patrick.net

Dan8267 says

The quintessential attribute of conservatives.

You consistently make up your own definitions, then expect others to use your definitions as their authority.

Dans logic is the most self-important dribble you could possible spew on an anonymous forum. Total, and complete horseshit.

In glad you can point out that labels of groups and labels of ideological theories are uniquely different uses of the same word.

Yes liberals aren't liberal.

This appears to be the 'shaming' stage of the devastating defeat last november.
Liberals are redefining themselves to be outside of the losing entity known as the democratic party.
I hope all of these side effects are being documented, with new vaccines designed and accumulated for 2020...

CBOEtrader says

Yes liberals aren't liberal.

BlueSardine says

This appears to be the 'shaming' stage of the devastating defeat last november.

Liberals are redefining themselves to be outside of the losing entity known as the democratic party.

I hope all of these side effects are being documented, with new vaccines designed and accumulated for 2020...

CBOEtrader says

Yes liberals aren't liberal.

The democrats will continue to lose, and blame phantom racists/misogynists/classists while never pointing the finger at themselves. Today's DNC is the most racist, the most divisive, the most ideologically righteous, most anti-american, most anti-liberal movement i've seen in the US in my lifetime. They deserve to be smashed into a thousand little pieces and scattered into the wind.

Rather than admit this, Dan defines today's "liberals" as conservatives (LOLZ) and uses a childish fantasy definition of conservative that he made up in his fairy-tale mind. Lets at least admit where we agree. Today's liberals aren't liberal. The labels and definitions have been attacked for generations. This is nothing new. Look at what the left now defines as alt-right. (Alt-right= anyone who disagrees w the DNC.)

curious2 says

If we may please return to the topic of the thread:

A good idea! I wondered how it veered so off course! I kept wondering what that other stuff had to do with the original subject.

BlueSardine says

Who said god was self-begotten?

The theory is that god has always existed outside of the space/time continuum.

No need to be 'created' in this instance...

A computer virus can no more understand the software engineer that created it than we can understand our creator. It is beyond our comprehension.

If the brain were simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it.

Dawkins needs to evolve a more diplomatic and accommodating personality.

PeopleUnited says

No, you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of liberals, anyone who make Liberals look bad is no true liberal. By that criteria you are a Conservative.

Ah, the Bizzaro world of a brainwashed Christian.

The defining characteristic of liberal is the belief in the liberalism. The defining characteristic of Christianity if the belief in the divinity of Christ. Neither is a No True Scotsman.

You are caught pants down in your lie.

Sure, a liberal could look bad, but he won't look bad for advocating liberal philosophy. Show me how liberal philosophy is ever bad. I've shown you how belief in Christ is bad.

PeopleUnited says

Yes, and Saying liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying Christians believe in rape, slavery and murdering babies. All of which Dan has stated on multiple occasion

Actually, I stated that your Bible advocates all of the things, and it does. Do you deny that?

Clearly, today's castrated Christians don't believe in the Bible. They are still brainwashed enough to be dangerous though.

Also, for 1800 to 1900 years, longer than Islam has even existed, Christians did rape, enslave, and murder babies. Slavery, including the rape of slaves as young as six-years-old, was practiced extensively in American history, and the South used the Bible, both testaments, as a justification for slavery. Good old Southern Christians were feeding black babies to alligators as recently as the early 20th century. Being Christian does nothing to make people good.

PeopleUnited says

The flame war was started by yo

Oh honey, the flames were started long before that. And again, it just goes to show why you trolls are rightfully banned. How much has this thread gone off-topic because of you?

PeopleUnited says

Exactly, now you have admitted your true religion.

BlueSardine says

The theory is that god has always existed outside of the space/time continuum.

No need to be 'created' in this instance...

If you're going to say that kind of bullshit, simply say that nature itself has always existed outside of the space/time continuum and need not be created. Again, such a premise, as meaningless as it is, does not imply sentience, morality, or the knowledge of human existence.

The constant childish attempts by trolls to insult me in this thread demonstrates exactly why such trolls need to be banned from productive threads. All other non-troll users on this site should read through this thread and ask if you really want trolls like PeopleUnited, Blue Sardine (Shrek), CBOEtrader, and P N Dr Lo R doing the same thing on your threads. Once they get a stick up their ass regarding someone, they never quit. The only way to handle them is to ban them so they can only jerk off in their own threads.

rando says

If the brain were simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it.

