federal taxes historically. Nothing new here.

thunderlips11 says

Buddhism as it is practiced by 99% of Buddhists outside of California and a few Zen Temples in Japan is riddled with supernatural belief. That previous Buddhas can cure you of disease, as well as many other local superstitions. Also that Demons try to stop you from being enlightened, while others are helpers. Such as Mara, the Demon of lust.

Well that would explain President Dumb Ass from Sri Lanka. Any faith-based institution, especially one built on supernatural beliefs, is going to have bad results. In fact, faith almost by definition means that beliefs will be supernatural because natural laws are all deduced from evidence, not faith.

thunderlips11 says

Right now in Tibetan Buddhism there is a battle going on over whether a Demon is a helper angel or an Enlightenment-retarding Demon. Buddhism actually has more writings on Demonology than the Catholic Church by a long shot.

And I thought the book below was crazy.

Oh, Dan, another example, Cambodia (Buddhist) charging Pol Pot regime members. Buddhist clerics are opposed, and also opposed to a commission that looks at the crimes of dead Pol Pot regime members, on the grounds they're already being punished by being reincarnated as insects or something.

marcus says

I would love it, if Patrick could elaborate on the following, explaining what he means and why. Maybe give some examples of the harm incurred by not embracing this important truth, or an example of how embracing this important truth would be helpful.

we should put the truth above sentiment

Well, I didn't think so.

At least maybe he understands why I think he's a racist. Or maybe I should say more of a racist than some of us, since we are all racist to one degree or another.

thunderlips11 says

Oh, Dan, another example, Cambodia (Buddhist) charging Pol Pot regime members. Buddhist clerics are opposed, and also opposed to a commission that looks at the crimes of dead Pol Pot regime members, on the grounds they're already being punished by being reincarnated as insects or something.

Oh how Hollywood likes to cartoonify things, including Buddhism.

but we should put the truth above sentiment.

You realize the article hardly gives an empirical proof of the role of genetics in history? A lots of 'may', that's all. I guess it's difficult to find natural experiments. From the ones we have (e.g separation of Korea into South and North), social changes matter more than genetic ones.

ja says

social changes matter more than genetic ones

no proof either way. my bet is that both have significant contributions.

ja says

social changes matter more than genetic ones

I don't think that statement is meaningful. How does one measure the impact of genetics versus nurture? For example, how much does genetics matter in terms of musical talent? No amoeba has ever written a symphony, so evidently a great deal. Comparing nurture vs nature needs much more precise questions.

marcus says

As for "the denial of race" phrase, I find this to be a straw man, because people trying to say that we are all close to the same, and that differences among races are for the most part do to cultural and social differences, are usually not trying to say that there are no races. Those who do say this for whatever reasons are being extreme with their semantics to make a point.

I would love it, if Patrick could elaborate on the following, explaining what he means and why. Maybe give some examples of the harm incurred by not embracing this important truth, or an example of how embracing this important truth would be helpful.

not a straw man. i was explicitly taught in college that there are no races, and it just ain't true. you can cut it up different ways, but the differences are real.

i would have been failed for challenging this, even though it was scientifically wrong.

i just mean that lying about scientific reality for social engineering reasons ruins your credibility in the long term. truth in itself is a virtue. call it a religion if you want, but i think even dan likes that particular religion.

when people realize they have been lied to in order to further a political agenda, it makes them cynical. like me. i wouldn't want other people to become like me you know. :-)

i just mean that lying about scientific reality for social engineering reasons ruins your credibility in the long term.

Absolutely. And even more importantly, a good social agenda and policy making can only be done on the basis of truth and transparency. In order to solve any problem correctly and permanently, it must be public knowledge how both the problem and the solution work. There's an old saying in IT, no security through obscurity, and this saying applies to engineering fixes to any problem. Legislating is just coding in a crude and primitive language, "legalease". Yes, that language lacks the precision, clarity, and elegance of programming languages, but writing a policy or law is essentially just coding.

Just as deception serves no place in science, mathematics, or software development, it serves no place in social advancement, economics government, or policy making. The latter are simply arts that have yet to be turned into proper sciences. All studies should be a science and subject to the same rules of engagement because the scientific method just plain works. It is the greatest invention of mankind, a self-correcting mechanism for discovering the truth and understanding how things work. And ultimately all engineering is based on the knowledge obtain through this manner.

ruth in itself is a virtue. call it a religion if you want, but i think even dan likes that particular religion.

I wouldn't call it a religion. I don't believe a truth because of faith. I believe a truth because
1. There is a proof of it.
2. There are multiple lines of evidence independently confirming it.
3. I understand the truth in a deep manner. Understanding is convincing. I can never be convinced of something I don't understand. What would that even mean?

when people realize they have been lied to in order to further a political agenda, it makes them cynical.

I think the vast majority of American adults have come to accept not only that politicians lie, but also that the principle of lying to further a cause you think is in your interest or "morally justified" or "the lesser of two evils" is justified. For example, as dumb as people who watch Fox News are -- and scientific studies have demonstrated they are considerably dumb -- I don't think the Fox News audience actually believes that Fox tells the truth. I think they believe that whatever Fox News says, if they and enough people repeat the lie and pretend it's the truth, their politicians will be able to pass legislation and policy as if those lies were the truth. And so they consciously make the decision to go along with the lie no matter what.

There is nothing on NPR, PBS, CNN, or MSNBC that even remotely comes close to that. Political correctness on the left is essentially the same thing though.

Dan8267 says

I learn new things every day.

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

P N Dr Lo R says

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Please give me a detailed example of how I fit that. Otherwise, you are simply making a baseless ad hominem attack, and that is a sign of a weak position and a feeble mind. Chicken-shitting out after such a challenge is also a sign of moral weakness and intellectual incompetence.