This is a statement that is appealing to the masses, but there is no reason to believe it is true, and plenty of reason to believe it is false.

On a daily basis I understand software code that is far too big to be loaded into my memory at once. Yet, I do understand the code. I could never hand-execute the code, but I can trace down any problem and fix it. I can develop new features. I can integrate the software with other software. I can do all this because of several things including modularization.

The brain also has modules, subnets of neurons, and those subnets have subnets. The same pattern of neural circuitry is repeated. The same ideas used over and over. Sure, the human brain is complicated, but it's not irreducibly complicated, and so it can be understood.

A problem may be hard, damn hard, so hard that it remains unsolved for centuries. Yet, this does not mean the problem is unsolvable.

curious2 says

If we may please return to the topic of the thread

This can only happen if trolls are banned. There is a reason I say they disrupt conversations and derail threads. This thread proves that beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

Dan8267 says

curious2 says

If we may please return to the topic of the thread

This can only happen if trolls are banned. There is a reason I say they disrupt conversations and derail threads. This thread proves that beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

Once again Dan is wrong. The "flame war" is very pertinent to this thread. Patrick is expressing the hypocrisy of the liberal left, and the pitfalls of accomodating Islam. Many of us on this thread have called Dan out for doing the exact same thing, by banning people who he disagrees with from posting on his threads. You see, those of us who are willing to call bullshit to the many lies Dan slings around this site have been banned JUST LIKE that liberal radio station BANNED Richard Dawkins for speech that they disagree with. Dan is just like Patrick says

KPFA Radio 94.1 FM

Dan8267 says

rando says

If the brain were simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it.

This is a statement that is appealing to the masses, but there is no reason to believe it is true, and plenty of reason to believe it is false.

On a daily basis I understand software code that is far too big to be loaded into my memory at once. Yet, I do understand the code. I could never hand-execute the code, but I can trace down any problem and fix it. I can develop new features. I can integrate the software with other software. I can do all this because of several things including modularization.

The brain also has modules, subnets of neurons, and those subnets have subnets. The same pattern of neural circuitry is repeated. The same ideas used over and over. Sure, the human brain is complicated, but it's not irreducibly complicated, and so it can be under...

Once again Dan is false and Patrick is right. Software code is.... wait for it.... SOFTWARE!

The brain is hardware. But Dan if you are so good, please tell us how to reboot a brain once it is turned off completely by the death of the organic unit that supports that hardware. I am sure it is only a matter of time before geniuses like you learn how to reanimate a brain right?

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Show me how liberal philosophy is ever bad. I've shown you how belief in Christ is bad.

It is not my intention to paint "liberal philosophy" in a negative light. But your misrepresentation of my intentions is one of the reasons why I am repeatedly forced to call you on your bullshit. You simply won't let me or many of the others who disagree with you speak for ourselves and define our own positions.

Oh, and by the way you have not shown how belief in Christ is bad, you have shown how you misunderstand what it means to believe in Christ.

What is shocking to me is that the analogy is nearly perfect. Earlier in this thread you have argued that liberals are not liberals unless they pass your definition of what it means to be a liberal. I am also making that SAME ARGUMENT that Christians are not Christians unless they live up the Christ's definition of what it means to be a a Christian.

You allow yourself the liberty to define liberalism and evaluate a person's actions to determine if the label applies to an individual or organization. But you deny the liberty of Christ or Christians to define Christianity and evaluate a person's actions to determine if the label applies to an individual or organization. You are such a hypocrite.

Dan8267 says

The constant childish attempts by trolls to insult me in this thread demonstrates exactly why such trolls need to be banned from productive threads. All other non-troll users on this site should read through this thread and ask if you really want trolls like PeopleUnited, Blue Sardine (Shrek), CBOEtrader, and P N Dr Lo R doing the same thing on your threads. Once they get a stick up their ass regarding someone, they never quit. The only way to handle them is to ban them so they can only jerk off in their own threads.

Translation: please, Patrick and anyone else who will listen to his whining, Dan doesn't feel safe, he needs other people to expand his safe zone because he is one of, if not the most special snowflakes on the Christmas tree and there are too many people who are not accepting his false logic despite many years and numerous hours of typing and posting and crying like a baby when his thread is derailed, (even though he repeatedly does the exact same thing when given the opportunity). You must make them accept him or ban them from posting.

Does that sound like anything else today???

Dans logic.... Hitler was a man therefore all men are pure evil. That's how his mind reasons.

Dan8267 says

The constant childish attempts by trolls

Am I the only one that justs scans through Dan's long tedious posts?

Edit: Dan does have some good ideas but gets caught up in his own egotism.
@patrick reinstate the comment limit to enforce succinctness. Thanks

FortWayne says

Dans logic.... Hitler was a man therefore all men are pure evil. That's how his mind reasons.

Are you really so stupid that you don't realize I was demonstrating that such reasoning is wrong? Or are you just lying because you think the ends justify the means?

The people I've banned can be summed up as follows, and this is why other people need to start banning them as well.

Richard Dawkins censored in Berkeley because he does not like Islam

Dan censors 28 Patnetters from posting on his threads because he does not like people who disagree with him. Patrick supports this.

A Corte Madera bookstore has stepped up to host an event with evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins just days after Berkeley public radio station KPFA abruptly canceled a similar event, citing Dawkins’ criticism of Islam.

“As an independent bookseller, we are in strong support of independent thinking,” Karen West, events director for Corte Madera’s Books Passage, said in a statement. “We would never censor one of the greatest thinkers of our time!”

Book Passage will hold a book signing and discussion of Dawkins’ latest work, “Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.” The event is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 9 — the same date the original Berkeley event had been planned.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/28/controversial-atheist-richard-dawkins-to-speak-at-book-passage-is-corte-madera-new-home-of-free-speech/

This is a bookstore that deserves everyone's support! Good on them.

Female reproduction definitely goes down as IQ goes up, but it's the opposite for men IIRC.

rando says

Female reproduction definitely goes down as IQ goes up, but it's the opposite for men IIRC.

No, women prefer bad boys, not smart boys. Women used to prefer smart men because there was a high correlation to the intelligence of the man of the house and the survivability of the children as well as with income. Today that is not true. Ultimately, this is a bad thing for the species.

rando says

Maybe there should be a part where posts are structured as propositions, with one person taking the pro stance, and one taking con, and points awarded by everyone else for:

1. providing good evidence and reasoning

2. answering the question

3. being civil

This would not work. Assholes will simply award points to their butt buddies and assign penalties to those they hate regardless of the content.

You have two choices to make this work.
1. Hire professional judges (expensive).
2. Use an A.I. to judge debates.

The later is much more fun, but would take a lot of time to develop, multiple person-years. It would be a very interesting project though.

Dan8267 says

rando says

Maybe there should be a part where posts are structured as propositions, with one person taking the pro stance, and one taking con, and points awarded by everyone else for:

1. providing good evidence and reasoning


2. answering the question


3. being civil

This would not work. Assholes will simply award points to their butt buddies and assign penalties to those they hate regardless of the content.

Ha ha ha. Look who's talking.

https://notthebee.com/takes/Dawkins%20Sqawkins

Richard Dawkins has spent a significant part of his career as an antagonist against Christianity, working hard to make Christians look like fools, uneducated rubes, believers in an ancient dead mythology.

As he has observed Islam beginning to take cultural hegemony over Britain, he has found himself increasingly worried at the results.

Oopsie.

I wonder if he has considered what Islamic Law says about atheists?

That's right — 'misbelievers' — non-Muslim religious people and atheists are lumped together and are at risk of life imprisonment (for women) and death (for men) in some Muslim countries.

Poor Richard.

Dawkins is kinda late to realize that Christianity is our best defense against Islam.

I'm always delighted to hear how Dawkins thoughts have 'evolved', LOL! Survival of the preferable outcomes?

"I must say I'm slightly horrified to hear that Ramadan is being promoted. I feel that we are a Christian country. It's true that statistically, the number of people who actually believe in Christianity is going down and I'm happy with that, but I would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our cathedrals and our beautiful parish churches. So, I count myself a cultural Christian. I think it would matter if we... substituted any alternative religion, that would be truly dreadful. If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I would choose Christianity "every single time." It seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not. Christianity is "not great" about the way women are viewed in terms of female vicars and bishops, "holy books of Islam" promote "active hostility to women". I'm not talking about individual Muslims, who, of course, are all quite different, but the doctrines of Islam, the Hadith and the Quran, it's fundamentally hostile to women, hostile to gays and, I find that I like to live in a culturally Christian country, although I do not believe a single word of the Christian faith. - Richard Dawkins

Patrick says

Dawkins is kinda late to realize that Christianity is our best defense against Islam.

Our best defense is to get out of the Middle East and to stop escalating.

We wouldn't have to worry about them if we just didn't get involved at all. Everytime we do, we make it worse

Yes, America should not be fucking around in the Middle East at all.

I mean that with a large secular population, Islam is more likely to be adopted by the majority in America, but when most people are Christian, they are immunized against Islam in a way.

gabbar says

it's fundamentally hostile to women, hostile to gays and, I find that I like to live in a culturally Christian country, although I do not believe a single word of the Christian faith

Gays for Palestine!!!

richwicks says

Our best defense is to get out of the Middle East and to stop escalating.

Little too late for that

The big Internalized Leftism myth is that all trouble in the Middle East is caused by American Intervention.

There were tons of revolts, terrorist acts, etc. in Middle East long before the US or the UK showed up. The British for the most part maintained some coaling and trading stations and only intervened to keep whatever Sheikh or King 'sweet' to their presence, allowing Arab Muslims to do as they damned well pleased with their own civil, religious, and criminal law so long as the HMS Pinafore could take on coal or trade silks and tea in Bandar Abbas.

Without any US Meddling, not so much as preferring a certain Sultan or Sheikh for trading rights, Arabs attacked US shipping. Our first wars were abroad to defend US shipping against North African State Sponsored piracy.

Before Europeans were around, the Arabs had a big chip on their shoulder against the Mongols and Ottomans and Byzantines, too, when it wasn't between Schools of Fiqh, Sunni-Shi'a, Arab and Kurd and Persian and Turkomen and Copt and Berber.

The briefest overview of the MENA 600-1900 will show this to be the case.

Great recent example is the Waterways of the Tigris and Euphrates in Southern Iraq.

Persians/Medes and Babylonians/Assyrians have been fighting over this area between them since long before Islam or Romans or so far back King Cyrus/Xerxes.

The Assyrians were replaced by the Guti of the lower slopes and valleys of the Zagros mountains, for example, before the Bronze Age collapse, FFS.

And so in the 1980s, the Iran-Iraq War was War #477 stretching back into the 2000s BC over this area.

No different than the western terminus of Steppe Highway in Ukraine and North Caspian areas has seen constant wars and peoples in and out of it since the domestication of the Horse, long before any Czars, Turks, or Vikings, much less Communists and Capitalists.

RedStar says

Little too late for that

It's literally our only chance. If we don't stop these foreign wars this nation will never recover.

Every war we get involved ends up with massive population displacement and no advantage to the United States, just more harm.

AmericanKulak says

The big Internalized Leftism myth is that all trouble in the Middle East is caused by American Intervention.

All the problems of the US is caused by US foreign policy, from the surveillance state to a media that does nothing but lie to Congress waving Ukrainian flags when they waste another 100 billion dollars

700 bucks per family for citizens in Maui after they blocked exit routes and turned off water.

How can you forget? The ONLY thing they actively work on is more war, nothing else. We can't even control our own border.

It's never been so obvious. The only thing the US makes now is conflict. For 20 years that's it.

Hegelian Hellscape. Easily divided, easily disempowered by organized outside forces. The British were able to create a bunch of artificial countries with artificial boundaries after WWI for convenience of domination.
Downside is never quelled, never really conquered, always recongregating for opposition. Bomb them and keep them licking their wounds while stealing the resources.

Somebody has probably done cost analysis about the black line/red line of bombing vs. profit. "X number of bombs will create Y amount of profit."

AmericanKulak says

The Assyrians were replaced by the Guti of the lower slopes and valleys of the Zagros mountains, for example, before the Bronze Age collapse, FFS.

And so in the 1980s, the Iran-Iraq War was War #477 stretching back into the 2000s BC over this area.

Thanks, had never heard of the Guti before:

https://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Guti.html

Very little is known about the Guti, who appear to have been barbarian raiders from the Zagros [Mountains] who brought to an end the Dynasty of Akkad and destroyed its capital circa 2200 BC. Gutium, a mountainous area in south-west Iran, was a troublesome part of the Akkadian Empire and the year names of the kings of Akkad record campaigns against the region. ...

The Guti were finally expelled by Uthegal, King of Uruk circa 2100 BC.

Patrick says

Thanks, had never heard of the Guti before:

They make very expensive handbags.